S Macca Begum & Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

This writ appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is directed against order dated 02.12.2025 in W.P. No.26450 of 2013, whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, confirming judgment and decree dated 22.04.2013 in A.S. No.63 of 2009 passed by learned District Judge, Chittoor.

(a) Case of appellant before learned Civil Judge was that an extent of Acres 33.25 cents in Paimaish No.19-E, Vontimitta, presently H/o.170 Gollapalli village of Vontimitta Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, being estate land, Zamindar of Bangarupalem granted patta in favour of Smt.Gali Ademma, wife of Gali Chengama Naidu, vide patta dated 28.12.1940.

Heard Sri Patanjali Pamidighantam, learned counsel for appellant and learned Government Pleaders for Forest and Revenue for the respondents.

(a) Learned counsel for appellant contended that Ryotwari patta granted in favour of appellant in terms of Section 11(a) of the Act since attained finality, subject lands vest in appellant, therefore, both First Appellate Authority as well as learned Single Judge were not justified in upsetting findings rendered by Forest Settlement Officer directing elimination of subject lands from the purview of forest block. It is stated that Ryotwari patta was issued after due enquiry and adhering to procedure contemplated under the Act, thus, title and possession of appellant cannot be disputed.

(a) Learned Government Pleaders for respondents tried to support impugned order. It is contended that Section 11(a) of the Act, since envisages grant of Ryotwari patta only to those persons who were in possession as on notified date i.e., 01.07.1945, appellant having purchased the subject property under Ex.P-3 on 28.02.1982, does not satisfy the requirements of said provision, thus is not entitled for issuance of Ryotwari patta.

We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for respective parties and have thoroughly perused the record placed before us.

It is not in dispute that the subject land in Paimaish 19-E, Vontimitta, presently 170 Gollapalle village, has been notified as forest block by issuing notification under Section 4 of A.P. Forest Act vide G.O.Ms. No.1327, dated 04.07.1961. By then, even according to appellant, subject land was stated to be owned by Smt.Gali Ademma. Later, proclamation notification in terms of Section 6 of A.P. Forest Act was published on 30.06.1964, calling for objections and further informing that no new rights of any kind shall be acquired over land sought to be notified and also no patta shall be issued for any part of the same.

Gali Aademma admittedly neither filed any objection nor claim for elimination. After about 18 years, she had alienated subject land in favour of appellant through unregistered sale deed dated 28.02.1982. Appellant, having acquired the same, made a claim in terms of Section 11(a) of the Act before Settlement Officer for grant of Ryotwari patta and vide order dated 10.01.1983 in proceedings S.R. No.140/11(a)/82/OTR, patta was granted. It is also not in dispute that patta claimed to have been issued in favour of appellant was never under challenge. Subsequently, appellant on 28.10.1983 filed claim petition under Section 10 of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 for elimination of subject land from Peddakonda forest block. Application was preferred along with request for condoning delay of about 19 years. Forest Settlement Officer, Chittoor, allowed the same, primarily on the ground that:

However, Appellate Court in appeal, while dealing with aforesaid findings, held as under:

Further, learned Single Judge, while confirming aforesaid findings of Appellate Court, held that even Ex.P-1 besides Ex.P-3 were not admissible in evidence, since the same were not properly stamped as required under Section 35 of Stamp Act. Therefore, it was held that Forest Settlement Officer committed serious error in placing reliance on said documents for coming to conclusion that appellant had valid title and lawful possession. Besides that, learned Single Judge also held that sale in favour of appellant under Ex.P-3 after issuance of notification under Section 4 of A.P. Forest Act was impermissible in view of Section 7(1)(a) of A.P. Forest Act.

In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by learned counsel for appellant, provisions which are relevant for present purpose are extracted hereunder:

The scheme of A.P. Forest Act envisages issuance of notification under Section 4 proposing to constitute any land as reserved forest, the notification to specify location/situation and limits of such lands as nearly as possible, and that the same to be proposed to constitute reserved forest. Once notification under Section 4 is issued and Forest Settlement Officer has been appointed for the purpose of considering objections and to enquire and determine any rights claimed by affected persons over land that has been notified to fall within reserved forest, designated Forest Settlement Officer would issue notification giving effect to notification calling for objections from interested persons. Proclamation notification shall also indicate substance of provisions of Section 7 and explain consequences provided therein. Section 6(4) also envisages timelines within which objections are to be called for and decided thereafter.

Section 7 bars acquisition of fresh rights. There is a specific prohibition to acquire any right over land included in the notification issued under Section 4, and only exception being such right accruing on account of succession or under grant or contract entered into on behalf of the Government or any person in whom such right already vested.

Section 8 provides the manner in which enquiry has to be conducted by Forest Settlement Officer. If objections from interested persons are received, Forest Settlement Officer has been mandated to enquire into said objections or claim by recording statements or evidence as envisaged under the provisions of C.P.C., and thereafter to decide the issues.

Keeping in view above mandatory provisions, record discloses that in spite of proclamation notice, admittedly Gali Ademma never submitted any objections in terms of Section 6 of A.P. Forest Act at earliest point of time, neither she was issued Ryotwari patta in terms of Section 11 of the Act. It is only after nearly 18 years, claim was preferred under Section 10 by appellant for elimination of subject lands from forest block, after the same was acquired by her in the year 1982. In view of specific bar under Section 7(1)(a), no right could have been created in favour of appellant by virtue of unregistered sale deed.

Thus, we are of the considered view that Ex.P-3 unregistered sale deed is void and no right would flow in favour of appellant. That apart, we are also in agreement with the findings rendered by both First Appellate Authority as well as learned Single Judge on other issues as well. Once Ex.P-3, which is the very basis of claim of appellant to subject property, stands obliterated, the subsequent orders by which she acquired Ryotwari patta would pale into insignificance.

Though learned Assistant Government Pleader tried to place reliance on decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Composite High Court in P.Gopala Reddy’s case¹ to buttress that Ryotwari pattas issued by then Settlement Officer were inflicted by fraud, as such plea was not raised either before original authority or learned Single Judge, we refrain from going into said aspect.

In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity with findings and conclusions arrived at by learned Single Judge warranting interference. Thus, this appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.