Charugulla Seshaiah (died) and Others vs The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records and Others

Lingaraja Rath, J.—The centre of controversy in this appeal is the extent of the land purchased by the 1st appellant from the pattedar M. Ranganayakulu by registered sale deed No. 328/57 dated 9-10-1957. The estate of which the land formed part/vested in the State Government under the provisions of the A.P. Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. But since the land was in agency area, proceedings were initiated u/s 9 of Regulation 2 of 1970 (A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement) Regulations, 1970 by the Settlement Officer, respondent No. 3 and notice was published in the village as required under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules framed under the Regulations. The 1st appellant appeared before the respondent No. 3 and laid claim for the issue of ryotwari patta in respect of the land purchased by him. The respondent No. 3 held that the 1st appellant had purchased Ac.8-00 of land out of which he had sold Ac.1-12 cents of land to third-parties and hence was entitled to patta in respect of only Ac.6-88 cents. The 1st appellant carried appeal before the Director of Settlements. The respondent No. 2, on the plea that though in the sale deed an area of Ac.8-00 was mentioned, yet, the sale was by boundaries which are specified and hence he being in occupation of Ac.9-96 cents, patta should be issued in his favour to that extent. The appeal and the second appeal carried before the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, the respondent No. 1 having been failed, Writ Petition No. 18605 of 1987 was filed which was also dismissed on 6-10-1993 giving rise to the present appeal.

During the pendency of this appeal the 1st appellant died and his legal representatives are brought on record as per the order passed to-day in WAMP No. 1039 of 1995.

Urging the appeal Sri A- Rangacharyulu, learned counsel for the appellants submits that as the estate was unsurveyed the sale of the land was by description in the boundaries and when such is the case, the mention of the acreage in the sale deed is not determinative and the actual physical possession of the land as bounded by the boundaries is to be the land to have been purchased. Reliance for the purpose is placed on the decision in Nookayya vs. Jagga Rao1955(1) An.W.R. 659. It is the submission that though he had raised such question, yet none of the authorities as also the learned single Judge had taken the fact into consideration. It is further submitted that the observation made in the orders of the statutory authorities as well as by the learned single Judge that the excess land in respect of which ryotwari patta is sought is under the occupation of the Government and used for industrial estate, house sites and forest growth etc., is not correct as the order of the respondent No. 3 itself shows that S. Nos. 30/1 and 30/2 to which alone the 1st appellant is laying claim are under his occupation. S. Nos. 30/3 to 30/10 which are under the occupation of the Forest 5 Department or industrial estate etc., are not claimed by the 1st appellant.

A perusal of the judgment under appeal shows the learned single Judge to have reached the conclusion because of the acreage mentioned in the sale deed that the sale of the extent of Ac.8-00 only and that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed are not specific to identify a bigger extent of land.10 The boundaries in the sale deed are as follows:

East: Public Road South: Dubati lane North: Dubati lane West: Sanka Satyam Patta land.

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the meeting point of the four boundaries at the four points to makes the land identifiable and there is nothing vague about it.

The question whether the land included in the boundaries is specific and identifiable by the boundaries and, whether such land was intended to be conveyed is a question which has to be considered by the statutory authorities, if necessary by permitting the parties to lead evidence. From the orders of the original as well as the two appellate authorities, we do not find the question to have been approached from that angle. The judgment of the learned single 25 Judge is also factually not correct at least in one extent that the land claimed by the 1st appellant is in occupation of the Government or one industrial estate, house sites and forest growths etc., since the very order of the respondent No. 3 shows that the land claimed is under the 1st appellant''s occupation. Since the crucial question for determination has not been answered by the fact finding authorities we deem it fit and proper to dispose of the case, while setting aside the orders passed by the statutory authorities as well as the judgment of the learned single Judge, by directing respondent No. 3 to go into the question afresh, particularly with reference to the contention urged that in the sale deed land was conveyed by boundaries and whether the boundaries are specific to identify any extent of land. The respondent No. 3 need not be exclusively guided by the acreage mentioned in the sale deed though that must be a relevant consideration. In deciding so, weight has to be attached also to the actual patta under which the vendor of the 1st appellant acquired title and it has to be seen as to whether any area more than Ac.8-00 was accorded by way of ryotwari patta to him. If necessary, the respondents No. 3 will permit the appellants so also adduce evidence for the purpose. The matter being already old, we direct the appellants to present themselves before respondent No. 3 on the 7th of March, 1996 on which date orders may be passed for hearing of the case in accordance with law. The case has to be disposed of by respondent No. 3 within three months from the date of the appearance of the appellants before him.

The writ appeal is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.