Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Yakub, vs The Commissioner Of Survey, on 25 November, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010530802024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 957/2024
Between:
Shaik Yakub, and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
The Commissioner Of Survey and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. P ROY REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following Judgment:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and learned G.P. for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
2. The appellants herein, on the ground that their ancestors are in
possession of certain extents of land in Santhapalem Village, Kothavalasa
Mandal, Vizianagaram District, had approached the Joint Collector, for grant
of ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 (for
short 'the Act'). The appellants produced extracts of the Gilman Register as
well as the cist receipts to show that their ancestors had been in possession of
the subject land, for the necessary period, before 1945 and that they would be
entitled for ryotwari pattas.
3. The Tahsildar, Kothavalasa Mandal, resisted the claim on the
ground that in an earlier proceeding, the Assistant Settlement Officer, had
rejected the application, of the ancestors of the appellants, under Section
11(a) of the Act, on the ground that the ancestors of the appellants were
unable to demonstrate that they were in possession of the lands for the
required period of time. The Tahsildar also contended that the land was
classified as Assessed Waste Dry Land and ryotwari patta cannot be granted
for such land.
4. The Joint Collector, after considering both the objections had held
that the land in question had earlier been classified as Zeroyiti land in Gilman
Register. He also held that cist receipts were produced by the appellants to
show that the ancestors of the appellants were in possession of this land. On
the basis of this finding, the Joint Collector granted ryotwari pattas to the
appellants herein. It may also be noted that the Joint Collector also took into
account the fact that other descendants, of the ancestors of the appellants,
had been given ryotwari pattas, for cultivation of land, in the area. The
aforesaid order of the Joint Collector, dated 18.12.2021, was challenged by
the Tahsildar, by way of a revision before the 1st respondent. The 1st
respondent, taking the view that the land has been categorized as Assessed
Waste Dry land, set aside the order of the Joint Collector and remanded the
matter back on the ground that no ryotwari patta could have been issued in
relation to Assessed Waste Dry land.
5. The appellants, being aggrieved by this order of the 1st
respondent, dated 22.06.2023, have approached this Court by way of
W.P.No.26851 of 2024.
6. In this writ petition, the appellants sought interim stay /
suspension of the assessment order of the 1st respondent as well as the
proceedings before the Joint Collector.
7. The learned Single Judge took the view that there was a delay by
the appellants, in approaching this Court, and as such, refrained from passing
an interim order.
8. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Single Judge, dated
21.11.2024, the appellants have approached this Court.
9. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
would contend that non-grant of stay / suspension would effectively render the
writ petition infructuous, in as much as, subsequent proceedings of the Joint
Collector would render the remand order of the 1st respondent academic and
challenge to the remand order would become infructuous.
10. The learned Government Pleader for revenue would contend that
the initial order of the Joint Collector itself is without jurisdiction, and
consequently, the orders of the 1st respondent, setting aside the order of the
Joint Collector and remanding the matter back, is in accord with law. He would
submit that even on merits, the appellants do not have a case and the orders
of the learned Single Judge do not require any interference.
11. The writ petition has been filed, against the order of remand
issued by the 1st respondent. Completion of remand proceedings by the Joint
Collector would effectively render the writ petition itself infructuous.
12. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to stay the further
proceedings before the Joint Collector, in pursuance of the orders of the 1st
respondent, dated 22.06.2023.
13. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed staying further
proceedings before the Joint Collector in pursuance of the orders of the 1st
respondent dated 22.06.2023 till further orders in the writ petition. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J
HARINATH.N,J
Js.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
And
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
(Order of the Bench pronounced by RRR, J)
25th November, 2024
Js.
