As per case facts, the petitioner sought a declaration that Rushikonda Agraharam is a pre-settlement Inam Village and that certain lands are Inam lands. The Primary Tribunal found in favor ...
Date of reserved for orders : 22.04.2026
Date of pronouncement : 10.08.2026
Date of uploading : 10.08.2026
APHC010319042022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3233]
MONDAY, THE 10
th
DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 19093/2022
Between:
1. T. V. SAI KUMAR, S/O LATE T.V.V. SATYANARAYANA, HINDU,
AGED 49 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 302-B, DURGA RESIDENCY,
SARADA STREET, DABA GARDENS, VISA KHAPATNAM
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY(REVENUE DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT,
AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE DISTRICT JOINT COLLECTOR, COLLECTRATE
COMPLEX, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM
3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTRATE COMPLEX,
MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM
4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BHEEMUNIPATNAM,
5. THE TAHASILDAR, VISAKHAPTNAM RURAL MANDAL,
CHINNAGADILI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT
6. THE SPI DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, COLLECTRATE COMPLEX,
INAMS, VISAKHAPATNAM
7. INDUKURI SATYANARAYANA RAJU, S/O. LATE
2
SATYANARAYANA RAJU, R/O.D.NO.10 -28-4/ 14, KAILASH
METTA, WALTAIR UPLANDS, BESIDE LOTUS HOSPITAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM -530003.
8. ALLURI VENKATA SATYANARAYANA RAJU, S/O. LATE A.V.S.
APPALARAJU, R/O. APEXRAR,3RD FLOOR, Y.L.P. LAYOUT,
YENDADA, VISAKHAPATNAM.
9. ALLURI BANGARAMMA, W/O. A.V.S. RAJU,
R/O.APEXRAR,3RDFLOOR, Y.L.P. LAYOUT, YENDADA,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
10. ALLURI DEEPTHI, W/O. ANISH, R/O. APEXRAR, R/O.
3RDFLOOR,Y.L.P. LAYOUT, YENDADA, VISAKHAPATNAM
11. DANGETI RAMA TULASAMMA, W/O. LATESATYANARAYANA
, R/O. D.NO.50-112-43, FLAT NO.407, CRESENT TOWERS,
OPP.EENADU, SEETHAMMADHARA,VISAKHAPATNAM -
530013.
12. JAMPANA RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, S/O. LATE. RAMA
CHANDRA RAJU, R/O.D.NO.39 -9-103/5,MURALINAGAR,
VISAKHAPATNAM -530007.
13. PERAKAPADMAJA, W/O. MORRIANAND, R/O. D.NO.32 -10-
38, SHEELANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM
14. PINJALASHAILAJA, W/O. BALLA RAVI KUMAR, R/O. D.NO.44 -
34-11/C, NANDAGIRI NAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM,
VISAKHAPATNAM -530016.
15. VETUKURI SURYA KUMARI, S/O. W/O. V. RAMAKRISHNA
RAJU, R/O. D.NO.1 -65-43/1, SECTOR-2, LIG-51, MVP
COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM -530017.
16. VETUKURIPRABHAKARRAJU, S/O. LATE. V.V.
SATYANARAYANARAJU, R/O. D.NO.1 -65-43/1, SECTOR-2,
LIG-51, MVP COLONY,VISAKHAPATNAM -530017.
17. VETUKURI VIJAY KUMAR RAJU, S/O. LATE V.V.S.RAJU,
R/O.FLAT NO.1614, LANSUM OXYGENTOWERS, BEHIND
RYTHU BAZAR, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM -
530017.
3
18. VETUKURI PADMAVATHI, W/O. LATE V.V.S. RAJU, SECTOR -
2RLIG-51, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM -530017.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court
may be pleased tobe pleased to direct all respondents not to create
encumbrance or make any alienations and effect transactions in respect
of the schedule lands in E- office No. 135098/2018/ SDT(I) dated
08.01.2021 pertaining to Rushikonda Agraharam Village of
Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased pleased to direct all respondents not to create encumbrance
or make any alienations and effect transactions in respect of the
schedule lands in E- office No. 135098/ 2018/SDT(I) dated 08.01.2021
pertaining to Rushikonda Agraharam Village of Visakhapatnam Rural
Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. and to pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased pleased to suspend the order of the 3rd Respondent in
D.Dis.No. 240/2021, dt: 26-3-2022 and signed on 30-3-2022 pending
disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased pleased to vacate the Interim order dated 06.07.2022
passed in W.P.No.19093 of 2022 and dismiss the Writ Petition and to
pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
4
be pleased Pleased to vacate the interim order dated 06-07-2022 in WP
No. 19093/2022 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased Pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein to file the
counter affidavit in the W.P No. 19093 of 2022 in the interest of Justice
or otherwise the petitioner will be put irreparable loss and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased may be pleased i) to vacate the interim order in I. A No.
2/2022 in W.P. No. 19093 of 2022 dated 06.07.2022 ii) to dismiss the
writ petition as there is no merits in the Writ Petition and nothing but
frivolous one and dismiss the same with exemplary costs and pass.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P SRI RAM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
2. GP FOR REVENUE
3. V V RAVI PRASAD
The Court made the following Order:
5
Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Government Pleader for the official respondents and the learned Senior
Counsel for the unofficial respondents.
2. This writ petition was filed questioning the orders passed by the
3
rd
respondent in D.Dis.No.240/2021 dated 26.03.2022 signed on
30.03.2022 to set aside the same and to confirm the orders of the
6
th
respondent dated 08.01.2021 passed u/s.3 of the Inam Abolition Act,
1956 and to pass appropriate orders by declaring that the proceedings
under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 relating to Rushikonda Agraharam
Village of Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal of Visakhapatnam District are
null and void as the said village is to be treated as enfranchised Inam
and not an Estate.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
“Rushikonda Agraharam” is a “pre-settlement Inam Village” in the
present Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal of Visakhapatnam District and
the then Inam Commissioner enfranchised an extent of Ac.258.96 cents
in Rushikonda Agraharam Village in the year 1865 on a nominal quit
rent of Rs.71/- in favour of 23 persons and issued title deed No.1254 for
a part of the village to an extent of Ac.258.96 cents covered by old
Survey Nos.2, 3, 4, 7, 12, 14, 19, 21, 23 and 25. The petitioner
submitted an application before the 6
th
respondent dated 16.08.2018
under section 3(1) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inam (Abolition and
6
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 to determine the nature of the Inam
lands u/s.3(1) of the I.A. Act, 1956 pertaining to T.D.No.1254 in an
extent of Ac.258.96 cents of Rushikonda Agraharam Village. The
6
th
respondent did not take up enquiry on the said application of the
petitioner dated 16.08.2018, hence he was constrained to file
W.P.No.39588 of 2018 before the erstwhile High Court of A.P. at
Hyderabad and by order dated 13.11.2018, the 6
th
respondent was
directed to dispose of the said application of the petitioner dated
16.08.2018 within two months from the date of receipt of the said order.
Then the 6
th
respondent took up the enquiry on the application of the
petitioner dated 16.08.2018 and issued Form-I notice dated 11.12.2018
to the petitioner and the 5
th
respondent. Then the petitioner filed
statement of particulars and documents before the 6
th
respondent but
the 5
th
respondent did not file any statement of particulars and
documents before the 6
th
respondent and the 5
th
respondent addressed
a letter dated 30.12.2020 to the 6
th
respondent stating that the pre-
abolition records are not available in his office. The 6
th
respondent
finally passed orders vide proceedings No.135098/2018 SDT Inams
dated 08.01.2021 stating that the petition schedule lands for an extent
of Ac.234.22 cents covered by T.D.No.1254 of Rushikonda Agraharam
village are (1) Inam lands, (2) in an Inam village and (3) not held by an
institution.
7
3. Against the orders of the 6
th
respondent, the 5
th
respondent
preferred an appeal under section 3(4) of the I.A. Act, 1956 before the
3
rd
respondent claiming that an extent of Ac.26.69 cents out of
Ac.234.22 cents are the Government lands. The 2
nd
respondent
numbered the appeal as R.C.No.240/2021 and the 3
rd
respondent
issued notices to the petitioner and the 5
th
& 6
th
respondents and
detailed counters were filed by the petitioner and the 6
th
respondent and
some third parties filed implead petitions pending appeal before the
3
rd
respondent and the implead petitions were numbered as
Rc.96/2022, Rc.97/2022, Rc.98/2022, Rc.96/2022, Rc.99/2022,
Rc.100/2022, Rc.101/2022 and Rc.102/2022 and the implead petitions
were clubbed with R.C.No.240/2021 and the 3
rd
respondent without
giving sufficient opportunity of hearing, erroneously passed orders
under section 3(4) of the Inam Abolition Act, 1956 by allowing the
appeal preferred by the 5
th
respondent, by setting aside the order of the
6
th
respondent. Section 3(4) of the I.A. Act, 1956 says “Any person or
institution aggrieved by a decision of Tahsildar under sub-section (3)
may appeal to the Revenue Court within 60 days from the date of
communication of the decision, and the Revenue Court may after giving
the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass
such orders on the appeal as it things fit”. But the 3
rd
respondent
without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing, passed the orders dated
26.03.2022 which is assailed in this writ petition.
8
4. As stated supra, the third parties filed implead petitions on
06.03.2021 and they were numbered on 12.01.2022 as Rc.96/2022,
Rc.97/2022, Rc.98/2022, Rc.96/2022, Rc.99/2022, Rc.100/2022,
Rc.101/2022 and Rc.102/2022 and notices were issued to the petitioner
in the implead petitions mentioning that 29.01.2022 was the first hearing
and on that day the petitioner‟s counsel filed Vakalat in all the implead
petitions and counters were filed on 05.03.2022 and the 3
rd
respondent
in his orders dated 26.03.2022 stated that the implead petitions were
allowed on 06.05.2021 itself and the said order of the 3
rd
respondent is
blatant error on the face of the record. The learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that Rushikonda Agraharam Village was
notified and taken over by the government under G.O.Ms.No.2148
Revenue dated 25.11.1958 as 1936 post Inam Estate under the Estates
Abolition Act, 1948 on 07.01.1959 and the said notification was
quashed by the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in W.P.No.442 of 1962
dated 16.07.1964. The 3
rd
respondent came to a conclusion that the
said order became final. The 3
rd
respondent in his orders stated that
the G.O.Ms.No.2148 dated 25.11.1958 was quashed with reference to
the enquiry relating to Burravanipalem Village but not relating to the
enquiry of the other villages in the notification and the 3
rd
respondent
has no authority to interpret the judgment of the High Court.
5. The Rushikonda Agraharam is an Inam village as per the Fort
St.George Gazette dated 23.05.1950 and as per the General Clauses
9
Act, 1897, sub-section 39 of Section 3 of the Act says “official gazette or
gazette shall mean the gazette of India or the official gazette of a State”
and Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act speaks “presumption as to
gazettes, newspapers, private acts of parliament and other documents
and as per the gazette dated 23.05.1950, Rushikonda is a whole Inam
village and this village attracts the provisions of I.A. Act, 1956 and
Section 2(d) of the I.A. Act, 1956 says “Inam village means a village
designated as such in the revenue accounts of the Government. The
5
th
respondent addressed a letter dated 21.01.2013 to the
6
th
respondent informing that Rushikonda is a Inam village and the
tenure of the village was decided in the year 1950 even before the
enactment of the I.A. Act, 1956 and all enfranchised Inam lands attracts
the provisions of the I.A. Act, 1956. As per Section 2(j) of the I.A. Act,
1956, the 6
th
respondent alone is having jurisdiction to decide the nature
of the Inam lands under Section 3(1) of the act with regard to Inam
villages. As stated supra, when the entire G.O.Ms.No.2148 dated
25.11.1958 was set aside, the 3
rd
respondent erroneously passed
orders stating that the 6
th
respondent has no jurisdiction to pass orders
under the I.A. Act, 1956. The 3
rd
respondent acted in contravention of
the judgment of the erstwhile High Court in W.P. No.442 of 1962 by
allowing the appeal of the 5
th
respondent. When an appeal was filed
under Section 3(4) of the I.A. Act, 1956 before the 3
rd
respondent by the
5
th
respondent, the 3
rd
respondent has to confine his jurisdiction
10
pertaining to I.A. Act, 1956 only but the 3
rd
respondent stepped out of
his jurisdiction and gave a finding that SFA is already in force.
6. On the other hand, the respondent counsels relying upon the
counter affidavits of the respondents submit that the village
„Rushikonda‟ was taken over by the Government under the provisions of
Estate Abolition Act, 1948 on 07.01.1959. The survey and settlement
operations were conducted and settlement rates were introduced in this
village with effect from 07.01.1959 and since then the revenue
administration of the village is being carried out as per the final
settlement records prepared under the Act. While so, after lapse of
more than 60 years, the petitoner filed a petition claiming himself as
great-great grandson of Inamdar u/s.3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh
(Andhra area) Inam (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 to
determine the nature of Inam lands pertaining to T.D.No.1254 in an
extent of Ac.258.96 cents of Rushikonda Agraharam Village of
Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal of Visakhapatnam District on 22.09.2012
before the Primary Tribunal cum Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) at
Visakhapatnam and the said authority has informed to the
2
nd
respondent vide letter dated 22.09.2012 and also to the
5
th
respondent for certain clarification and finally issued endorsement
dated 29.01.2013 in L.Dis. No.7930/2012/JA (Inams) that Rushikonda
Agraharam might have been clubbed during the survey and as such the
provisions under Inam Abolition Act are not applicable as the
11
Rushikonda Village is already declared as settled village in all respects.
Aggrieved by the said order of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams),
Visakhapatnam dated 29.01.2013, the petitioner filed W.P.No.15350 of
2013 dated 30.04.2013 before the erstwhile Hon‟ble High Court and the
same was allowed by setting aside the impugned endorsement issued
by the said Tribunal dated 29.01.2013 directing further to issue notice to
the petitioner indicating the grounds on which the said Tribunal
proceeded to reject the petitioner‟s application and after giving an
opportunity to the petitioner of being heard only, the said Tribunal shall
pass fresh orders within two months from the date of receipt of the said
order of the High Court.
7. In pursuance of the orders in W.P.No.15350 of 2013 dated
15.04.2014, a representation was given to the Special Deputy Tahsildar
(Inams), Visakhapatnam on 16.06.2014 and the said authority issued a
notice A.I.P. No.13/2014/SDT(I), dated 18.06.2014 to the petitioner with
a direction to furnish the information as per the notice and accordingly a
written explanation was furnished by the petitioner to the said authority
on 19.07.2014 and the said authority vide A.I.P. No.13/2014 dated
20.09.2014 rejected the petitioner‟s application u/s.3(1) of the I.A. Act,
1956 inter alia holding that the village Rushikonda (Agraharam) was
notified and taken over by the Government u/s.1(4) of the Estate
Abolition Act, 1948 on 07.01.1959 and the Special Deputy Tahsildar
(Inams), Visakhapatnam has no jurisdiction to enquire into the matter
12
under the I.A. Act, 1956 at this juncture pertaining to T.D.No.1254 Inam
lands situated in Rushikonda Agraharam Village. Questioning the said
order of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam dated
20.09.2014, the petitioner filed W.P.No.39798 of 2014 and after filing
counter by the respondent therein, it was dismissed as withdrawn.
Though the said order of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams),
Visakhapatnam dated 20.09.2014 became final, the petitioner filed
another application on 16.08.2018 for initiation of an enquiry u/s.3(1) of
I.A. Act, 1956 and by suppressing the material facts, he filed
W.P.No.39588 of 2018 and sought for disposal of the said application.
The erstwhile High Court by its order dated 13.11.2018 was pleased to
dispose of the writ petition by observing that „without expressing any
opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
3
rd
respondent therein i.e., SDT (Inams) to dispose of the application of
the petitioner dated 16.08.2018 in accordance with law, within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.
8. In pursuance of the same, the then SDT (Inams) has initiated
enquiry by issuing Form-I notice dated 12.12.2018 u/s.3(1) of the I.A.
Act, 1956 and finally passed orders u/s.3(3) of Inam Abolition Act dated
08.01.2021 holding that the lands covered by T.D.No.1254 of
Rushikonda Agraharam Village are Inam lands situated in Inam Village
and not held by any institution. Aggrieved by the said orders, the
5
th
respondent filed an appeal before the 3
rd
respondent u/s.3(4) of the
13
A.P. Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari Patta) Act, 1956 on
the ground that the lands in an extent of Ac.26.69 cents in Sy. Nos.4/7,
12/5B, 13/1B, 14/1B, 2/4, 2/15, 25/9B, 43/2, 35/2, 35/1 & 53/17A of
Rushikonda Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam
which are classified as poramboke lands vested to Government. The
said Appellate Authority/3
rd
respondent allowed the appeal setting aside
the orders of the SDT (Inams) dated 08.01.2021 passed u/s.3(3) of the
A.P. Inams Abolition Act, 1956 vide proceedings D.Dis.No.240/2021
dated 26.03.2022 and signed on 30.03.2022. Aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner filed this writ petition.
9. The respondent counsels further submit that the order of the
Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam dated 08.01.2021
suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction as he becomes functus officio to
initiate enquiry again u/s.3(1) of the Act for the reason that his
predecessor in his office already conducted an enquiry and passed
orders u/s.3(3) of Inam Abolition Act, 1956 on 20.09.2014 by holding
that the lands in question are not inam lands within the meaning of Inam
Abolition Act and rejected the claim of the petitioner. The said orders
attained finality as the Hon‟ble Court dismissed the writ petition as
withdrawn filed against the orders of the SDT (Inams) by its order dated
25.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.39798 of 2014. The order of the erstwhile
High Court passed in W.P.No.442 of 1962 dated 16.07.1964 has no
application to the case on hand. The purport of the judgment is clear
14
that the notification relating to the Burravanipalem Village alone was
quashed. The facts of that case are that in 1950, settlement officer
conducted an enquiry u/s.9 of the Estate Abolition Act and on
01.02.1956 he has given a finding that the grant in favour of the land
holder was confined to malavaram only and no kudivaram rights were
granted. Against the order of settlement officer, land holder filed an
appeal in A.S.No.17 of 1956 before the Estate Tribunal u/s.9(4)(c) of the
Estate Abolition Act. The Tribunal gave finding that both warams were
granted to land holder, but Tribunal has not given any finding as to
whether Burravanipalem Village is an Inam Estate within the meaning of
Section 2(7) of the Estate Land Act so as to notify the Burravanipalem
Village as an Inam Estate by the Government under Sub-section (4) of
Section 1 of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 vide G.O.Ms.No.2148 dated
25.11.1958.
10. One Neelapu Chinna Appanna Reddy, the land holder f iled
W.P.No.442 of 1962 assailing the validity of the notification on the
ground that Burravanipalem was notified without determining the village
as Inam Estate u/s.9 of the E.A. Act, 1948 and the Hon‟ble Court while
setting aside the notification, liberty was given to the parties to establish
that the village is an Inam Estate under the Estate Abolition Act. Thus
the decision of the Hon‟ble Court in setting aside the notification therein
is confined only to the Burravanipalem Village i.e., item No.34 in the
schedule to the notification. By no stretch of imagination striking off
15
Burravanipalem Village from the notification could be extended to all the
other 205 villages which were also notified along with Burravanipalem in
G.O.Ms.No.2148 dated 25.11.1958. When the validity of inclusion of all
other villages in the notification is not at all the subject matter of the writ
petition and the notification was not impugned or questioned either by
the Inamdars or by the tenants of other villages, much less when neither
the land holder nor the tenants of Rushikonda Village have questioned
the notification, it is baseless to contend that notification with regard to
Rushikonda Village was also set aside by the Hon‟ble High Court in
W.P.No.442 of 1962.
11. As stated supra, in pursuance of the notification issued under
Sub-section 4 of the Section 1 of the Estate Abolition Act, Inam Estate
of Rushikonda whole village was taken over by the Government and in
consequence thereof the Estate was abolished and Ryotwari settlement
were introduced in 1959 by granting Ryotwari Pattas to the land holders
and ryots as per their entitlements after payment of compensation to
land holders. Those proceedings under the Estate Abolition Act attained
finality as long back as in the year 1959. In view of the above, it is clear
that Rushikonda village was an Inam Estate and not an Inam Village
within the meaning of the Inam Abolition Act, 1956 and the question of
invoking the provisions of Inam Abolition Act does not arise. The order
of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam is exfacie
without jurisdiction, void and non est in the eye of law. Once Inam
16
Estate was abolished and Ryotwari settlement operations were
introduced in the year 1959, after making payment of compensation to
Inamdars under Estate Abolition Act, now seeking an enquiry under I.A.
Act, 1956, after lapse of 60 years by a person claiming to be great
grandson of the Inamdar, is speculative in nature and no one should be
allowed to take undue advantage of their own wrong as settled position
cannot be unsettled after long lapse of time. Hence the writ petition is
misconceived, frivolous and speculative in nature and as such liable to
be dismissed at the threshold that too which was filed without availing
the alternative remedy provided in the Inam Abolition Act, 1956.
12. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, upon
consideration of the rival submissions made and on perusal of the
material available on record, it is to be seen that the 5
th
respondent filed
the above said appeal before the 3
rd
respondent u/s.3(4) of A.P. Inams
(Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari Patta) Act, 1956 questioning the
order passed by the Primary Tribunal cum Special Deputy Tahsildar
(Inam), Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam in In am Case
No.135098/2018/SDT (Inams) dated 08-01-2021 with respect to the
land in an extent of Ac.26.69 cents in Sy.Nos.4/7, 12/5B, 13/1B, 14/1B,
2/4, 2/15, 25/9B, 43/2, 35/2, 35/1, 53/17A of Rushikonda Village,
Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam, in which the writ
petitioner is the 2
nd
respondent therein. The unofficial respondents
herein are also the impleaded respondents therein. The said appeal
17
was allowed by setting aside the order of the Special Deputy Tahsildar
(Inams) vide order dated 26.03.2022 which is assailed in this writ
petition as the petitioner is aggrieved of the same.
13. It is the case of the petitioner that the 5
th
respondent has no right
or authority to file the above said appeal before the 3
rd
respondent and if
at all the State is aggrieved of the orders passed by the Primary
Tribunal cum Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inam), Revenue Division,
Visakhapatnam, the State should have preferred such an appeal but not
by the 5
th
respondent since he cannot represent the State. When the
application of the petitioner dated 16.08.2018 was pending before the
Primary Tribunal i.e., the 1
st
respondent in the above said appeal for
determination of the nature of Inam lands covered by T.D.No.1254 for
an extent of Ac.258.96 cents of Rushikonda Agraharam Village, the
5
th
respondent herein instead of filing the statement of particulars,
addressed a letter in Rc.No.31/2013/A dated 30.12.2020 to the Primary
Tribunal stating that the pre-abolition records are not available in their
office pertaining to Rushikonda Agraharam Village. Whereas, the
petitioner herein filed the statement of particulars before the above said
Primary Tribunal stating that the petition schedule lands covered by
T.D.No.1254 are Inam lands in an Inam Village and not held by the
institution. The petitioner herein submits that the Primary Tribunal after
verifying the statement of particulars, documents and scrutinizing the
records of the Rushikonda Agraharam Village finally came to a
18
conclusion that the petition schedule lands covered under T.D.No.1254
of Rushikonda Agraharam Village are Inam Lands in an Inam Village
and not held by any institution.
14. According to the petitioner, IFR and Inam-B Register disclose that
an extent of Ac.258.96 cents of land in Rushikonda Agraharam Village
was enfranchised by the Inam Commissioner on a quit rent of Rs.71/- in
favour of his great-great grandfather Tadiparthi Janardhana Swamy and
others by issuing Title Deed No.1254 in the year 1865. These
undisputed documents, entries and proceedings prevail over any other
documentary evidence. As per the case of the petitioner that the land
covered in the above said appeal are all enfranchised Inam lands and
all the enfranchised Inam lands are absolutely private property of the
Inamdars as per Section 53 of the A.P. Board of Revenue standing
orders. The status of the lands as on 14.12.1956 is the criteria to
decide the nature of Inam lands as per the statute. According to the
petitioner, Section 2A of the Inam Abolition Act, 1956 is not applicable
to enfranchised Inam lands in view of the protection given to the
enfranchised Inam lands u/s.53 of the A.P. Board of Revenue standing
orders. The revenue records cited by the 5
th
respondent herein in the
above said appeal viz., SFA, SLR and 1B registers are no longer in
force in view of quashing of the notification issued by the Government
u/s.1(4) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 by the erstwhile High Court of
A.P. in W.P.No.442 of 1962 dated 16.07.1964. It is true that previously
19
Rushikonda Agraharam Village was notified and taken over by the
Government vide G.O.Ms.No.2148 Revenue dated 25.11.1958 as 1936
post Inam Estate under the E.A.Act, 1948 on 07.01.1959 but the said
notification was quashed by the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in
W.P.No.442 of 1962 dated 16.07.1964. The Primary Tribunal as per
the directions of the erstwhile High Court in W.P.No.39588 of 2018
dated 13.11.2018 took up enquiry on the petition dated 16.08.2018 filed
by the petitioner herein and passed the above said final orders dated
08.01.2021 which was challenged in the above said appeal before the
3
rd
respondent by the 5
th
respondent herein.
15. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Rushikonda
Agraharam is Inam Village as per the Fort St. George Gazette dated
23.05.1950 and the then Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural (5
th
respondent) addressed a letter vide Rc.No.31/2013/A dated 21.01.2013
to the Primary Tribunal stating that Rushikonda Village is an Inam
Village and the Primary Tribunal alone is having jurisdiction under the
Inam Abolition Act, 1956 to decide the nature of Inam lands as per
statute and the Primary Tribunal passed the order as per the procedure
contemplated under the said Act and there are no grounds to interfere
with the order passed by the Primary Tribunal in the above said appeal
by the 3
rd
respondent by way of impugned order of this writ petition.
20
16. Per contra, it is the case of the 5
th
respondent herein/the
appellant in the above said appeal that the Primary Tribunal cum
Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam
failed to verify the records before passing the orders and did not
examine the revenue records in possession of the government such as
SFA, Gillman Record or 1B Register and passed order declaring the
subject Government lands as against the rules determined for
determination of Inam lands u/s.3(3) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams
(Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. The Subject
Government lands are all situated in the midst of the Visakhapatnam
city and there is a very need and necessity of the Government to protect
them as they are very valuable Government lands. The order issued by
the Primary Tribunal cum Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) Revenue
Division, Visakhapatnam including the subject lands and declaring them
as Inam lands is null and void and the same is liable to be quashed.
The 1
st
respondent in the above said appeal / SDT (Inams) also filed
counter in the above said appeal stating that he took up enquiry on the
petition dated 16.08.2018 of the petitioner herein/2
nd
respondent therein
to determine the nature of the Inam lands covered by the T.D.No.1254
pertaining to Rushikonda Village as per the orders of the erstwhile High
Court of A.P. in W.P.No.39588 of 2018 dated 13.11.2018. The petitioner
herein / 2
nd
respondent therein alone filed statement of particulars and
documents before the Primary Tribunal and the 5
th
respondent herein /
21
the appellant therein did not file any statement of particulars before the
Primary Tribunal. Following the due procedure and upon consideration
of the material available on record, then only the final orders were
passed on 08.01.2021.
17. The petitioner herein / the 2
nd
respondent therein filed family tree
Genealogy before the Primary Tribunal and the same was not
contradicted by the 5
th
respondent herein/ appellant therein at any point
of time before the Primary Tribunal. The petition schedule lands
covered by T.D.No.1254 are all enfranchised lands and all the
enfranchised lands have to be dealt with under the provisions of Inam
Abolition Act, 1956 only. Thus along with the other reasons assigned,
the 1
st
respondent in the above said appeal as Primary Tribunal cum
Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam
accepted the case of the petitioner herein/2
nd
respondent in the above
said appeal vide final orders dated 08.01.2021 which was questioned in
the above said appeal before the 3
rd
respondent. Similarly, the unofficial
respondents who filed implead petitions in the above said appeal before
the 3
rd
respondent sailed with the appellant therein/5
th
respondent
herein opposing the claim of the petitioner herein who is the
2
nd
respondent therein. In the said context and upon careful reading of
the impugned order of the 3
rd
respondent dated 26.03.2022 it is clear
that the said Appellate Authority seems to have recorded the
contentions of the parties concerned and directly gave conclusions
22
setting aside the order of the Primary Tribunal cum Special Deputy
Tahsildar (Inams) Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam dated 08.01.2021.
There is no discussion, consideration of any of the documents sought to
be relied upon by the parties concerned, perusal of the material
available on the record and reasoning before giving such conclusions in
the above said impugned order dated 26.03.2022.
18. Though some of the adjournments were shown in the above said
appeal, it does not indicate hearing of the parties concerned and
recording of their submissions. The Appellate Authority / 3
rd
respondent
ought to have allowed the parties concerned to file their documents in
support of their claims additionally if any for the purpose of
consideration of the appeal. Due to want of discussion, consideration of
the documents and perusal of the material available on record in
support of the claim of the parties concerned and reasoning, the above
said impugned order of the 3
rd
respondent dated 26.03.2022 cannot be
termed as the order on merits of the case, hence liable to be interfered
herewith. Accordingly, it is set aside remanding the matter to the
3
rd
respondent/4
th
respondent/ appellate authority concerned to consider
afresh by giving due opportunity to all the parties concerned to file
additional set of documents if any in support of their respective claims
and upon consideration of the hearing of the parties concerned and the
material available on record, fresh orders shall be passed by the said
appellate authority ignoring the impugned order of the
23
3
rd
respondent dated 26.03.2022 in toto as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the merits of the case. Interim order which was granted
pending appeal before the 3
rd
respondent would continue till final
disposal of the above said appeal by the competent appellate authority
concerned as per the above said directions of this Court.
19. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any,
deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
10.08.2026
PND
Whether the order is :
Speaking ☑ Reasoned
Reportable Non-reportable ☑
The **Andhra Pradesh High Court** recently delivered a crucial judgment in a **Writ Petition concerning the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari Patta) Act, 1956**, a detailed analysis of which is now prominently featured on CaseOn, making it easily accessible for legal research and insights.
The central question before the High Court was whether the 3rd Respondent (Appellate Authority/Revenue Divisional Officer) was justified in setting aside an order passed by the 6th Respondent (Primary Tribunal/Special Deputy Tahsildar, Inams) without providing sufficient opportunity for hearing, discussing evidence, or giving proper reasoning, thereby incorrectly interpreting previous High Court judgments concerning Rushikonda Agraharam Village lands. The petitioner sought to confirm the 6th respondent's order classifying the lands as 'Inam lands' under the Inam Abolition Act, 1956, and nullify any proceedings under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, related to the village.
The case revolves around several key legal provisions and precedents:
The petitioner's central argument was that Rushikonda Agraharam is a "pre-settlement Inam Village" where lands were enfranchised in 1865 (Title Deed No.1254, Ac.258.96 cents) on a nominal quit rent, making them private property under Section 53 of the A.P. Board of Revenue standing orders. The petitioner contended that the 6th respondent correctly determined the lands to be Inam lands within an Inam village and not institution-held. They also argued that the G.O.Ms.No.2148 notification, which included Rushikonda as an Inam Estate under the 1948 Act, was quashed by the High Court in W.P.No.442 of 1962, thus rendering the 1948 Act inapplicable.
Conversely, the respondents (particularly the 5th respondent, the Tahsildar of Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal) argued that Rushikonda Village was taken over as an 'Inam Estate' under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, on 07.01.1959, with Ryotwari settlements introduced in 1959 and compensation paid to Inamdars. They asserted that the village is already a "settled village" and the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act, 1956, are not applicable. They further contended that the 6th respondent's order lacked jurisdiction because a predecessor had already rejected a similar application in 2014 (which the petitioner later withdrew from W.P.No.39798 of 2014), making the 6th respondent 'functus officio'. The respondents also clarified that W.P.No.442 of 1962 only quashed the notification for Burravanipalem Village, not Rushikonda.
The High Court carefully reviewed the appellate order of the 3rd respondent. It observed that while the 3rd respondent's order noted adjournments, there was no indication that the parties were genuinely heard, their submissions recorded, or the documents they sought to rely upon were discussed or considered. The appellate authority seemed to have recorded contentions but directly jumped to conclusions without proper reasoning or perusal of material on record. This procedural lapse was deemed significant by the High Court.
For legal professionals seeking swift comprehension of such nuanced legal battles, CaseOn.in offers invaluable 2-minute audio briefs. These concise summaries distill the essence of complex judgments like this one, enabling quick analysis and informed decision-making without delving into lengthy texts.
The High Court found that the 3rd respondent's order, dated 26.03.2022 (signed on 30.03.2022), was passed without proper discussion, consideration of documents, and sufficient opportunity for hearing. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order of the 3rd respondent in its entirety. The matter was remanded back to the 3rd respondent/Appellate Authority with a direction to reconsider the appeal afresh. The Appellate Authority must provide all parties with a due opportunity to file additional documents, conduct a proper hearing, and pass fresh orders within four months from the date of receiving the High Court's order. The High Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and any interim orders previously granted would continue until the final disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority.
The High Court's decision underscores the critical importance of procedural fairness and thoroughness in quasi-judicial proceedings. By setting aside the appellate order and remanding the case, the Court emphasized that decisions must be based on a comprehensive review of facts, arguments, and evidence, not just a recital of contentions. This ensures that justice is not only done but also seen to be done, particularly in complex land dispute cases involving historical records and multiple legislative acts.
This judgment serves as a vital lesson for legal practitioners and students alike, particularly in administrative and land law:
Disclaimer: All information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance, please consult with a qualified legal professional.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....