Kanchi Lokanatha Redd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4594 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETITION No.44191 of 2018


ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

"to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of 2nd respondent/District Collector, Chittoor in granting Ryotwari Patta as per the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.298 Revenue (JA), Department, 28.04.2001 confirmed vide Govt. Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014 read with Govt. Memo No.4442/EA & AR (JA.2)/2002, dated 15.03.2018, as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and contrary to law and consequently direct 2nd respondent to forthwith grant Ryotwari Patta to the petitioner in respect of land to an extent of Ac.4.74 cents in Sy.Nos.84/6; 85/1 and 86/1 i.e., for an extent of Ac.0.62 cents; Ac.3.16 cents and Ac.0.96 cents respectively, situated in Akkarampalli Village Accounts,Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, as per the orders issued by the Respondent No.1/Government in G.O.Ms.No.298, Revenue (JA) Department, dated 28.04.2001 confirmed vide Govt. Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014 read with Govt. Memo No.4442/EA & AR (JA.2)/2002, dated 15.03.2018 and further direct 4th Respondent to mutate the name of petitioner in revenue records and grantingPattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds in respect of the said land and with all other consequential benefits and pass such other order."

2. The case of petitioner in brief is that, the petitioner is

resident of Akkarampalli, which is an Inam village, notified and

taken over by the Government in the year 1961, under the

provisions of The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition

&Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 which will herein after be

called as (the Act). The petitioner along with his mother Kanchi

Venkata Subbamma and his elder brother Kanchi Muni Krishna

Reddy filed claim petition for grant of Ryotwari Patta for an extent

of Ac.6.86 cents under proviso to Section 11 of the said Act

26/1948. The Principal Secretary to Government, the 1st

respondent, who has inspected the said land found that an extent

of Ac.4.74 cents is vacant and the remaining land is under

occupation by third parties and therefore, the 1st respondent

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.298, Rev.(JA) Dept., dated 28.04.2021,

in exercise of the powers under the proviso to Section 11 of the (Act

of 1948), according permission to respondent No.2/District

Collector, Chittoor, to grant Ryotwari Patta, in favour of claimants,

for the said extent of Ac.4.74 cents of land in Sy.Nos.84/6, 85/1

and 86/1. The operative portion of the said G.O.Ms.No.298, dated

28.04.2001 reads as under:

"11. In the circumstances stated in the foregoing paras, the Government hereby accord permission to allot Ryotwari Patta to an extent of land Ac.4.74 cents in Sy.Nos.84/6, 85/1 and 86/1 i.e., Ac.0.62 cents, Ac.3.16 cents and Ac.0.96 cents respectively, situated in Akkarampalli Village, Chandragiri Taluk, Tirupathi (Urban) Mandal, Chittoor District under the proviso of Sec.11 of Subbamma, Sri K.Muni Krishna Reddy and Sri K.Lokanandha Reddy, residents of Akkarampalli village.

12. The Collector, Chittoor is requested to take action accordingly."

3. The 2nd respondent/District Collector, Chittoor appears to

have mislead 1st respondent/Government to keep in abeyance, the

said orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.298, dated 28.04.2001, till

disposal of W.P.No.4393 of 1998 filed by the petitioner along with

his mother and elder brother. Unfortunately, the Government vide

Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002-5, dated 27.02.2003, kept in abeyance,

the said orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.298, dated 28.04.2020 till

disposal of W.P.No.4293 of 1998.

4. This Court by Judgment, dated 07.08.2007 allowed

W.P.No.4293 of 1998 and set aside Govt. Memo No.247/JA.2/81-

2, dated 27.01.1998 and directed the Government to pass

speaking orders in the Revision Petition filed by them.

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

Unfortunately, the Government did not comply with the said order,

dated 07.08.2007 and kept the matter pending. Thereupon, the

petitioner, his mother and his elder brother filed another

W.P.No.6749 of 2012 with a request to issue a direction to the 2nd

respondent/District Collector to grant Ryotwari Patta, in respect of

the said land, as per the said G.O, dated 28.04.2001. This Court

by order, dated 20.06.2012 was pleased to dispose of the said writ

petition with a direction to the Government to decide revision

petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three

months.

5. In pursuance of the order, dated 20.06.2012 in W.P.No.6749

of 2012, the Government by Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated

16.05.2014, passed speaking order confirming the earlier order

issued in G.O.Ms.No.298, dated 28.04.2001 and once again

requested the 2nd respondent/District Collector, Chittoor to grant

Ryotwari Patta to the petitioner for the said land admeasuring an

extent of Ac.4.74 cents and the relevant direction is extracted

hereunder for better appreciation:

"11. Therefore, Government hereby confirmed the orders passed in the reference 1st cited ordering for grant of Ryotwari Patta to the land to an extent of Ac.4.74 cents in Sy.Nos.84/6, 85/1 and 86/1 situated in Akkarampalli Village, Chandragiri Taluk, Tirupathi (Urban) Mandal, Chittoor District in favour of Smt.Kanchi Venkata Subbamma, Sri K.Muni Krishna Reddy and Sri K.Lokanadha Reddy, R/o Akkarampalli Village, duly withdrawing the orders passed in the Memo 2nd cited.

12. The Collector, Chittoor is requested to take necessary further action in the matter accordingly."

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

6. The claimants have submitted several representations to the

District Collector and Joint Collector, Chittoor to grant Ryotwari

Patta at the earliest, as per the said orders issued by the

Government vide G.O.Ms.No.298, dated 28.04.2001 confirmed vide

Govt. Memo, dated 16.05.2014 earnestly requesting that his

mother was 85 years old and was eagerly waiting for

implementation of the said G.O, dated 28.04.2001 to fulfill her

desire giving her share in the said property to the petitioner, not

only because the petitioner looked after her at her old age, but also

because the petitioner pursued the matter and met the entire

expenditure for this long litigation with mighty Government.

Unfortunately, 2nd respondent/District Collector, Chittoor, by letter

Roc.No.F1/15681/95, dated 17.11.2017, once again misled the

Government and requested to review the orders issued in the said

Government Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014, with

an intention to protract grant of Ryotwari Patta.

7. The 1st respondent/Government by Memo No.4442/EA & AR

(JA.2)/2002, dated 15.03.2018 rejected the said request of 2nd

respondent/District Collector, and once again requested 2nd

respondent/District Collector to implement the orders already

issued by Government in the said Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002,

dated 16.05.2014. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's mother died

on 11.01.2018. During her life time, the petitioner's mother

Smt.Kanchi Venkata Subbamma executed a registered Will, dated

11.12.2014 in favour of the petitioner bequeathing her share of the

said landed property. Therefore, the petitioner submitted another

representation, dated 02.04.2018 to the 3rd respondent/Joint

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

Collector, Chittoor, requesting to implement the order issued by

the Government in the G.O.Ms.No.398, dated 28.04.2001

confirmed vide Govt. Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated

15.03.2018, but to the misfortune, till date, no action is taken by

the 2nd respondent. On account of delay in granting Ryotwari Patta

more than Ac.2.00 cents of land out of total extent of Ac.6.86

cents, was already occupied by unsocial elements. In spite of

granting decree in favour of the petitioner by the Civil Court, he is

unable to recover possession of the said land, for want of Ryotwari

Patta, in respect of the ancestral property and the petitioner

requested to issue a direction as stated above.

8. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit along with the stay

application admitting entire proceedings while denying the

malafides attributed to the 3rd respondent. It is specifically

contended that Sri Kanchi Ramaiah, S/o Krishna Reddy has filed a

petition before the then Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor for

grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11 proviso of EA Act, 1948

for the land shown in the following table:-

Village S.No. Extent Acs. Classification

Akkarampalle 84-6 0.62 AWD

85-1 3-16 AWD

105-2 0-07 AWD

105-13 0-28 AWD

105-7 0-36 AWD

105-5 0.16 AWD

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

9. The claim petition was taken on the file of

S.R.No.5/11(Pro)/63 CGR by the then A.S.O, Chittoor. He has

submitted proposals to the Board of Revenue through the District

Collector, Chittoor. The Board of Revenue vide orders i.e.,

BPRT.No.1609/65, dated 06.05.1965 has rejected the claims of the

claimants as detailed below:

"The conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.160, Revenue, dated 18.01.1950 have been satisfied. In these circumstances the Board, in exercise of the powers delegated to it in the said G.O under the provisions of Sec.11 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, (XXVI) of 1948, directs that ryotwaripatta need not be issued to the assignees mentioned in the statement in respect of the lands described therein."

10. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision petition was filed

before the Government i.e., Secretary to Government, Revenue

Department and that was also rejected vide Govt. Memo

No.2840/79-1, dated 12.03.1980, on the ground that the revision

cannot be entertained under Section 11 (PRO) of E.A. Act.

Aggrieved by the said order, Smt.Kanchi Venkata Subbamma, W/o

Kanchi Ramaiah and two others have filed W.P.No.626/1981

before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

requesting to quash the order of the Government, dated

12.03.1980 in Memo No.2840/J-2/79-1, dated 12.03.1980.

11. The contention of the above writ petitioners was that as per

the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1044, Revenue, dated 17.06.1961, a

revision lies to the Government against the orders of the Board of

Revenue, Hyderabad under Sec.11 (Pro) of the E.A. Act, 1948. This

was the only contention of the writ petitioner in the above writ

petition.

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

12. It is further contended that as per rule 1 of the rules in

G.O.Ms.No.1044, Revenue, dated 17.06.1961, a revision petition lies

to the Government against the orders of Board of Revenue passed

under Sec.11 (Pro) of E.A. Act. The Division Bench of this Court in

W.A.No.263/1972, dated 05.04.1973 as stuck down the rule

permitting revision to the Government as "ultra virus" of the Section

67(1) of the E.A. Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Board of

Revenue, Hyderabad in BPRT.No.1609/1965, dated 06.05.1965 is

final and no revision petition lies to the Government. The Government

passed order in Govt.Memo No.2840/79-1, dated 12.03.1980 stating

that the Government has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision

petition against the orders of the Board of Revenue is perfectly legal

and valid."

13. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

ordered on 08.10.1984 that the Government has jurisdiction to

entertain revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition was

taken by the Government. The order copy of the High Court was not

received in the office of the District Collector, Chittoor. Apart from the

revision petition, the claimants have filed O.S.No.99/1989 before the

PDM Court, Tirupati seeking for declaration of their right over the

land and the suit was dismissed on 05.04.1995 since the lands are

classified as AWD i.e., Government lands.

14. Claimants have also filed W.P.No.22082/1995 seeking direction

against the Revenue authorities not to assign, transfer, alienate or to

allow anybody to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the

suit lands, since the revision petition is pending disposal before the

Government. The High Court in its order in W.P.M.P.No.27160/1995

in W.P.No.22082/1995, dated 29.09.1995 has ordered interim

direction as prayed for.

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

15. While so, the Government has dismissed the revision petition

vide Memo No.247/JA.2/81-27, Revenue (JA) Dept., dated

27.01.1998 as follows:-

"The petitioner and their counsel were absent. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati appeared on behalf of the respondent. The matter was heard and it is decided that there is no force in the contention raised by them in the revision petition and see no justification to interfere with the order passed by former Board of Revenue in the matter.

The Revision petition accordingly dismissed."

16. This Court in W.P.No.5141/1998 in W.P.No.4293/1998 vide

order, dated 17.02.1998 suspended the orders of the Government.

W.P.No.4293/1998 was dismissed on 17.06.1999 for non-

prosecution and later restored by the High Court vide orders, dated

26.10.1999 passed in W.P.M.P.No.19475/1999. However, the writ

petition was disposed of by orders, dated 07.08.2007 and the

matter is remitted to the 1st respondent for a decision by speaking

order.

17. The Government has taken up enquiry, now the Secretary to

Government (SS & JA) Department desired to inspect the claimed

land at Akkarampalle village of Tirupati (Urban) Mandal.

Accordingly, he has inspected the land on 08.2.2001 along with

Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati and Mandal Revenue Officer,

Tirupati (Urban). The Government have taken up enquiry vide

Memo No.16687/JA.2/Rev(JA), Department, dated 21.02.2000 and

issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.298/JA, Department, dated

28.04.2001.

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

18. Aggrieved by the above order, the District Collector has

requested the Government to verify the genuineness of the above

orders for which the Government has clarified vide Memo

No.28379/JA-2/2001-1, dated 17.05.2001 to treat the above order

as genuine one.

19. The District Collector has requested the Government to

accord permission to file writ petition against the above orders, as

the land is abutting Tirupati town having much house site

potentiality and attained real estate value. Therefore, permission

was accorded for filing the writ petition against the orders of

Government in which it was directed to allot ryotwari patta for the

subject land. Further orders, dated 28.04.2001 were kept in

abeyance vide order Memo No.4442/JA-2/2002-5, dated

27.02.2003.

20. While so, the High Court on 04.11.2004 dismissed

W.P.No.22082/1995 stating that the counsel for petition submits

that the writ petition has become infructuous. Recording this

submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

21. It is a fact that the judgment, dated 07.08.2007 passed in

W.P.No.4293 of 1998, the Government has initiated action for

disposal of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner and a notice

was also issued in Government Memo No.4442/JA-2/2002-10,

dated 19.05.2009 duly fixing the enquiry date for appearance for

the Revision Petition before the Government either in person or

through an advocate and that the then Mandal Revenue Officer,

Tirupati Urban has filed counter before the Govt. Revenue (JA)

Department in the matter duly stating that the subject land is

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

classified as Assessed Waste Dry i.e., communal lands and thus

vests with Government.

22. The Government vide Memo No.4442/JA-2/2002-11, dated

17.12.2009 has sent a copy of the written arguments filed on

behalf of the petitioners on 06.06.2009 to the Collector, Chittoor to

offer his remarks needs no agitation on the part of the petitioner

since several documentary evidences and physical features of the

subject land cannot be conceived by the Government in the

absence of the remarks of the District Collector who will be

stationing authority at the District level and collect the required

data to facilitate the government to pass appropriate speaking

order as directed by the High Court in W.P.No.4293 of 1998 and

the delay if any caused in the matter is the resultant action of the

petitioner who moved the Civil Court and High Court several times

in the matter, thus the government is no way hurdle in the matter

as alleged in by the petitioner for inordinate delay in disposal of the

Revision Petition. The delay in disposal of the revision is causing

recurring loss and hardship is not based on any facts. Issuance of

G.O.No.298, dated 28.04.2001 by the Government, according

permission to issue ryotwari patta to an extent of Ac.4.74 cents in

Sy.No.84/6, 85/1 and 86/1 of Akkarampalle Village became

infructuous in view of the judgment, dated 07.08.2007 passed in

W.P.No.4293 of 1998, wherein the High Court has directed the

Government to take up the matter afresh and dispose it of in

accordance with law.

23. The petitioners have misconstrued the judgment, dated

07.08.2007 passed in W.P.No.4293 of 1998 that the Revision

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

pending before the Government is disposed of afresh. The

petitioner claims that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.298, dated

28.04.2001 she is entitled to Ac.4.74 cents as against the total

extent of Ac.6.86 cents comprised in Sy.Nos.84/6, 85/1, 86/1,

104/P etc., of Akkarampalle Village. But, in fact the present writ

petitioner way back in the year 1995 has moved the High Court

and filed W.P.No.22082 of 1995 and a perusal of the affidavit filed

in support of the said writ petition it is revealed that the petitioner

has sought for ryotwari patta for an extent of Ac.6.86 cents in the

following survey numbers of Akkarampalle village.

      84/6            -      0.62
      85/1            -      3.16
      86/1            -      0.96
      104/P           -      0.30
      105/P           -      0.07
      105/5           -      0.16
      105/6           -      0.44
      105/9           -      0.36
      105/12A         -      0.51
      105/13A         -      0.28
                             ------
             Total           6.86
                             ------

24. It is further submitted that a detailed report narrating the

above facts has been submitted to the Government vide reference

Roc.F1/15681/1995, dated 17.11.2016 to review the orders of the

Government vide Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014,

since the land is high value land and classified as AWD. But, the

Government vide Memo No.4442/EA & AR (JA.2) Department,

dated 15.03.2018 rejected the request of the District Collector,

Chittoor to review the order of the Government, dated 16.05.2014

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

and requested to implement the orders of the Government issued

vide Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014. On receipt of

the interim orders in I.A.No.1/2018, dated 12.12.2018 in the

present writ petition is received in the office, dated 21.01.2019, the

writ petitioner and his elder brother were issued notices vide

reference in Roc.F1/15681/95, dated 22.01.2019 to hear the case

on 02.02.2019 and later adjourned to 16.02.2019, 23.02.2019,

02.03.2019. But, because of boycott of courts by Bar Association,

Chittoor in support of their agitation for Special Bench of High

Court at Tirupati, the matter could not be disposed of and

requested to vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2018,

dated 20.12.2018 while dismissing the writ petition.

25. During hearing, Sri V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that, when a direction was issued by the

Government, it is the duty of the 4th respondent to implement the

orders passed by the Government to issue Ryotwari Patta under

the provisions of the Act.

26. Whether the respondents taken up any enquiry, which is

contrary to the proceedings under law and therefore such inaction

of the respondent No.4 is nothing, but failure to discharge the

public duty that cast upon him and consequently such inaction is

illegal, arbitrary and requested to direct the respondents to

implement the order within the stipulated time frame.

27. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

submitted that an enquiry is going on to mutate the name of the

petitioner in revenue records as per the provisions and it is

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

pending for consideration, as such appropriate orders will be

passed within short time.

28. Considering the rival contentions, perusing the material

available on record, the sole point that arises for consideration is:

"Whether the respondent No.4 is required to conduct any enquiry further to implement the order passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014. If not, whether the action of the No.4 is illegal, arbitrary and consequential a direction be issued to implement the orders passed by the Government".

POINT:

29. It is an undisputed fact that, the Government issued Orders

in G.O.Ms.No.298 Rev.(JA), dated 28.01.2001 and requested

District Collector, Chittoor to grant Ryothwari Patta for an extent of

land admeasuring Ac.4.74 cents in Sy.No.84/6, 85/1 and 86/1

i.e., Ac.0.61 cents; Ac.3.16 cents and Ac.0.96 cents respectively,

situated in Akarampally Village, Tirupati (Urban) Mandal, Chittoor

District under Section 11 (Proviso) of the Act.

30. The Government have issued further orders in Memo

No.4442/JA.2/2002, dt.16.05.2014 and confirmed the earlier

Orders issued No.G.O.Ms.No.298 Rev.(JA) Department, dated

28.01.2021 for grant of Ryothwari Patta for the land admeasuring

an extent of Ac.4.74 cents in Sy.No.84/6, 85/1 and 86/1, situated

in Akarampally Village, Tirupati (Urban) Mandal, Chittoor District,

under Section 11 (proviso) of the Act, 1948 and requested the

District Collector, Chittoor to take necessary action in the matter.

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

31. Government vide Memo.4442/EA & AR/JA.2/2002, dated

15.03.2018 while rejecting review petition filed by the District

Collector, Chittoor informed that there are no new ground to review

the Orders earlier issued by the Government, vide said Memo

No.16.05.2014 and once again requested the District Collector,

Chittoor, to implement the Order issued vide Government Memo

No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014.

32. On receipt of the interim orders dated 20.12.2018 passed in

I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.44191 of 2018, notices were issued to

the writ petitioner and his elder brother vide reference

No.Roc.F1/15681/95, dated 22.01.2019 intimating the date of

hearing as 02.02.2019. Later, the case was adjourned to

16.02.2019, 23.02.2019 and 02.03.2019. But, due to boycott of

courts by Bar Association, Chittoor in support of their agitation for

Special Bench of High Court at Tirupati, the matter could not be

disposed of.

33. In the counter filed by respondent No.3, it is contended that

a petition was filed by the father of the writ petitioner before the

then Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor for grant of Ryotwari

Patta. A direction was issued by the Government to issue Ryotwari

Patta in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act.

The Government has also stated that, it has no jurisdiction to

entertain the revision petition against the orders of the Board of

Revenue and the Government issued a direction to implement the

orders passed earlier for issue of Ryotwari Patta in favour of the

petitioner under the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. But the

enquiry is not completed till date.

34. When the Government issued a direction by invoking proviso

to Section 11 of the Act to issue Ryotwari Patta, it is the duty of

respondent No.4, to implement the orders passed by the

Government under the provisions of the Act.

35. Since the petitioner is in possession of the land, the

Government has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition

under Section 11 of the Act against the orders of the Board of

Revenue.

"The proviso to Section 11 of the Madras Estate Abolition Act does not seem to justify the conclusion that it is for the government to decide ultimately as to when the person was admitted into possession. The government would come into the picture only if it is decided by these tribunals, including the Board of Revenue that he was admitted into possession after the 1 July, 1945. The Government is vested with st

discretion and jurisdiction to direct the issue of patta even if admission is after the 1st of July, 1945. It is for the Board of Revenue as the final authority to find out as to when exactly he was admitted in possession. If an exercise of this power, the Board of Revenue comes to the conclusion, in agreement with the Settlement Officer that it is a ryot land and that the person was admitted into possession before the 1st of July, 1945, the Government cannot interfere with it.

The orders in SrinadhuMallappa vs. Board of Revenue1 the grant was under a statutory power viz., proviso to section 11 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act, 1948. The grant has to be made by the Government. No doubt the settlement officer has to make the enquiry; but the power of granting it is vested in the government under the said section. This power has been delegated to the Board of Revenue, under the rules. As against any order passed by the Board of Revenue, a revision has been provided to the Government by the Rules made in G.O.Ms.No.1044, Rev., dated 17th June, 1961. This being a statutory provision, the Board of Revenue once it has passed an order granting patta, it had become functus officio, and

1966 (1) An. W.R. 157 = 1966 (1) ALT 31

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

no power of revision is vested in it and unless it be an ground of fraud, misrepresentation or other similar grounds, it could not review its own orders."

36. A detailed report narrating the above facts has been

submitted to the Government vide reference Roc.F1/15681/95,

dated 17.11.2016 to review the orders of the Government vide

Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002, dated 16.05.2014, since the land is of

high value and classified as AWD. But the Government vide Memo

No.4442/EA&AR (JA.2) Department, dated 15.03.2018 rejected the

request of the District Collector, Chittoor to review the orders of

the Government, dated 16.05.2014 and requested to implement

the orders of the Government. Where required to

misrepresentation, the fulfillment for issue of Ryotwari patta under

Section 11 (Pro) of the Act.

"A reading of the Section 11 (a) of the Act it is clear that every ryot who claims for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11 (a) of the Act has to fulfill the following requirements.

            (i)          the land claimed as patta land has been in
                         his   or   her     predecessors      continuous
                         occupation    and     possession      prior   to

01.07.1945 till the notified date of the estate;

            (ii)         the land is ryoti;

            (iii)        the claimant is ryoti;

            (iv)         details regarding pre-abolition records.

            (v)          As held in Government of Andhra Pradesh
                         vs. P. Gopal Reddy, 2011 (5) ALD 470 (D.B.)
                         = 2011 (4) ALT 748"

37. The Government passed orders for grant of patta in favour of

the petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.298 dated 28.04.2001.

Therefore,respondent No.4 has to implement the direction issued

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

by the Government by mutating the name of the petitioner in the

revenue records.

38. The petitioner made several representations for

implementation of the orders for grant of Ryotwari Patta under the

Act. The operative portion of the said G.O.No.298 dated

28.04.2001 reads as follows:

"11. In the circumstances stated in the foregoing paras, the Government hereby accord permission to allot Ryotwari Patta to an extent of land Ac.4-74 cents in Sy.No.84/6, 85/1 & 86/1 i.e., Ac.0-62 cents, Ac.3-16 cents and Ac.0-96 cents respectively, situated in Akkarampalli Village, Chandragiri Taluk, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District under the proviso of Section 11 of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 in favour of Smt. Kanchi Venkata Subbamma, Sri K. Muni Krishna Reddy and Sri K. Lokanadha Reddy residents of Akkarampalli Village.

12. The Collector, Chittoor is requested to take necessary actionaccordingly."

39. Despite the order passed and requests made by the

petitioner to implement the orders passed, for the reasons best

known to him,the District Collector did not implement the order

issued by the Government.

40. Since the petitioner contended that the notice was ordered in

the year 2019, till date no enquiry was conducted. When once the

Government issued orders granting Ryotwari Patta in favour of the

petitioner, the respondents have to implement the orders passed

by the Government without further enquiry under the Act.

41. In any view of the matter, the issue is pending before the

concerned authorities since long time to implement the order of the

Government. Notices were issued to the petitioner and his elders

brother in the year 2019 to hear the case. But, for the reasons best

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

known to the respondents, the enquiry was not completed till date.

Now, the petitioner requested this Court to issue a direction to the

respondents to implement the orders issued by the Government.

42. After passing the order by the competent authorities, the

government finally, mutated the name of this petitioner in the

revenue records, sub dividing the property in accordance with the

orders and Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass

Book Act by following procedure prescribed under the Act.

Therefore in these circumstances, it is suffice to issue a direction

to respondent No.4 to implement the order passed by the

authorities.

43. In view of the circumstances narrated above, I deem it

appropriate to issue a direction to respondent No.4 to complete the

enquiry within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order for limited purpose of mutation and sub division. If the

process is not completed within two (2) weeks as directed supra,

the respondents have to face serious consequences for violation of

the orders of this Court. Accordingly the point is answered

declaring the inaction of the respondent No.4 in implementing the

orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.298 Rev (JA)

Department, dated 28.04.2001, confirmed vide Govt. Memo

No.4442/JA.2/2002 dated 16.05.204 read with Govt Memo

No.4442/EA&AR (JA.2)/2002, dated 15.03.2018, as illegal,

arbitrary and such inaction of respondent No.4 amounts to failure

to perform the public duty by the Public Officer, consequently,

respondent No.4 is directed to complete the enquiry for limited

purpose to sub-division and mutation and pass appropriate orders

MSM,J Wp_44191_2018

in accordance with law within two (2) weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order and implement the order of

Government in G.O.Ms.No.298, dated 28.04.2014.

44. In the result, the Writ petition is allowed declaring the

inaction of the respondent No.4 in implementing the orders issued

by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.298 Rev (JA) Department, dated

28.04.2001, confirmed vide Govt. Memo No.4442/JA.2/2002 dated

16.05.2014 read with Govt.Memo No.4442/EA&AR (JA.2)/2002,

dated 15.03.2018, as illegal and arbitrary while directing

respondent No.4 to complete the enquiry for limited purpose of sub

division and mutation and pass appropriate orders in accordance

with law within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order.

Consequently miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date : 12-11-2021 IS/DR