@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.@mdashThe petitioners challenge the order, dated 28.02.2009, passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein.
2. The matter arises under the A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ''the Act'').
3. The extent of land involved in the matter is very small, namely, Ac.1.50 cents in R.S. No. 60/1 of P. Gavaravaram Village, Eluru Rural Mandal, West Godavan District. However, the litigation, in respect of the same, is going on for the past three decades.
4. The land is part of an Estate, originally owned by Yedvalli Venkatacharyulu. After changing several hands, be it, through sale or succession, it accrued to Muddada Appala Swamy, Pydaiah and Padala Venkanna, through a sale deed, dated 07.11.1951. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the esid three persons.
5. Consequent on the abolition of estates through the Act, Appaia Swamy filed an application before the Settlement Officer and Joint Collector, West Godavari, the 3rd respondent herein, u/s 11 of the Act, for grant of ryotwari patta. The 3rd respondent rejected the application through order, dated 31.07.1975. The revision filed before the Director of Settlements was dismissed on 25.11.1982. Further revision to the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, was also rejected on 01.09.1983. W.P. No. 9675 of 1983 was filed against the order of rejection. This Court remanded the matter to the 1st respondent, who was conferred with the powers that were hitherto exercised by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records. The 1st respondent, in turn, remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent. Thus, the proceedings were taken to the highest stage in the hierarchy and were brought back to the lowest stage, for fresh consideration.
6. When the matter was pending before the 1st respondent, on remand, the 5th respondent filed an application for impleading him as one of the parties. He claimed rights through the petitioners, on the strength of an agreement of sale, dated 21.11.1981. The petitioners denied the very execution of agreement of sale in favour of the 5th respondent. The 3rd respondent accepted the plea of the 5th espondent and granted ryotwari patta in his favour through order, dated 18.06.2005.
7. The petitioners filed R.P. No. 16 of 2006 before the Director of Settlements, the 2nd respondent herein. The appeal was allowed on 10.01.2008. It was directed that the petitioners are entitled to be granted ryotwari patta. The 5th respondent filed further revision before the 131 respondent u/s 7(d) of the Act. The same was allowed through the impugned order.
8. Sri J. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the 3rd respondent, who initially negatived the claim of the petitioners on the ground of limitation, was satisfied that the application can be considered, in view of the observations made at different stages of the proceedings and the only course left open to him was to grant ryotwari patta, to the petitioners. He contends that the agreement, dated 21.11.1981, relied upon by the 5th respondent is seriously disputed and it is not permissible under the Act to adjudicate disputes of that nature.
9. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned Counsel for the 5th respondent, on the other hand, submit that the 3rd respondent recorded a specific finding to the effect that the land was in possession of the 5th respondent, on the strength of an agreement of sale, and in that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the grant of patta in favour of the 5th respondent. This Court had the advantage of the arguments advanced by Sri K. Subramanya Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, who appeared in an identical matter.
10. The petitioners and their predecessors in title had to struggle for the last several decades to get recognition of their rights vis-a-vis the land. The whole of the first round of litigation, commencing from the proceedings before the Settlement Officer up to the High Court, related to the question of limitation. Ultimately, the matter was remanded to the 3rd respondent. In the second round of litigation, the 3rd respondent did not raise any objection as to limitation. For all practical purposes, he was prepared to accept the claim for grant of ryotwari patta u/s 11 of the Act. The 5th respondent got impleaded in the proceedings, on the strength of an agreement of sale, dated 21.11,1981. Placing reliance upon proviso to Section 64 of the Act, the 3rd respondent treated the 5th respondent as a lawful transferee and has straight away issued ryotwari patta in his favour. The revision petition filed by the petitioners was allowed by the 2nd respondent. The same was, however, reversed by the 1st respondent.
11. The Act recognizes the rights of certain persons vis-a-vis Xhe land, which was part of an abolished estate. The predecessors in title of the petitioners, became entitled to be granted ryotwari pattas consequent on abolition of estate. In fact, an application was made way back in the year 1975. That, however, was rejected on the ground of delay, and ultimately, the matter came to be remanded. The 5th respondent was nowhere in the picture, even according to him till the year 1981. The state of affairs obtaining as on the notified date or at the most as on the date of submission of application u/s 11(a) of he Act, ought to have been taken into consideration by the 3rd respondent. Subsequent developments particularly, when disputed, were not supposed to be taken into account. The mere fact that the matter came before the 3rd respondent after remand, hardly provides any justification to act upon an alleged agreement of sale, stated to have been executed, in the meanwhile.
12. The reliance placed upon by respondents 1, 3 and 5 upon Section 64 of the Act, is totally untenable. It only provides for preservation of right of owner or occupier, in the event of disruption of possession. The Portion reads as under:
Rights of owner or occupier not to be affected by temporary discontinue of possession or occupation: Where a person-
(a) is entitled to the ownership or to the possession or occupation of any land or building immediately before the notified date, but has transferred his right to the possession or occupation thereof or has been temporarily dispossessed or deprived of his right to the occupation thereof; and
(b) has not on that date lost his right to remove the possession or occupation of such land or building; he shall, for the purposes of this Act and subject to the provisions thereof, be deemed to be the owner, or to be in possession or occupation, of such land or building;
Provided that any lawful transferee of the right to the possession or occupation of such land or building shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, continue to have the same rights against his transferor, as he had immediately before the notified date:
Provided further that any lawful transferee of the title to such land or, building shall be entitled to all the rights under this Act or his transferor.
In his order, dated 18.06.2005, the 3rd respondent observed:
According to Section 64 of the Act, "Lawful Transferees" of Title to the land are entitled to all the rights under the Act as his transferor. The Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.13 clearly discloses that 11th petitioner purchased the land from petitioners 1 to 7 is in physical possession. The petitioners 1 to 10 also consented for grant of Ryotwari Patta under Settlement Act to the 11th petitioner i.e., Sri Jasti Indra Bhogeswara Rao.
13. Even while protecting the rights of the owner or occupier, it preserves the rights of a lawful transferee. In other words, if there exists any lawful transfer, leading disruption of possession and occupation of owner, the right of such owner to be granted ryotwari patta is not affected. At the same time, the grant of patta would not take away the right, that has accrued to "lawful transferee".
14. The occasion to invoke the said provision does not exist in the instant case. The reason is that there was no "lawful transfer" in favour of the 5th respondent, and thereby, he is not a lawful transferee. It hardly needs any emphasis that a lawful transfer of an immovable property can take place, only in the manner provided for in the Transfer of Property Act. Admittedly, the document relied upon by the 5th respondent is only an agreement of sale, dated 21.11.1981, and not a sale deed. Even that agreement of sale was seriously disputed by the petitioners. The counter-affidavit filed by the petitioners challenging the very assertion made by the 5th respondent was not at all taken into account by the 3rd respondent. Even assuming that there existed an agreement of sale, dated 21.11.1981, in favour of the 5th respondent, the maximum he can do is, to file a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale, or to press into service, Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, if any occasion arises. The question of granting ryotwari patta to him by invoking Section 64 of the Act, does not arise.
15. On behalf of the 5th respondent, it is represented that the grant of ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioners may operate as res judicata in the suits that may be filed by him. Reference is made to Section 64-A of the Act. It is no doubt true that Section 64-A of the Act directs that the decision of a Tribunal or Special Tribunal under the Act, or of the High Court on any matter decided under the Act, shall operate as res judicata in any suit or proceedings in a civil Court. This eventuality would arise when the validity of ryotwari patta is challenged before a civil Court. The res judicata provided for u/s 64-A of the Act, does not operate vis-a-vis a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, in respect of the land, for which, the ryotwari patta was granted. The scope of the said provision was discussed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam AIR 1966 SC 794 and by this Court in State of A.P. v. Veeramreddi Ramajan 1991 (1) Law Summary 257 (A.P.) and the above view accords with the law laid down in those judgments.
16. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order, dated 28.02.2009, passed by the 1st respondent is set aside. Consequently, the order, dated 10.01.2008, passed by the 2nd respondent shall hold good, and the petitioners shall be entitled to be granted ryotwari patta, in respect of the land in question. It is, however, left open to the 5th respondent to work out his remedies before a civil Court, in relation to the agreement of sale, dated 21.11.1981, said to have been executed in his favour.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
