AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.V. Seethapathy, J.—This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 02.08.2007 in CMA No. 140 of 2005 of the 2nd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the Social Welfare for respondents 1 to 4. Perused the record
According to the petitioner he owns dry land of Ac.3.20 cents in Sy.No. 220-3 of Kambalampalem village, East Godavari district, having inherited the same from his father and grand mother, who purchased in the year 1957 and ever since, the land has been in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner''s family. The Settlement Officer, Rajahmundry granted ryotwari patta No. 197 in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioner under A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation 2/70 (for short ''Regulation 2/70''). While so, in the year 1977, 3rd respondent-Special Deputy Collector, initiated L.T.R. Proceedings No. 273/77 at the instance of one Mr. Anika Salayya alleging contravention of the provisions of the Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/59 (for short ''Regulation 1/59''). The said proceedings were dismissed by order dated 31.08.1978 by the 3rd respondent. However, once again, 3rd respondent initiated LTR Proceedings No. 232/03 at the instance of one Mr. Kosa Venkanna Dora-5th respondent herein. After due enquiry, the said proceedings were also dismissed on 26.03.2004 by the 3rd respondent. As against the said orders, 5th respondent filed an appeal in CMA No. 140 of 2005 before the 2nd respondent-Additional Agent. While so, 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, along with the Mandal Surveyor, who came to the petitioner''s land on 08.01.2007 and served a copy of the order dated 06.01.2007 said to have been passed by the 2nd respondent and informed the petitioner not to enter into the land. The petitioner filed W.P.No. 793 of 2007 assailing the same. By order dated 11.01.2007, the said writ petition was allowed remitting the matter to the 2nd respondent with a direction to consider and dispose of the appeal afresh after hearing both parties. In the second '' week of May 2005 while the petitioner was harvesting the mango crop, 5th respondent objected for the same. The 3rd respondent auctioned the mango crop and sold the same for ` 7,000/- highhandedly. The petitioner filed contempt case No. 45 of 2007 and the same was admitted. While matters stood thus, on 23.07.2007, 4th respondent came and delivered possession of the land falsely stating before the court that the land was delivered on 30.05.2007 itself. Ultimately, the contempt case was closed by order dated 22.08.2007 observing that since the 2nd respondent passed order in the appeal CMA No. 140 of 2005 on 02.08.2007, the petitioner can challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. Hence, the present writ petition assailing the order dated 02.08.2007 in CMA No. 140 of 2005.
According to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed without any opportunity of hearing as the petitioner''s counsel informed the petitioner that he has not advanced any arguments in the matter. The petitioner would further contend that the land was purchased by his father and grandmother on 28.04.1959 (sic. 1957) from Smt. Sabella Seethayamma, who is a non-tribal, long prior to Regulation 1/59 coming into force, which was subsequently amended in 1970, which prohibited the transactions between non-tribals also, but the said amendment was held to be only prospective by the Apex Court. A detailed enquiry was conducted at the time of granting patta under the provisions of Regulation No. 2 of 1970 and the said patta has become final and the same cannot be set aside under the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1/1970. The petitioner further contends that when once the ryotwari patta was granted under Regulation 2/1970, the proceedings under Regulation 1/59 are not maintainable. The petitioner further contends that the observations of the 2nd respondent in the impugned order that the sale deed dated 28.04.1957 may be fabricated document is without any basis and it is perverse. The possession of the land with the petitioner and his family was upheld in the earlier LTR proceedings by the 3rd respondent.
It is not disputed that in the earlier rounds of litigation in LTR No. 273/77 and LTR No. 232/03, the 3rd respondent upheld the claim of the petitioner and dismissed LTR cases initiated at the instance of 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, the land was originally purchased by his father and grand mother under sale deed dated 28.04.1957 from Smt. Sabella Seethayamma for ` 500/-, who is said to have purchased the said land from one Pentapati Raju on 09.02.1955. The genuineness of the documents is not disputed by any one, but the 2nd respondent in the impugned order observed that the sale deed dated 28.04.1957 may be fabricated document. The said observation has no basis whatsoever. Further, it is not disputed that after due enquiry under the provisions of Regulation 2/70, ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the petitioner after holding that he was in possession of the land as on the crucial date. Under the provisions of Section 7of the Regulation 2/ 1970, every ryot in the scheduled areas is entitled for ryotwari patta in respect of all cultivable lands, which are included or ought to have been included in his holding. Admittedly, the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the petitioner under Regulation 2/ 1970 has become final.
It is well settled that once patta granted u/s 7of Regulation 2 of 1970 has become final, the same cannot be set aside by resorting to the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970.
In Pandi Ramulu Vs. Agent to Government, E.G. District, Kakinada and Others, wherein also patta granted in the year 1976 has become final as the same was not challenged by way of any appeal, it was held as follows:
Section 7 of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970 lays down that, every ryot in the Scheduled areas to which the Regulation applies shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of all cultivable lands and Section 9 of the Regulation lays down that the Settlement Officer shall inquire into the nature and history of all lands in respect of which ryotwari patta is claimed and decide it. Whenever an order under Sec. 9 is passed, if somebody feels aggrieved of the order, he has a remedy under sub-section (3) of Section 9 under which an appeal can be filed. Once the matter is settled u/s 7, the only course open to the claimant against such settlement is to file an appeal under sub-section (3) of Section 9. No fresh proceedings can be initiated after an order u/s 7 has been passed. Therefore, the impugned orders are bad on this count.
The above decision followed the earlier decision of this Court in ''N. Appa Rao v. Agency Divisional Officer (2) 1988 (2) APLJ 9 (SNRC)'', wherein this Court held as follows:
Patta was granted to the petitioner u/s 17(1) read with section 9 of Regulation 2 of 1970. That order has become final. Later on at the instance of the self same authorities proceedings were initiated. The petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the authorities under Regulation 1 of 1959. It is now well settled that when once patta has been granted u/s 7(12) read with 9 of Regulation 2 of 1970 and became final, the possession cannot be said to be unlawful offending section 3 of Regulation 1 of 1959. Therefore, the action of the authorities is without jurisdiction.
In view of the above well settled proposition, the petitioner cannot be held to be in possession of the subject land in contravention of Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, as he was already granted ryotwari patta under the provisions of Regulation 2 of 1970.
Further, the purchase of the land by the petitioner''s father and grand mother was on 28.04.1957, which is long prior to Regulation 1 of 1959 or Regulation 1 of 1970 coming into force. The provisions of the said Regulations have therefore no application to the facts of the present case. On this ground also, the impugned order is not sustainable.
In the circumstances, the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in CMA No. 140 of 2005 is held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.