Tahsildar,Chittoor Dist vs Mukkanti Bharathamma,Chittoor ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1465 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU


                         W.P.No.25179 of 2014


ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

"..to issue Writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the order of the 5th respondent vide Proceedings No.P3/764/2003 dated 16.03.2006 setting aside the order of the 4th respondent in R.P.No.241/84/F1 dated 28.02.2003 confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent in S.R.No.41/11(a)79/BPM, dated 20.04.1981 and quash the same as it is illegal and contrary to the provisions of A.P.Estates Abolition (Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and the Rules made thereunder...."

This Court has heard Sri Sasibhushana Rao, learned

Government Pleader representing the Additional Advocate

General and Sri K.Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel

appearing for the respondents.

Sri Sasibhushana Rao has questioned the order dated

16.03.2006 by which the Commissioner of Appeals has

disposed of the revision petition setting aside the order of

Director of Settlements dated 28.02.2003 and confirming the

order passed by the Settlement Officer dated 20.04.1981.

Learned counsel, at the outset, submits that the Settlement

Officer has been guilty of issuing fake pattas and the

Government has also issued directions not to follow the

pattas issued by the said gentleman. Apart from that, he

submits that the land in question is not a ryotwari land and

that it is a Government poramboke land classified as a

rastha. It is his contention that by looking at the issues that

are not raised and by considering unrelated matters, the

impugned order is passed. He submits that the order dated

28.02.2003 passed by the Director of Settlements is correct

and it is passed after considering the documents at the

ground level. He points out that Sy.No.205/5 of Mogili

Venkatagiri Village is classified as Bandi Dari and that the

petitioners who are encroachers cannot claim any ryotwari

patta or any subsequent orders. He submits that as the first

order passed by the Settlement Officer itself is suspect and

the impugned order should also be set aside and the order

passed on 28.02.2003 should be upheld.

Sri Sasibhushana Rao relies upon the judgments in

Government of U.P. rep. by its Prl.Secretary Revenue (JA)

Department v. P.Gopala Reddy1 with regard to the orders

passed by the Settlement Officer and another judgment in

District Collector, Srikakulam and others v. Bagathi

Krishna Rao and another2. He argues that the fact that the

Tahsildar filed the appeal should not be a sole ground to

dismiss the entire appeal and that the interest of the State

should also be seen before dismissing the appeal. He points

out that at best, it is a procedural error and that procedure

being the handmaiden of justice, the object of justice should

prevail over technical objections.

In reply, learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondents argues the matter at length. He points out that

the order of the Settlement Officer and the order of the

Commissioner of Appeals are both reasoned orders, whereas

the order passed on 28.02.2003 by the Director of

Settlements is not correct and it merely relies upon the

averments of the counter affidavit filed. He also points out

that the order of the Settlement Officer was passed after he

went through the depositions and the documents. Lastly, he

2011(4) ALT 748

(2010) 6 SCC 427

submits that in the impugned order also, there is

consideration of the material both documentary and

otherwise before coming to the conclusion that the

respondents are entitled to a patta. He points out that the

boundaries of the land that were noticed were noted in the

said order before the conclusions came to be made. He relies

upon the following judgments viz., Director of Settlements,

Hyderabad and others v. Neerupaka Rama Krishna3 and

The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others v.

P.V.Narasimha Rao and others4 to argue that a party to a

proceeding cannot be the appellant. It is his contention that

the appeal is filed by the Tahsildar and the State of Andhra

Pradesh is not a party to the writ petition. Therefore, on this

ground itself, it should be dismissed.

COURT: This Court after considering all the submissions

made notices that the essential dispute that arises in this

case is about Ac.3.64 cents of land in Sy.No.205/5 of Mogili

Venkatagiri Village.

2001 (5) ALD 828

MANU/AP/0566/2010

The first order passed is by the Settlement Officer on

20.04.1981. He has relied upon oral and documentary

evidence. The Karanam of the village was examined as L.W.1.

He has deposed about the boundaries and in particular, the

western boundary is shown as cart track in Sy.No.205-4. He

also deposes that the respondents are in possession of the

property and have paid sisth regularly. It is clearly deposed

that the cart track in Sy.No.205/4 is to the West of the Village

and the area occupied by the cart track is separately sub-

divided. The Settlement Officer came to the conclusion that

the cart track is to the West of the field in question. When it

comes to the impugned order passed on 16.03.2006 also, it is

noticed that the Commissioner of Appeals considered the

report of the field staff of the Settlement Officer‟s Office, which

mentioned the four boundaries and the Western boundary

was mentioned as 205-4/cart track. He also looked into the

FMB, which reveals that the schedule land is a „ryoti‟ land

and the cart track is covered by Sy.No.205-4. This finding is

therefore based upon categorical conclusions about the

boundaries and the extents. A copy of the report is also

enclosed along with counter affidavit filed. The boundaries

indicated in the field measurement book are that the cart

track is in Sy.No.205/4. The statement of the Village

Revenue Officer on 28.10.2012 is also to the effect that the

respondent No.1 along with another is in possession and

enjoyment of the property. The conclusions in this statement

are that the land in 205/5 measuring Ac.3.64 cents is ryothi

land and 205/4 measuring Ac.0.30 cents is „bandi daari‟ or

cart track. The appeal grounds or the submissions made do

not dispute this particular finding which is a finding based

upon evidence. The impugned order considered these and the

fact that sisth receipts (tax receipts) are filed both for pre and

post abolition periods. It is also noted that the Director of

Settlements did not examine whether the schedule land is

ryothi or not.

As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel, the

Director of Settlements have relied upon the counter only and

this is clear from a reading of the order itself. Apart from

this, the other allegation made is about the Settlement

Officers‟ pattas. It is a fact that this particular Settlement

Officer is accused of granting bogus pattas. This fact has

been noticed in the judgment of P.Gopala Reddy's case ( 1

supra), which is cited by Sri Sasibhushan Rao (para 29).

However, in para 30 of the very same judgment, it was

observed that there are bogus pattas granted by the said

Officer and apart from that, there are other pattas also which

were granted. The Court held in that case that the patta

issued by the said Settlement Officer is not a bogus patta and

that it is his order that is passed on merits that is being

decided (para 30 of the Division Bench judgment). Same is

the case here and the order passed is in question and not a

patta. It is an order passed that has to be examined and not

the patta per se. Therefore, the said objection is overruled.

Apart from that, the order passed reveals the continuous

possession and enjoyment of the present respondents of the

land. Sisth receipts were filed and the cultivation of the land

including the age of the trees etc., was noticed by Office‟s of

the State who examined the property. Therefore, it is not

denied that the respondents are in possession of the property.

In fact, the report dated 28.10.2019 reveals the age of the

coconut trees as 49 years.

In that view of the matter, this Court holds that it does

not find any errors in the impugned order. In the opinion of

this Court, it is a reasoned order passed after considering the

materials on record. The delay in challenging the order is

also a fact which is visible from the record. Long settled

possession cannot be upset, whenever the State wakes up an

decides to file a writ petition. The fact also remains that the

respondents have proved the possession and enjoyment of the

land with regard to the records belonging to pre and post

abolition periods. In 2011 also, the possession of the

respondents herein on the land has been upheld.

Last, but not the least, is the issue of the Tahsildar

filing the writ petition. In the opinion of this Court, it is the

State of Andhra Pradesh alone that can file a writ petition and

not the Tahsildar. This is not purely a technical objection as

contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is a

matter of procedural law, which is also law. It is held that the

Tahsildar is not empowered to file a writ petition by himself in

his name. On this ground also, the writ petition should fail

since it is the State of Andhra Pradesh that should be a party

before this Court.

Thus, both on facts and on law, this Court finds that

there are no merits in the writ petition and accordingly, the

same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall

stand dismissed.

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J Date: 16.03.2023 KLP