Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs The Commissioner Of Appeals, on 5 June, 2025
1
APHC010208822011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
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 KOTHAPALEM 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
3rdparties 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
4situated 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
5mentioned 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
6under 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
9the 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
18and 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