1

APHC010208822011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3328]

THURSDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA

PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO: 29039 OF 2011

Between:

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, REP. BY THE DISTRICT

COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS, O/O. THE CHIEF

COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINSITRATION, ANDHRA PRADESH,

HYDERABAD.

2. THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER / DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENTS,

ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD.

3. B SUBBAMMA DIED, W/O. LATE VEERAIAH HOUSEHOLD R/O.

SANJAY NAGAR LOCALITY OLD PALONCHA MANDAL, KHAMMAM

DISTRICT.

4. B JAYARAM, S/O. LATE B. SUBBAMMA RETIRED TELECOM

EMPLOYEE K OTHAPALEM VILLAGE, RENIGUNTA MANDAL,

CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

5. B SRINIVASULU, S/O. LATE B. SUBBAMMA KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE,

RENIGUNTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

2

1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. V JAGAPATHI

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Heard Sri B. Sasibushana Rao, learned Government Pleader

representing the Additional Advocate General and Sri V. Jagapathi, learned

Counsel for the Unofficial Respondent Nos.3 to 5.

2. It transpires from the Cause-title that Respondent No.3 (Smt. Baduru

Subbamma) is no more. The Respondent Nos.4 & 5 are the Legal

Representatives (sons) of Respondent No.3.

3. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari

calling for the records relating to the orders of

the Commissioner Appeals in Proceedings

No.P1/594/2000, dated 19.01.2010 in confirming

the orders of the Special Commissioner and

Director of Settlements in R.P.No.55/87-H1,

dated 20.08.1999 and also confirming the orders

of the Settlement Officer in S.R.No.164/1(a)/82

dated 04.02.1987 and declare the said

proceedings are as being arbitrary, illegal,

unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of

Andhra Pradesh (Estates Abolition) Act 1948

and set aside the proceedings and orders of the

3

rd

parties and pass such other order or orders as

are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances

of the case.”

4. At the outset, this Court would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has filed

this Writ Petition challenging the concurrent findings rendered by three

Authorities and these three Orders (which have rendered the concurrent

findings) are based on the previous Proceedings of the Assistant Settlement

Officer dated 13.11.1969 in S.R.Nos.13 to 18, 20, 22 to 24, 26 to 45 of 2011

3

which has conferred substantive rights granting Ryotwari Patta to several

Ryots, who are similarly placed as that of the Unofficial Respondent Nos. 3 to

5 herein. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore vide S.R.Nos.13 to 18, 20,

22 to 24, 26 to 45 of 2011 dated 13.11.1969 had held that the ancestors of the

Respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein were entitled to be granted ryotwari patta

inasmuch as the said ancestors have been in possession even prior to coming

into force of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and

Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. These Proceedings under Section 11(a)

of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into

Ryotwari) Act, 1948 were upheld and followed by the Settlement Officer,

Nellore vide Order dated 04.02.1987. The Revenue Authorities have

challenged the findings of the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 04.02.1987

before the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements. The Special

Commissioner and Director of Settlements vide Order dated 20.08.1999 had

upheld the concurrent findings of the Authorities below and dismissed the

Revision Petition filed by the District Collector bearing R.P.No.55/87-H1 vide

Order dated 20.08.1999 (Ex.P.2). This Order of the Special Commissioner

and Director of Settlements came to be challenged before the Chief

Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) by filing another Revision

Petition. Vide Proceeding No.P1/594/2000 dated 19.01.2010 the CCLA had

confirmed the concurrent findings of the two Authorities below. Having lost

before all the Authorities since the year 1969, the District Collector has filed

the present Writ Petition assailing the findings rendered by the three

Authorities below. In the meantime, the subject land was acquired by the

Government for the purpose of Tirupati Airport.

Submissions of the Writ Petitioner (Joint Collector):

5. The facts, as projected by the Writ Petitioner (District Collector), are that

the Settlement Officer, Nellore has erred in granting ryotwari patta in favour of

the Unofficial Respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein with regard to agricultural land of

an extent of Acs.3.40 cents in Kothapalem Village of Renigunta Mandal

4

situated in Sy.No.127/2; that the Order passed by the Settlement Officer dated

04.02.1987 (S.R.No.164/11(a)/82/CTR) (Ex.P.3), the Order passed by the

Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Hyderabad, dated

20.08.1999 bearing R.P.No.55/87-H1 (Ex.P.2) and the impugned Order

passed by the Court of Commissioner of Appeals, Chief Commissioner of

Land Administration bearing Proceeding No.P1/594/2000, dated 19.01.2010

(Ex.P.1) are bad in law inasmuch as the first Order passed by the Settlement

Officer dated 04.02.1987 is vitiated on the ground that the Settlement Officer

had condoned the delay of eight (8) years by Order dated 21.01.1982 without

Notice to the Revenue Officials and thereafter, passed the Final Order on

04.02.1987 (Ex.P.3) without hearing the Revenue Department. It is the

contention of the Writ Petitioner that the subject land (Acs.3.40 cents in

Kothapalem Village) is vested with the Government vide Proceeding dated

09.08.1960 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)

Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and it is classified

in the Revenue Record as ‘Topu Porambok’.

6. At the outset, the facts on record would indicate that the present

litigation, as what is projected by the Writ Petitioner (District Collector) is only

the tip of the iceberg while the genesis begins since about the years-1920s’.

The facts from 1920s’ supported by record are referred to in the concurrent

findings rendered by: (i) the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore in his Order

dated 24.05.1963; (ii) the Order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore

dated 13.11.1969; (iii) the Order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated

04.02.1987; (iv) the Order of the Special Commissioner and Director of

Settlements dated 20.08.1999; and, (v) the Order of the Commissioner of

Appeals, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration dated 19.01.2010

(impugned). All the Authorities have passed detailed Speaking Orders.

Contentions of the Unofficial Respondent Nos.3 to 5:

7. The submissions of Sri V. Jagapathi, learned Counsel appearing for the

Unofficial Respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein are culled-out from the facts

5

mentioned in the concurrent Orders of various Authorities mentioned

hereinabove.

8. The facts, as projected by Sri V. Jagapathi, learned Counsel appearing

for the Unofficial Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are that vast extent of land was under

the ‘ayacut’ irrigation of Kothapalem Tank situated in Kothapalem Village,

Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District; that it was essentially a wet land owned

by various Inamdars under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land

Act, 1908; that these land holders were in fact not undertaking any agricultural

activity and that they have rented-out the said land to various ryots (farmers)

and the ryots in-turn were paying maktha; that ‘ryoti land’ is defined under Sub

Section (15) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land

Act, 1908; during this regime when the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)

Estates Land Act, 1908 was in force, the Inamdars/Land Holders were

receiving rent in the form of portion of the produce yielded from the paddy

fields, but the Inamdars/Land Holders were not issuing any kind of receipts

with an intent to camouflage the jural relationship between Inamdars/Land

Holders and the ryots; that on 01.04.1944, the Inamdar/Land Holder, who was

in jural relationship with the ancestors of the husband of the Unofficial

Respondent No.3 (one Sri B. Guravaiah, who is the husband of Smt. Baduru

Subbamma – Respondent No.3 herein) had granted ‘Permanent Takeed’ in

favour of the ancestors of Sri B. Guravaiah; that the Government of Andhra

Pradesh has enacted the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition

and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948; that Government of Andhra Pradesh

has notified the entire ‘ayacut area’ under the irrigation of Kothapalem Tank as

Inam Estate and was taken over by the Government vide Notification dated

09.08.1960; that the said Notification dated 09.08.1960 is not only contrary to

the facts but also per se illegal; that even by the date of Notification on

09.08.1960, the entire extent of land under cultivation was not in possession

of Inamdars/Land Holders, but it was in possession of the ryoths who were the

ancestors of Unofficial Respondent Nos.3 to 5 and other similarly situated

persons (ryots); that the Inamdars/Land Holders have initiated Proceedings

6

under Sub Section (1) of Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)

Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 bearing

S.R.No.299/15(1)/62; that this enquiry was undertaken by the Assistant

Settlement Officer, Nellore, to determine the claims of the land holders

(Inamdar by name Sri K.Sampathkumar Acharyulu) for the grant of ryotwari

pattas for almost all the lands in the village; that after the completion of the

enquiry, the Assistant Settlement Officer passed an Order on 24.05.1963 in

the Proceeding initiated by the Inamdar/Land Holder namely Sri

K.Sampathkumar Acharyulu bearing S.R.No.299/15(1)/62, thereby, rejecting

the claim of the Inamdar/Land Holder; and that several ryots who are doing

the agricultural operations for decades figured as Respondents in the enquiry

undertaken by the Assistant Settlement Officer under Sub Section 1 of Section

15 of the Act, 1948.

9. It is further submitted by Sri V. Jagapathi, learned Counsel for the

Unofficial Respondent Nos.3 to 5 that the Assistant Settlement Officer in the

Order dated 24.05.1963, had pointed out that the claims of the contesting

ryots under Section 11(a) would be considered separately as and when they

file such Application; that in accordance with the direction given by the

Assistant Settlement Officer (in his Order dated 24.05.1963), the ryots filed

Applications seeking grant of ryotwari patta in their favour bearing S.R.Nos.13

to 20, S.R.Nos.22 to 24 and S.R.Nos.26 to 45; that all the applications/cases

were clubbed together and inquired into by the Assistant Settlement Officer;

that the Assistant Settlement Officer, although had clubbed cases, had

inquired into each of the Applications separately; that each of the applicants

has deposed that the lands claimed by them were devolved on them from their

ancestors; that all the lands are irrigable under Kothapalem Tank; that they

were cultivating the lands on ‘varam’ basis i.e., sharing produce between the

ryot and the land holder in equal proportion; that the ryots have stated that the

land holders never gave the receipts for the ‘produce’ given by the ryots to

them with an ulterior motive to prevent the ryots from getting pattas for the

subject lands; that the Assistant Settlement Officer had personally inspected

7

the subject lands and found that the subject lands are in the actual possession

and enjoyment of the ancestors of the Applicants; that vide Order dated

24.05.1963 in S.R.No.299/15(1)/62, the Assistant Settlement Officer had

rejected the plea of the Inamdars/Land Holders; that this Order dated

24.05.1963 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore, was

confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal; and, that this Oder of the Appellate

Tribunal had attained finality against Sri K. Sampathkumar Aacharyulu who is

the Inamdar/Land Holder.

10. It is further submitted by Sri V. Jagapathi, learned Counsel for the

Unofficial Respondents that the evidence given by the Officials as CW1 and

CW2 was common for all the cases; that the village karnam (examined as

CW1) had stated that the lands claimed by the ryots are their ancestral

properties and they are all irrigable under the Kothapalem Tank of the Village;

that the ryots (Applicants/Petitioners) have been cultivating the land for more

than 30 to 40 years by paying half of their ‘produce’ to the Inamdars/Land

Holders in the form of rent; that the Inamdars/Land Holders never issued

receipts to the ryots and that the CW1 and CW2 have stated in one voice that

the old adangal of the village from the year 1951 onwards would prove the

possession and enjoyment of the lands by the ryoths (Applicants/Petitioners)

and their predecessors in title; that the copy of this adangal (fasli 1351) was

marked as Ex.P.1 and that after completing the enquiry, the Assistant

Settlement Officer had passed an Order on 13.11.1969 (in S.R.Nos.13 to 20,

S.R.Nos.22 to 24 and S.R.Nos.26 to 45) stating that the version of the

Unofficial Respondents, as narrated hereinabove, cannot be disbelieved, as

all the lands are wet lands having irrigation facilities under Kothapalem Tank

and therefore, presumption is that the ryots (Applicants/Petitioners) have been

under continuous cultivation and irrigation for several years prior to 1948 (pre-

abolition period) and that the Government has never raised any objection

either before or after the Act, 1948 came into force with regard to the pre-

existing rights of ryots and, therefore, the pre-existing rights of the ryots

cannot be extinguished at this stage; that accordingly, the Assistant

8

Settlement Officer had ordered for issuance of ryotwari pattas in respect of

various extents of land in the cases listed before him (S.R.Nos.13 to 20, 22 to

24 and 26 to 45).

11. It is further submitted that in the year 1972, Sri B. Guravaiah (harijan)

died and his wife Smt. Baduru Subbamma continued the agricultural

operations; that Smt. Baduru Subbamma was an illiterate harijan women; that

in the year 1982, Smt. Baduru Subbamma had filed an Application bearing

S.R.No.164/11(a)/82/CTR for issuance of ryotwari patta before the Settlement

Officer, Nellore, along with an Application for condoning the delay; that the

said Application for condonation of delay came to be allowed and the delay

thereby was condoned by the Settlement Officer, Nellore, on 21.01.1982; that

Smt. Baduru Subbamma (the Unofficial Respondent No.3 herein) gave

evidence as PW1 and the neighboring farmer one Sri Poojari Changireddy

gave evidence as PW2; that Smt. Baduru Subbamma has produced cist

receipts dated 04.05.1976, 03.02.1976, 06.04.1976, 03.03.1977, 20.05.1976,

03.03.1977 and 21.03.1982; that it was contended by the Applicant that the

land under possession and control of Smt. Baduru Subbamma were wrongly

classified as ‘Topu Porambok’ without recognizing the rights of the ryots;

and, that after examining the Application of Smt. Baduru Subbamma

(Unofficial Respondent No.3) and earlier Order dated 13.11.1969 passed by

the Assistant Settlement Officer, the Settlement Officer, Nellore had passed

the Final Order on 04.02.1987 (Ex.P.3) in S.R.No.164/11(a)/82/CTR holding

as under:

“In this connection it is submitted that there are

number of applications relating to this village requesting

grant of ryotwari patta u/s.11 (a) of the E.A.Act. During the

year 1969 the then Settlement Officer enquired into the

matter and granted pattas to all the ryots stating that the

landholders did not issue any receipts to the ryots or any

takeeds in token having allotted the land to the ryots for

cultivation and issued pattas and there were no appeals

also.

Pujari Chenga Reddy was examined as P.W.2. He

deposed that he knows the petitioner and her husband and

9

the petition schedule lands. Even in the Estate regime the

petitioner and her husband used to cultivate the land. It is a

ryoti land. It is not required for communal purpose. They

used to pay L.R. to the landholder. By the time of taking

over the land is in the possession and enjoyment petitioner.

The petitioner’s husband died about 14 years back. After

his death she is cultivating the land and praying L.R. to

Government.

Considering the facts mentioned in the previous

judgment and oral evidence adduced by P.W.1 and 2, I am

opinion that the Petitioner is in possession of the land prior

to abolition and she is entitled to a ryotwari patta.

Therefore, I allow her a ryotwari patta u/s. 11(a) of the E.A.

Act."

12. It is further submitted by Sri V. Jagapathi, learned Counsel for the

Unofficial Respondents that the Joint Collector had filed a Revision Petition

bearing R.P.55/87-H1 on 15.05.1987 before the Special Commissioner and

Director of Settlements, challenging the Order passed by the Settlement

Officer, Nellore, dated 04.02.1987 in S.R.No.164/11(a)/82/CTR; that in the

said Revision Petition, the Revision Petitioner (Joint Collector) had stated that

the Order condoning the delay dated 21.01.1982 and the Final Order dated

04.02.1987 in S.R.No.164/11(a)/82/CTR was passed behind the back of the

Revision Petitioner (Jt. Collector for the Revenue Department) inasmuch as

the Order condoning the delay of 8 years dated 21.01.1982 and the

Proceedings regarding fixing the date of hearing were never communicated to

the MRO; that, apart from these procedural contentions, the Revision

Petitioner (Joint Collector) had contended that the subject land is ‘Topu

Porambok’ that is vested with the Government vide Notification dated

09.08.1960 under the Act, 1948 and that Smt. Baduru Subbamma has

approached the Settlement Officer with a gross delay of 8 years and therefore,

the Settlement Officer ought not to have entertained the Application for grant

of ryotwari patta in favour of Unofficial Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein.

13. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to

5 that Smt. Baduru Subbamma filed Counter Affidavit contending that the

10

Revision Petition filed by the Joint Collector is not maintainable inasmuch as

the said Joint Collector does not have the authorization from the Government

to file the said Revision Petition; that it was contended that the Revision

Petition is barred by limitation inasmuch as the said Revision Petition is filed

beyond 30 days contrary to the time that is provided under the statute; and,

that it was contended that the Joint Collector has not filed any Application for

Condonation of delay.

14. It is further submitted that Smt. Baduru Subbamma has placed on

record all the relevant material in support of her case before the Special

Commissioner and Director of Settlements.

15. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Unofficial Respondents

that after consideration of the case of the Revision Petitioner (Joint Collector)

as well as the Respondent No.3 herein, vide Order dated 20.08.1999 in

R.P.No.55/87-H1 (Ex.P.2), the Special Commissioner held that there is no

delay in filing the Revision Petition by the Joint Collector. The Special

Commissioner has also recorded that even before the Special Commissioner,

the Special Government Pleader who had filed the Revision Petition had

never appeared; that the Revision Petition came up for hearing on

12.01.1988, 21.03.1988, 20.07.1988, 28.12.1988, 19.04.1989, 04.02.1994,

18.03.1994 and even on 17.06.1999, when the matter was taken up finally,

neither of the parties have appeared and therefore, the Special Commissioner

and Director of Settlements had passed the said Order dated 20.08.1999

basing on the available record; that the Special Commissioner has placed

much reliance on the records relating to pre-abolition time and post abolition

time inasmuch as the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and

Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 came into force.

16. It is further submitted that the learned Special Commissioner has gone

to the root of the matter tracing the conduct of the inamdars under the Andhra

Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908 and ‘varam’ that was being

paid by the ancestors of the ryots to the Inamdars/Land Holders; that the

11

Special Commissioner had also taken into consideration the Order passed by

the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 24.05.1963 rejecting the claim of the

Inamdars/Land Holders under Section 15(1) of the Act, 1948 and also the

consequential Proceedings issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer dated

13.11.1969. Learned Counsel would submit that the Special Commissioner

had considered the Order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer dated

13.11.1969 minutely, as it is reflected in her Order dated 20.08.1999 (Ex.P.2)

and had upheld the consistent findings of the Assistant Settlement Officer

dated 24.05.1963 and 13.11.1969 and also the findings of the Settlement

Officer, Nellore dated 04.02.1987 (Ex.P.3).

17. It is further submitted that the contentions raised by the Joint Collector

that Smt. Baduru Subbamma approached the Settlement Officer with a delay

of 8 years was rejected by the Special Commissioner in her Order dated

20.08.1999 stating that the consequential Proceedings were in progress and

that Smt. Baduru Subbamma is an illiterate harijan woman and she cannot be

expected to act diligently and as such there is no delay because in the year

1972, the husband of Smt. Baduru Subbamma had died and the Respondent

No.3 herein could not have acted more swiftly under the circumstances.

18. It is further submitted that the Special Commissioner has also taken into

account the two Proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer (dated

24.05.1963 and 13.11.1969), which have attained finality, inasmuch as the

Government did not raise its little finger by challenging the said Proceeding

and therefore, the same benefit shall accrue to Smt. Baduru Subbamma as

well. The Special Commissioner had also considered the topo-sketch of the

scheduled land which clearly show that the schedule land is in the middle of

the lands for which Ryothwari Pattas were granted by the Settlement Officer,

Nellore in S.R.Nos.13 to 18, 20, 22 to 24, 26 to 45 of 2011 and came to the

conclusion that it is highly improbable to assume that the subject land

belonging to Smt. Baduru Subbamma of an extent of Acs.3.40 cents in

Sy.No.127/2 could be ‘Topu Porambok’ inasmuch as the entire land

12

surrounding the subject land has been declared as patta land and there has

been teeming agricultural activity where paddy crop is grown.

19. It is further submitted that having been aggrieved by the Order passed

by the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements in R.P.No.55/87-H1

dated 20.08.1999, the District Collector, Chittoor, has approached the Court of

Commissioner of Appeals, the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land

Administration (CCLA) by filing Revision Petition bearing No.P1/594/2000.

Smt. Baduru Subbamma was arrayed as sole Respondent. During the

pendency of the said Revision Petition before the Commissioner of Appeals,

CCLA, Smt. Baduru Subbamma died and her two sons were now arrayed as

Respondent Nos.4 and 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents would

submit that the Commissioner of Appeals, CCLA, was pleased to dismiss the

Revision Petition filed by the Joint Collector bearing No.P1/594/2000 vide

Order dated 19.01.2010 (impugned) (Ex.P.1).

20. He would submit that the Commissioner of Appeals, having considered

the concurrent findings of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 24.05.1963

and 13.11.1969 and the findings of the Settlement Officer dated 04.02.1987

and also the findings of the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements

dated 20.08.1999 in R.P.No.55/87-H1, had dismissed the Revision Petition

bearing Proceeding No.P1/594/2000 filed by the District Collector vide Order

dated 19.01.2010. He would submit that the Commissioner of Appeals had

also dealt with each and every aspect and finally came to the conclusion that

no interference is required in the Revision Petition vide Order dated

19.01.2010 (impugned) (Ex.P.1). He would also submit that during the

interregnum, subject land came to be acquired for expansion of Tirupati

Airport and the land acquisition Proceedings have been initiated. He would

also submit that the Tahsildar of Renigunta Mandal, vide Proceedings dated

28.06.2012 in RoC.B/1790/93 had directed for mutation of names of Unofficial

Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 in the Revenue Record.

13

21. Sri V. Jagapathi, learned Counsel for the Unofficial Respondent Nos.3

to 5 would submit that as against the Rejection Order passed by the Assistant

Settlement Officer dated 24.05.1963 in S.R.No.299/15(1)/62, Sri K.Sampath

kumar Acharyulu (Inamdar/Land Holder) filed an Appeal before the Estate

Abolition Tribunal and the same came to be dismissed. Sri K.Sampathkumar

Acharyulu has filed Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.181 of 1966 challenging the

dismissal order of the Estate Abolition Tribunal and the same is also

dismissed. Learned Counsel for the Unofficial Respondents would further

submit that Sri K.Sampathkumar Acharyulu has once again filed the Claim

Petition and that vide Order dated 11.06.1986 the said Claim Petition came to

be rejected on the ground that in respect of the subject land, the pattas were

already issued and that they cannot be re-opened by the Settlement Officer.

On this ground, Sri K.Sampathkumar Acharyulu was directed to apply afresh

for the survey numbers that remained unsettled.

22. Learned Counsel for the Unofficial Respondents would further submit

that after lapse of two years, son of Sri K.Sampathkumar Acharyulu, one Sri

N.K.K. Chari has filed a Claim Petition under Section 11(a) of the E.A Act,

1945 and also a separate Petition for condonation of delay under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act, which came to be rejected as being time barred. Vide

Order dated 28.09.1998 in D.Dis.No.20240/96, this was also rejected on the

ground that it is time barred. Sri N.K.K. Chari S/o Sri K.Sampthkumar

Acharyulu has filed a Revision Petition before the Special Commissioner and

Director of Settlements, A.P against the Order passed by the Joint Collector-

cum-Settlement Officer in D.Dis.No.20240/96 dated 28.09.1998. The Special

Commissioner and Director of Settlements, vide Order dated 03.04.2002 had

dismissed the Revision Petition by holding that there are no grounds to

interfere with the Order of the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer.

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement

Officer dated 28.09.1998 and Order in R.P.No.10/99 dated 03.04.2002 passed

by the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Sri N.K.K. Chari s/o

Sri K.Sampathkumar Acharyulu had filed a Revision Petition before the

14

Commissioner of Appeal, Office of CCLA bearing CCLA Proceeding

No.P3/1399/02 dated 26.11.2004. The Revision Petition was remanded to the

Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer.

23. It is submitted that the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor

has taken up the enquiry of the case in S.R.No.2/11(a)/2005. Vide Order

dated 28.01.2008, the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor was

pleased to dismiss the Revision Petition of Sri N.K.K. Chari in

S.R.No.2/11(a)/2005. It is stated that the Writ Petitions which are filed by Sri

N.K.K. Chari for various reliefs are pending on the file of this Court. This

Court is of the view that, at this stage, the outcome in these Writ Petitions do

not have any bearing on the facts of the present case in view of the fact that

the Proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 24.05.1963

and the Order dated 13.11.1969 have attained finality in favour of the ryoths in

whose favour ryotwari pattas have been issued. The case of the present

Unofficial Respondent Nos.3 to 5 is also the same as that of ryoths who were

granted ryotwari pattas vide Proceedings dated 24.05.1963 & 13.11.1969.

Analysis and Findings:

24. This Court has perused the Orders passed by the Settlement Officer

dated 04.02.1987, the Order passed by the Special Commissioner and

Director of Settlements dated 20.08.1999 and the impugned Order dated

19.01.2010. Amongst the documents that are placed on record, the crucial

document that conveys not only the concurrent findings on facts but also

earlier history is the Order passed by the Special Commissioner and Director

of Settlements dated 20.08.1999 in R.P.No.55/87-H1 (Ex.P.2). This is

because the said Order had even referred to the material documents that

were there before the Assistant Settlement Officer when he had rejected the

claim of the Inamdars/Land Holders vide Order dated 24.05.1963 and had

allowed grant of pattas in favour of the ryots vide Order dated 13.11.1969. In

fact, the learned Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements took the

15

pains to extract the entire Order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated

13.11.1969 that speaks of all the facts which have been noted hereinabove.

25. Although the findings are concurrent, both on facts and law, in favour of

the Unofficial Respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein starting from the Assistant

Settlement Officer’s Proceedings till the Proceedings of the Commissioner of

Appeals (CCLA) (impugned herein), since all such Orders are quasi-judicial in

nature, this Court has also taken pains to go through each and every Order

referred to hereinabove in a threadbare manner.

26. At the outset, this Court notices the fact that the two Orders passed by

the Assistant Settlement Officer (24.05.1963 and 13.11.1969) have attained

finality. These two orders have given finality to the ‘substantive rights’ of the

ryots who are similarly situated as that of the Unofficial Respondents herein

and their ancestors. For the first time, the Government had ever thought of

filing a Revision Petition is against the consequential Order passed by the

Settlement Officer dated 04.02.1987 in favour of Smt. Baduru Subbamma.

This Court has noticed that this Order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated

04.02.1987 itself is a consequential Order inasmuch as all the similarly placed

ryots were granted ryotwari pattas vide Order dated 13.11.1969 and Smt.

Baduru Subbamma could not file an Application for grant of patta for the

personal reasons mentioned therein (like the death of her husband and the

pendency of other Proceedings and also the fact that she is an illiterate and a

harijan woman).

27. Another nuance attached to the concept of finality is that when an Order

had conferred ‘substantive rights’ on the parties and such an Order has

attained finality, all the consequential proceedings that emanate out of that

order shall follow the substantive order as a binding precedent, thereby,

disallowing a litigant to reopen the ‘substantive rights’ in the guise of a

consequential proceeding. The Courts must be conscious of the sinister

attempts that may be made by the parties to somehow penetrate into the

order that had conferred substantive right and had attained finality through

16

collateral or consequential proceedings. This is clearly impermissible in law

besides being an antithesis to the ‘doctrine of finality’.

28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalyan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

and others; 1961 SCC Online SC 82, held in para 16 as under:

“16. The Regional Transport Authority was by the

terms of the scheme left no discretion in the matter. It was

by the scheme that the right of the appellant was

restricted and if the scheme became final and binding

the Regional Transport Authority had no authority to

permit the appellant to ply his vehicles. The order

passed by the Regional Transport Authority was

purely consequential on the scheme, and if the

scheme is not open to challenge, orders

consequential thereon will not also be open to

challenge. We are supported in this view by the

observations of this Court in Abdul Gafoor : Proprietor,

Shaheen Motor Service v. State of Mysore [AIR 1961 SC

1556] that:

“It appears to us that when deciding that

action to take under Section 68-F(1) the

authority is tied down by the terms and

conditions of the approved scheme and his

duty is merely to do what is necessary to

give effect to the provisions of the schemes.

The refusal to entertain applications for

renewal of permits or cancellation of

permits or modification of terms of existing

permits really flow from the scheme. The

duty is therefore merely mechanical; and it

will be incorrect to say that there is in these

matters any lis between the existing

operators and the State Transport

Authority. There is no justification therefore

for saying that when taking action under

Section 68-F(2) is really independent of the

issue of the permits under Section 68-F(1).

Once the scheme has been approved,

action under Section 68-F(1) flows from it

and at the same time action under Section

68-F(2) flows from the game scheme”. We

are bound by this decision.

17

29. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie

Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy; (2003) 7 SCC 667, held in para No.9 as

under:

9. Even before the Division Bench of the High Court in

the writ appeals, the appellants did not contend that the

suo motu power could be exercised even after a long

delay of 13-15 years because of the fraudulent acts of

the non-official respondents. The focus of attention

before the Division Bench was only on the language of

sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act as to whether

the suo motu power could be exercised at any time

strictly sticking to the language of that sub-section or it

could be exercised within reasonable time. In the

absence of necessary and sufficient particulars pleaded

as regards fraud and the date or period of discovery of

fraud and more so when the contention that the suo

motu power could be exercised within a reasonable

period from the date of discovery of fraud was not

urged, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division

Bench of the High Court were right in not examining the

question of fraud alleged to have been committed by

the non-official respondents. “Use of the words “at any

time” in sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act only

indicates that no specific period of limitation is

prescribed within which the suo motu power could be

exercised reckoning or starting from a particular date

advisedly and contextually. Exercise of suo motu power

depended on facts and circumstances of each case. In

cases of fraud, this power could be exercised within a

reasonable time from the date of detection or discovery

of fraud. While exercising such power, several factors

need to be kept in mind such as effect on the rights of

the third parties over the immovable property due to

passage of considerable time, change of hands by

subsequent bona fide transfers, the orders attaining

finality under the provisions of other Acts (such as the

Land Ceiling Act). Hence, it appears that without stating

from what date the period of limitation starts and within

what period the suo motu power is to be exercised, in

sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act, the words “at

any time” are used so that the suo motu power could be

exercised within reasonable period from the date of

discovery of fraud depending on facts and

circumstances of each case in the context of the statute

and nature of rights of the parties. Use of the words “at

any time” in sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act

cannot be rigidly read letter by letter. It must be read

18

and construed contextually and reasonably. If one has

to simply proceed on the basis of the dictionary

meaning of the words “at any time”, the suo motu power

under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act could

be exercised even after decades and then it would lead

to anomalous position leading to uncertainty and

complications seriously affecting the rights of the

parties, that too, over immovable properties. Orders

attaining finality and certainty of the rights of the

parties accrued in the light of the orders passed

must have sanctity. Exercise of suo motu power “at

any time” only means that no specific period such as

days, months or years are not ( sic) prescribed

reckoning from a particular date. But that does not

mean that “at any time” should be unguided and

arbitrary. In this view, “at any time” must be understood

as within a reasonable time depending on the facts and

circumstances of each case in the absence of

prescribed period of limitation.”

30. In Indu Bhusan Jana Vs. Union of India & Ors; 2008 SCC Online Cal

626, the Hon’ble Division Bench of Calcuta High Court held in para No.11 as

under:

“11. Upon an order attaining finality, it matters little as

to whether it was erroneous. A party aggrieved by an

order has to work out his remedies within the legal

framework. If an issue or the entire lis is concluded

upon a finding being rendered and such finding

remains unchallenged, it is no longer open to the

party to undo the effect thereof at any subsequent

stage or collaterally unless it is demonstrated that

the finding was obtained by fraud or the Court

lacked jurisdiction to pass the order. The hierarchy

in the judiciary exists to afford litigants to climb up the

ladder in pursuit of justice and to right a wrong

committed at a lower level. But if a litigant accepts an

order, he does it to his prejudice and binds himself

thereby.”

(Emphasis supplied)

31. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amarjeet Singh and others Vs. Devi

Ratan and others; (2010) 1 SCC 417, held in para 28 as under:

28. In the instant case, promotions had been made by

two different DPCs held on 19-12-1998 and 22-1-1999.

Both DPCs had made promotions under different Rules

on different criterion and their promotions had been

19

made with retrospective effect with different dates

notionally. In the writ petition before the High Court, the

promotion of the appellants had not been under

challenge. The seniority which is consequential to the

promotions could not be challenged without challenging

the promotions. Challenging the consequential order

without challenging the basic order is not

permissible. (Vide P. Chitharanja Menon v. A.

Balakrishnan [(1977) 3 SCC 255 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 378

: AIR 1977 SC 1720] .)

(Emphasis supplied)

32. In Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. District Deputy Registrar, Co -

Operative Societies (3), Mumbai and Others; 2025 SCC Online SC 688

(SLP (Civil) No.26654 of 2023) dated 01.04.2025. The Hon’ble Apex Court

held in Para 13 of the said Judgment as under:

“13. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that

once a Competent Authority (quasi-judicial in nature)

settles an issue, that determination attains finality

unless it is set aside in accordance with law.”

33. In any case, the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements has

recorded the historical facts before coming into force the Andhra Pradesh

(Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and

also after coming into force of the said Act. The facts projected by the ryots,

substantiated by unimpeachable documentary evidence, would indicate that

ancestors of the Respondents were in possession and cultivation of the land

almost 30 to 40 years prior to the date of enactment of the Andhra Pradesh

(Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.

Even thereafter, the subsequent Proceedings would also indicate that the

evidence which is in favour of the ryots and against the Government is so

overwhelming, which has already been noted hereinabove and for the sake of

brevity, this Court is rather avoiding repetition of the same facts.

34. As stated earlier, this Court has gone through the crucial Order passed

by the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements in R.P.No.55/87-H1,

dated 20.08.1999 (Ex.P.2). This Order contains graphic details of all the facts

20

relevant for understanding the present case including the Proceedings of the

Assistant Settlement Officer dated 24.05.1963 & 13.11.1969 that have

undoubtedly and admittedly attained finality. This Court has also noticed that,

insofar as plea of delay raised by the Writ Petitioner herein (District Collector)

in S.R.No.164/11(a)/82/CTR, it is noted by the Special Commissioner and

Director of Settlements in her Order dated 20.08.1999 to the effect that there

is no delay on the part of Smt. Baduru Subbamma in approaching the

Settlement Officer. The Special Commissioner has noted that in pursuance of

the Order of the Settlement Officer in S.R.No.299/15(1)/62, the husband of

Respondent No.3 ought to have pursued the matter but he had passed away

in the year 1972 and the Respondent No.3 herein who is an illiterate and a

harijan lady filed a Petition before the Settlement Officer, for which the then

Settlement Officer has condoned the delay and admitted the Claim Petition of

the Respondent No.3. It was specifically stated by the Special Commissioner

and Director of Settlements in her Order dated 20.08.1999 after going through

the entire record that was there before her, that the Order dated 21.01.1982 of

the Settlement Officer (condoning the delay) was communicated to the

Officials of the Revenue Department, as is visible at the end of the Order that

the copies were marked to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Renigunta by RPAD

and the said Order has never been challenged by the Joint Collector.

35. In this view of the matter, the Special Commissioner had held that it

cannot be said that filing of the Claim Petition by Smt. Baduru Subbamma

before the Settlement Officer is barred by limitation. This apart, it is noticed

that the Settlement Officer vide Order dated 04.02.1987 as well as the Special

Commissioner and the Director of Settlements in her Order dated 20.08.1999

had also, threadbare dealt with the case on merits and held in favour of the

Unofficial Respondents herein. Therefore, this Court holds that the quasi-

judicial bodies in this case have dealt with the alleged procedural lapses as

well as on merits by delving deep into the factual details. While going through

the pleadings, particularly, the Counter Affidavits filed by Unofficial

Respondent No.4 to the Additional Affidavits filed by the Writ Petitioner, this

21

Court has noticed that Respondent No.4 (Sri B. Jayaram) is now aged about

63 years. Admittedly, the father of Respondent Nos.4 & 5 (Sri B. Guravaiah)

had died in the year 1972 and that the widowed mother of the Respondent

Nos.4 & 5 (i.e., Smt. Baduru Subbamma) who is a harijan and illiterate was

fighting-out this litigation relentlessly, that is initiated by the Official

Respondents.

36. The Official Respondents, knowing full well that the Government is

fighting a battle against the helpless harijan women in a situation where

several substantive Orders against the Government had attained finality,

continued to challenge only the consequential and collateral Proceedings with

full knowledge that the Appellate Fora would follow the same substantive legal

course that was applied to the similarly situated ryots, who have already been

granted ryotwari pattas. The Official Respondents have taken a course to

carry on with not only this frivolous litigation but also a vexatious one in view

of the fact that the first son of Smt. Baduru Subbamma is now aged about 62

years, which means that the widowed mother had been fighting for the rights

when the Respondent No.4 was in his teens and Respondent No.5 was just a

toddler. It is indicated that Respondent No.5 is now aged about 50 years.

37. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the

present Writ Petition is not only devoid of merit but is a gross abuse of

process. As indicated earlier that the Orders under challenge, which gave

concurrent findings, are all quasi-judicial in nature. Since this Court, had

judicially dealt with this case for the first time now, it has refrained from

imposing exemplary costs against the Government. The said Proceeding

would reflect that the Officers who have taken decision to file the present Writ

Petition had done it in a casual and mechanical manner. This apart, as

indicated earlier, the subsequent events would indicate that the subject land

stood acquired. Therefore, it is needless to state that the Unofficial

Respondent Nos.4 & 5 shall be entitled to the compensation under the Land

Acquisition Proceedings in accordance with law.

22

38. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order

as to costs.

39. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

_________________________________

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

Dt: 05.06.2025

Note: LR Copy to be marked

B/o. Vns/Mnr

23

42

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION No.29039 OF 2011

Dt: 05.06.2025

Note: LR Copy to be marked

B/o. Vns/Mnr