Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. Anakapalli Vijayalakshmi vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Its ... on 21 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
***
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
Between:
# 1. Smt. Anakapalli Vijayalakshmi,
W/o. Maheswara Rao,
Aged about 40 years,
R/o.Flat.No.102, Annapoorna Mansion,
Old CBI Down, Visakhapatnam.
2. Smt. Andiboyina Varalakshmi,
W/o. Gurumurthy,
Aged about 39 years,
R/o. D.No.5-13, Cheemalapally, Vepagunta,
Visakhapatnam.
... Petitioners
AND
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Endowments) Dept.,
Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam,
Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District,
Rep. by its Executive Officer.
... Respondents
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 21-10-2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
2 RRR,J.
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
+ W.P.No.17359 of 2008
Date:21-10-2021
Between:
# 1. Smt. Anakapalli Vijayalakshmi,
W/o. Maheswara Rao,
Aged about 40 years,
R/o.Flat.No.102, Annapoorna Mansion,
Old CBI Down, Visakhapatnam.
2. Smt. Andiboyina Varalakshmi,
W/o. Gurumurthy,
Aged about 39 years,
R/o. D.No.5-13, Cheemalapally, Vepagunta,
Visakhapatnam.
... Petitioners
AND
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Endowments) Dept.,
Secretariat, Hyderabad.
.
2. Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam,
Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District,
Rep. by its Executive Officer.
... Respondents
! Counsel for petitioners : Sri P. Roy Reddy
^Counsel for Respondents 1 : G.P. for Endowments
^Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel for Endowments
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1
2016 (4) ALD 218 :: 2014 (4) ALT 380
2
AIR 1963 SC 884
3
AIR 1928 Madras 786
4
1992 Law Weekly (Madras) 150
5
ILR Vol.LVI 366 (Madras) 1933
6
1927 Law Weekly (Madras) 367
7
1916 Law Weekly (Madras) 485
8
2008 (4) APLJ 123 (Division Bench)
9
(2009) 15 SCC 504
10
ILR Vol.LVI 366 (Madras) 1933
3 RRR,J.
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
ORDER:
The 1st petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and
possessor of an extent of 225 Sq.Yds of land in Sy.No.24/3D2,
Varalakshmi Nagar, Cheemalapally Village, Pendurthy Mandal,
Visakhapatanam District. The 2nd petitioner claims to be the
absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 418 Sq.Yds of land
in the same survey number. Both the petitioners trace their
ownership and possession through various registered deeds of
sale, to a registered deed of sale in the year 1947. It is the case
of the petitioners that the land purchased by them had been
recognised as "Zeroyati" land in the survey, which was got
conducted in the year 1902, by the then guardian of the
Vizianagaram Estate, Mr.H.F.W.Gillman. The register prepared
at that time, which is more popularly known as the Gillman
register, under the provisions of the Madras Survey and
Boundaries Act, 1897 would show that Sy.No.24 consisting of
Ac.52.56 cents was classified as "Zeroyati" land which is
"Banjara".
2. The petitioners have approached this court, being
aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam,
which is said to be attempting to interfere with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the above lands of the petitioners,
claiming that the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam had been
granted Ryotwari pattas in respect of this land under the
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams
4 RRR,J.
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 [for short
"the Inam Abolition Act"]. It is the case of the petitioners that
their land in Sy.No.24/3D2 is not covered by any Ryotwari patta
and the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam cannot make any claim
over the said land. It is the further case of the petitioners that
the 2nd respondent itself had issued a public notification vide
Rc.No.C1/8279/96, dated 19.12.1996 setting out the land
covered by the Ryotwari pattas given in favour of the 2nd
respondent and the land in Sy.No.24/3D2 is not shown in the
said notification. The petitioners would also contend that even if
there is such a Ryotwari patta, the same would be invalid, as a
patta under the Inam Abolition Act could have been granted
only in relation to "Inam" land, and "Zeroyati" land can never be
treated as Inam land falling within the ambit of the Inam
Abolition Act.
3. The 2nd respondent after notice has filed a counter
affidavit. In this counter affidavit, the case of the 2nd respondent
is that the lands in Cheemalapally Village falls within the ambit
of the Inam Abolition Act and the Special Deputy Tahsildar
(Inam, Visakapatnam) by an order dated 02.01.1978 had
declared that the lands covered under title deed No.1191, given
in favour of the 2nd respondent- Devasthanam are Inam lands
in an Inam village. On this basis, the M.R.O, Pendurthy, had
granted Ryotwari pattas under Section 7(1) of the Inam Abolition
Act, by proceedings dated 06.09.1996 to an extent of Ac.383.70
cents in favour of the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam.
5 RRR,J.
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
4. The 2nd respondent contends that the total extent of
land in Sy.No.24 is Ac.52.56 cents out of which the 2nd
respondent-Devasthanam was given a Ryotwari patta in relation
to Ac.7.75 cents of land in Sy.No.24/1 and the Ryotwari patta
for the remaining extent of Ac.44.81 cents is yet to be given. The
2nd respondent also took the stand that the Petitioners, except
showing certain deeds of sale, have not demonstrated their right
and title over the property, and in any event, the petitioners
could only claim such right and title by virtue of an occupancy
certificate or pattas given under the provisions of the Inam
Abolition Act, as this land falls within the ambit of the Inam
Abolition Act.
5. Another significant contention raised by the 2nd
respondent is that the entire land in Sy.No.24 is divided into two
parts i.e., Sy.Nos.24/1 and 24/2 because of which, the M.R.O,
Pendurthy had granted Ryotwari patta only in relation to
Sy.No.24/1 admeasuring Ac.7.75 cents and the enquiry relating
to the remaining land is still pending.
6. The petitioners rely upon the entries in the Gillman
register, in relation to Sy.No.24 to claim that the said land is
"Zeroyati" land and not governed by the provisions of the Inam
Abolition Act, 1956. The case of the 2nd respondent-
Devasthanam is that the entire land in Sy.No.24 is "Inam land"
which falls within the ambit of the Inam Abolition Act, 1956,
and any claim by any person would require the said person to
6 RRR,J.
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
produce necessary proceedings under the Inam Abolition Act
only.
7. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court
of Andhra Pradesh in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.
Kothacheruvu Plantations Industries Private limited &
Ors.1. has elaborately and comprehensively discussed the
system of rights over land in relation to Zamindari Estates in
the erstwhile Madras province and the various changes in the
said system.
8. A brief recapitulation of that discussion would be
sufficient for our purpose. This court may also point out that
the present recapitulation is restricted to only lands falling
within an Estate as, the undisputed fact in the present case is
that, the land in dispute falls within the limits of the erstwhile
Viziangaram Estate.
9. The British East India Company by way of The
Madras Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1802( subsequently
renamed as The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Permanent
Settlement Regulation, 1802) had created prima facie title in all
the lands falling within a Zamindari Estate in favour of the
Zamindar. The Zamindar, as the holder of the land, was entitled
to collect rent from the Ryots who were the cultivators of the
land, by entering into annual or longer rental agreements with
them. The ryots were treated as occupants, of the land under
2016 (4) ALD 218 :: 2014 (4) ALT 380
7 RRR,J.
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
their cultivation, with certain rights, as long as they paid their
rents.
10. In return for being recognised as the prima facie
owners of all the land in their Estates, the Zamindars were
required to pay a fixed Peishkush which was the assessment
fixed at the time of the permanent settlement. The Peishkush
was fixed by taking into account all the assets of the Estate,
including the lands in the Estate and the income being obtained
from all such assets. Since all the land within the limits of the
Estate was to be taken into account, even lands which were
granted as Inams would have to be taken into account.
However, all lands which had already been granted as Inams
before 1802, (generally called pre settlement Inams) and on
which no income was arising for the Estate were excluded from
the calculation and these lands were, thereafter, treated as not
being part of the said Estate. All subsequent grant of Inams,
after 1802, (generally called Darimilla Inams) were treated as
part of the Estate. Another enactment which is relevant is The
Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate Land Act, 1908 which laid
down the substantial rights of the cultivators and the
Zamindars. Under this Act, even Inam villages or parts of
villages, or Khandrigas, within the limits of an Estate, were
included in the definition of "Estate". Thus, lands in an Estate
could be broadly divided into (a) "Private Land" which is the land
cultivated by the Zamindar directly or through his employees,
(b) Inam land, which is the land given by way of grant of Inam
by the Zamindar essentially as rent free land (c) Ryoti land,
8 RRR,J.
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
which was the cultivable land in an estate, other than private
land, and on which rent was being collected from the ryots.
However, this would not include service Inams and (d) certain
Inams which were treated as being part of the Estate and
termed as Inam Estates.
11. These terms gain significance on account of the
legislations which dismantled this system. The Andhra Pradesh
(Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Estate Abolition Act)
essentially repealed the Permanent Settlement Regulation of
1802. This Act sought to grant Title to the actual cultivators of
the Land. To achieve this objective, Section 3 of the Estate
Abolition Act transferred all ownership rights of the Zamindar,
over the land in the Estate, to the Government. After
determining the lands to which the Estate Abolition Act would
apply, the Government, under section 11 of the Abolition Act,
was to grant Ryotwari pattas to the Ryots cultivating the
ryotwari land.
12. As noticed above, the provisions of the Estate Land
Act, 1908 had included certain Inams as being part of the
Estate, with the nomenclature "Inam Estate". The Estate
Abolition Act also treated Inam Estate lands as being part of the
Estate, and whose ownership would vest with the Government.
To obviate any further controversy on this aspect, the Estate
Abolition Act provided for an enquiry to determine as to whether
an Inam granted by the Estate Holder should be treated as an
9 RRR,J.
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
Inam Estate to which the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act
would apply or should be treated as an ordinary Inam, to which
the Estate Abolition Act would not apply. After determining the
lands to which the Estate Abolition Act would apply, the
Government, under section 13 of the Abolition Act, was to grant
Ryotwari pattas to the Ryots cultivating the lands in the said
Inam Estates.
13. In a similar fashion The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra
Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956,
(hereinafter referred to as the Inam Abolition Act) abolished all
Inams, falling outside the purview of the Estate Abolition Act,
with the intention of granting ownership rights to cultivators
and also to the Inamdars in certain situations. Section 3 of the
Inam Abolition Act, required the Tahsildar concerned to conduct
an enquiry to determine whether a particular land in his
jurisdiction was Inam land and whether such Inam land was
within a Ryotwari village, Inam Village or Zamindari Village and
whether the Inam land was held by an Institution. The last part
of the enquiry was necessary as ryotwari pattas for Inam lands
held by Institutions were to be given to the Institutions alone,
while individual Inamdars had to share the land with their
cultivating tenants.
14. The undisputed facts in the present case are that
the land falls within the limits of the Vizianagaram Estate and
that Cheemalapalli village has been declared as an Inam Village
and not an Inam Estate. The dispute commences from here.
10 RRR,J.
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
The 2nd respondent contends that the Special Deputy Tahsildar
(Inam, Visakhapatnam) by an order dated 02.01.1978 had
declared that the lands covered under title deed No.1191, given
in favour of the 2nd respondent- Devasthanam are Inam lands
in an Inam village. However, neither the said title deed nor the
declaration has been placed before this court to ascertain as to
which part of the land in the said village has been declared as
Inam land. Further, the 2nd Respondent has admitted that a
ryotwari patta has been given to the 2nd respondent only to an
extent of Ac.7.75 cents of land in Sy.No.24/1 and that the
Ryotwari patta for the remaining extent of Ac.44.81 cents is yet
to be given. The 2nd respondent claims ownership over all the
land of Ac. 52.56 cents in Survey No. 24 of Cheemalapalli
Village, but has been able to demonstrate title only to the extent
of Ac. 7.75 cents. The claim of the 2nd respondent over the
remaining land is based on the claim that the remaining land is
also classified as Inam land. The petitioners claim that this land
has been declared as Zeroyati land and cannot be treated as
Inam land to which the Inam Abolition Act would apply.
15. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, after relying on the entries in the Gillman register to
contend that the land in S.No.24 was classified as Zeroyati
lands, has taken pains to take this Court through various
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble
Madras High Court to point out the difference between
"Zeroyati" land and "Inam" land under the Estate Land Act,
1908 and the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. The said judgements
11 RRR,J.
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
being Nedunuri Kameswaramma Vs. Sampati Subba Rao2,
Dadamudy Tatayya & Ors. Vs. Kelachina
Venkatasubbarayya Sastri3, Sri Sri Sri Varadaraja Sooru
Harischendra Deo Bahadur4Vs. Kanda Barikivadu, Pogaru
Ramamurthi Vs. Sri Raja Mirja Sri Pushavati Alaka
Narayana Gajapathiraju Maharaju Manya Sultan
Bahadur5, Sri Raja Rao Sri Swetachelapati Ramakrishna
Ranga Rao Bahadur Garu, Raja of Bobbili Vs. Ayyagiri
Sodemma 6, Sree Ravu Seshayya Garu Vs. The Rajah of
Pittapur, Sreee Rajah Ravu Venkata Kumara Mahipathi
Surya Rao Bahadur Varu7, Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha
Swamy Vari Devasthanam Vs. S.V.Narasimham & Ors8 and
Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swami Vari Devasthanam Vs.
S.V.Narasimham & Ors.,9.
16. The entry in the Gillman Register, filed by the
Petitioners before this court, shows that the entire extent of
Ac.52.56 cents of land in Sy.No.24 of Cheemalapally village has
been categorized as "Zeroyati" land. The entries in the Gillman
register have been made under the provisions of the Madras
Survey and Boundaries Act, 1897. In Pogaru Ramamurthi Vs.
Sri Raja Mirja Sri Pushavati Alaka Narayana
Gajapathiraju Maharaju Manya Sultan Bahadur10, the
Hon'ble Madras High Court had held that the classification of
AIR 1963 SC 884
AIR 1928 Madras 786
1992 Law Weekly (Madras) 150
ILR Vol.LVI 366 (Madras) 1933
1927 Law Weekly (Madras) 367
1916 Law Weekly (Madras) 485
2008 (4) APLJ 123 (Division Bench)
(2009) 15 SCC 504
ILR Vol.LVI 366 (Madras) 1933
12 RRR,J.
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
the land is also an issue which can be dealt with by the survey
officer under the provisions of the Madras Survey and
Boundaries Act, 1897. Incidentally, this judgement came to be
delivered on the basis of the same survey conducted at the
instance of Mr. H.F.W. Gillman in 1904. Accordingly, it would
have to be accepted, prima facie, that the land in Survey no.24
is Zeroyati land and not Inam land.
17. The judgments cited by Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned
counsel for the petitioners would also show that "Zeroyati" land
is cultivable land, which is in the possession of the ryots as
ryotwari land or as the private land of the Estate holder. The
consequence of such a distinction would be that "Inam" land
would fall within the ambit of the Inam Abolition Act while
"Zeroyati" land would stand out side the ambit of the Inam
Abolition Act. In the present case, the 2nd respondent is before
the M.R.O. Pendurthi for grant of ryotwari patta on the ground
that this land is Inam land. Once it is found, prima facie, that
the land is not Inam land, the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar to
grant Ryotwari patta in relation to Non Inam land is, prima
facie, non existent and there is every danger of the claim of the
2nd respondent over the land in S.No.24 being rejected as its
entire claim is based on an Inam said to have been given in its
favour.
18. This would bring us to the next question as to the
provision of law which would be applicable to the land in Survey
number No.24, if the Inam Abolition Act does not apply to this
13 RRR,J.
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
land. The facts, necessary to arrive at a finding on this issue,
are not forthcoming in this case.
19. While this Court cannot decide these issues, the
M.R.O. Pendurthy, before whom the application of the 2nd
Respondent for grant of Ryotwari patta is pending, would be in a
position to answer these issues as he is the primary fact finding
authority.
20. In the circumstances, this Writ petition is disposed
of, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the M.R.O,
Pendurthy, within three weeks from today, in the pending
application filed by the 2nd Respondent, for grant of Ryotwari
pattas under the Inam Abolition Act and raise all their
objections before the said M.R.O., including the jurisdiction of
the M.R.O. under the Inam Abolition Act, and the applicability of
the Inam Abolition Act to the land in Survey No. 24 of
Cheemalapalli Village. The M.R.O. Pendurthi, after giving due
opportunity and hearing to the petitioners and the 2nd
Respondent, shall pass orders on the application of the 2nd
Respondent for grant of the Ryotwari patta. The observations
made in the present order are only for the purpose of
crystallising the issues and shall not be binding on the M.R.O.,
while deciding these issues. It shall be open to the M.R.O.
Pendurthi, to decide all the issues raised by the petitioners and
the 2nd Respondent, uninfluenced by any of the observations
made in the present order. Needless to say, the 2nd Respondent
shall not disturb the possession of the petitioners over the said
14 RRR,J.
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
land till the final disposal of the application of the 2nd
respondent for the grant of the Ryotwari Patta.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
21st October, 2021
BSM
15 RRR,J.
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.17359 of 2008
21st October, 2021
BSM
Transferred to L.R. folder.
