Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Kum C V Ramani on 20 September, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010061432023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 229/2023
Between:
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Kum C V Ramani ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. G V S MEHAR KUMAR
The Court made the following Judgment:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard the Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants, and
Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The respondent herein sought issuance of a ryotwari patta under
Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (herein referred to as "Estates Abolition
RRR, J & HN, J
Act"), in relation to Ac.8.52 cents of land in R.S.No.17 of Krishnarayapuram
Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. This claim was made on
the ground that the predecessors of the respondent had been in possession
and enjoyment of the land from 1914 and as such, she would be entitled for
grant of ryotwari patta. It was also the contention of the respondent that the
aforesaid land of Ac.8.52 cents was converted into a private tank, called
Venkappa tank, and the same had been constructed by her ancestors. The
respondent also pointed out that the tank was wrongly noted as government
poramboke tank during the re-survey operation and an application for change
of classification of the land from government poramboke to zeroythi was filed.
In consideration of this application, a memo No.41025/EA & AR/A1/2009,
dated 06.07.2018, was issued by the government, declaring the tank to be a
private tank belonging to the respondent and that it was not a government
tank. The memo also stated that the respondent was entitled for grant of
ryotwari patta under Section 11 (a) of the Estates Abolition Act.
3. It may also be noted that even prior to the above memo, the
government had issued orders, dated 03.05.2013, and a further memo, dated
14.08.2015, permitting the change of classification of the land from tank to
zeroythi and for implementation of the said orders. As the appellant authorities
tried to re-open the issue, W.P.No.3292 of 2017 was filed by the respondent.
This Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents therein
RRR, J & HN, J
to complete the process of implementation of the government orders. The Writ
Appeal, bearing W.A.No.548 of 2018, filed against such orders, was
dismissed and contempt proceedings were initiated for implementation of the
orders. The contempt proceedings resulted in a sentence of imprisonment to
the Tahsildar of the Mandal. At that stage, the government issued a direction
to approach the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, for grant of ryotwari
patta. This Court, while dismissing W.A.No.548 of 2018, had directed the Joint
Collector to receive the application and to process it also.
4. Subsequently, an order dated 12.10.2018 was passed on the
application of the respondent. In this order, it was held that the land is not a
zeroythi land, but a tank filled with water and therefore no patta could be
granted. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent has approached this
Court, by way of W.P.No.42118 of 2018. A Learned Single Judge of this
Court, after noticing the law relating to this issue, had allowed the Writ
Petition, setting aside the order, dated 12.10.2018, passed by the Joint
Collector, with a direction to the Joint Collector to issue a ryotwari patta to the
respondent, in terms of the memo, dated 06.07.2018.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the State and the official
respondents, in the Writ Petition, have filed the present Writ Appeal.
RRR, J & HN, J
6. The case of the appellants, in sum and substance, is that the land
is covered by a water tank and in view of the definition of ryoti land, under
Section 3 (16) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate Land Act, 1908
(herein referred to as "Estates Land Act"), the land in question is not a ryoti
land for which a ryotwari patta can be given; Section 3 (b) of the Estates
Abolition Act vests all tanks and irrigation works in the government and as
such ryotwari patta to land vesting in the government cannot be given. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.7461 of 2009, dated 14.03.2019,
had held that tanks and water bodies are inalienable and they have to be
retained and restored and the records of the Settlement Officer shows that
there was an ayacut under this tank, due to which the tank would have to be
treated as a government tank which is vested with the government.
7. The learned Government Pleader, while reiterating the above
contentions, also relies upon the order of the Joint Collector, dated
12.10.2018, wherein the Joint Collector, on physical examination of the land,
had held that the land is covered by water and as such, it would have to be
treated as a public tank over which no ryotwari patta can be granted.
8. Section 3 (16) of the Estates Land Act had defined ryoti land to
be land which does not include bed and bunds of tanks and of supply
drainage, surplus or irrigation channels. In the present case, the land is said to
be covered by a tank. Section 3 (d) of the Estates Abolition Act, also stipulates
RRR, J & HN, J
that tanks and irrigation works in any estate village would vest in the
government directly. In view of these provisions, the grant of a ryotwari patta
would not be permissible.
9. However, the provisions of Section 3 (4) of the Estates Abolition
Act would also have to be looked into. This provision states that improvements
made by the occupants of a land, including construction of tanks, etc. would
not change the nature of the land and the said land would remain as zeroythi
land. This principle was also accepted by the Division Bench in W.A.No.548 of
2018.
10. The issue of whether the tank is a private tank or a government
tank is decided by the memo, dated 06.07.2018, issued by the Special Chief
Secretary to the government wherein, the government had accepted that the
tank in question was a private tank constructed as an improvement over the
land and that the tank is not a government tank.
11. It may also be noticed that it was the Learned Advocate General,
who had pointed out these facts, before the Division Bench in W.A.No.548 of
2018. In the face of the fact that it was the Learned Advocate General, who
had conceded this fact and in the face of the fact that this memo has not been
set aside either by government or by any other process known to law, it would
have to be held that the tank in question is a private tank, which was in the
RRR, J & HN, J
nature of improvement of the land under Section 3 (4) of the Estates Abolition
Act. The mere finding of the joint collector that the land is covered by water, in
the absence of any other finding that the tank is a government tank, would not
make a difference to the fact that the tank is a private tank, created as
improvement of the land. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court arose
on a question of protection of public and communal water bodies. In the
present case, the tank is a private tank.
12. In the circumstances, the finding of the Learned Single Judge that
the land remains as zeroythi land, over which the respondent is entitled to
ryotwari patta, does not require any interference. Consequently, the Writ
Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand
closed.
_______________________
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
______________
HARINATH.N, J
MJA
RRR, J & HN, J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 229 of 2023
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
20.09.2024
MJA
