ANDHRA PRADESH ESTATES (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1948 — Ss. 3(b), 11(a) — MADRAS ESTATE LAND ACT, 1908 — S.3(16) — RYOTWARI PATTA — CLAIM — RIVER PORAMBOKE LAND — PRE-ABOLITION POSSESSION — PROOF — DELAY AND LACHES Ryotwari patta — Claim over land classified as “Swarnamukhi River Poramboke” — Land declared as river poramboke during survey and settlement operations — Classification not challenged — Attained finality — Such communal land vests in Government under S.3(b) of the A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 — Settlement Officer has no authority to grant ryotwari patta in respect of such land. (Paras 6, 7)

advocatemmmohan

ANDHRA PRADESH ESTATES (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1948 — Ss. 3(b), 11(a) —
MADRAS ESTATE LAND ACT, 1908 — S.3(16) —
RYOTWARI PATTA — CLAIM — RIVER PORAMBOKE LAND — PRE-ABOLITION POSSESSION — PROOF — DELAY AND LACHES

Ryotwari patta — Claim over land classified as “Swarnamukhi River Poramboke” — Land declared as river poramboke during survey and settlement operations — Classification not challenged — Attained finality — Such communal land vests in Government under S.3(b) of the A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 — Settlement Officer has no authority to grant ryotwari patta in respect of such land.
(Paras 6, 7)

Ryotwari patta — Requirement of lawful induction and possession prior to 01-07-1945 — Xerox copies of takeed and rent receipts — No correlation with survey number — Absence of original pre-abolition records — Failure to establish ryoti character or continuous possession — Claim rightly rejected.
(Paras 8, 9)

Revenue authorities — Cancellation of subdivisions and restoration of land as river — Confirmation in subsequent revision — Orders attaining finality — Writ Court will not interfere.
(Paras 4, 6)

Writ jurisdiction — Challenge to orders dated 10-08-2002 and 11-01-2018 — Inordinate delay and laches — No satisfactory explanation — Writ liable to be dismissed on that ground also.
(Para 9)

Constitution of India — Art.226 — No infirmity or illegality found in concurrent findings of revenue authorities — Writ petition dismissed.
(Paras 9, 10)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The petitioner sought issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside proceedings dated 10-08-2002 and 11-01-2018, and for grant of patta in respect of Ac.1-75 cents in Sy.No.285/3, Chiguruwada Uttarapukandriga Village, Tirupathi Mandal. (Para 2)

2. The petitioner relied upon alleged pre-abolition documents such as takeed dated 11-10-1937 and rent receipts of 1942 and 1945, along with post-abolition cist receipts, to claim ryoti possession prior to 01-07-1945. (Paras 3, 5)

3. The revenue authorities concurrently found that:

   • Sy.No.285 was declared as “Swarnamukhi River Poramboke” during survey and settlement operations.

   • Sub-divisions were cancelled and village accounts restored to reflect the land as river.

   • The classification was never challenged and had attained finality. (Paras 4, 6)

4. The Court noted that the Settlement Officer had no authority to grant patta over communal land vested in Government, particularly river poramboke, and that no permission of the Collector, as required under law, was obtained. (Para 7)

5. The petitioner failed to establish correlation between paimash numbers in the takeed and the disputed survey number, and failed to produce original pre-abolition records establishing lawful induction or continuous possession. (Para 8)

6. The writ petition was also found to be filed with delay and laches, without any satisfactory explanation. (Para 9)

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Section 3(b) of the A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 vests rivers, streams, communal lands and porambokes absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. (Para 4)

2. Land classified as river poramboke is non-ryoti land, and cannot be the subject matter of ryotwari patta under the Act. (Paras 6, 7)

3. For claiming patta under Section 11(a), the claimant must establish:

   • Lawful induction into possession prior to 01-07-1945, and

   • Continuous possession with reference to authentic pre-abolition records.
     Failure on either count is fatal. (Paras 5, 8)

4. Xerox copies of documents, uncorrelated to the survey number and unsupported by original records, are insufficient to discharge the statutory burden. (Para 8)

5. Concurrent findings of fact by competent revenue authorities, particularly on classification and possession, do not warrant interference under Article 226 in the absence of perversity or illegality. (Paras 9, 10)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Land classified as river poramboke during survey and settlement operations, which classification has attained finality, is communal land vested in the Government under Section 3(b) of the A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948; no ryotwari patta can be granted in respect thereof, and a claimant who fails to establish lawful induction and possession prior to 01-07-1945 with authentic pre-abolition records is not entitled to any relief; belated challenge to concurrent revenue orders is liable to be dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of delay and laches.