Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

No Ryotwari Patta without clear proof of possession and title: Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Ryotwari Patta

30 September 2024 4:31 PM

By: sayum


Andhra Pradesh High Court, in W.P. No. 22438/2008, dismissed a petition filed by legal heirs of Smt. C. Bhagyalakshmi, seeking the grant of a Ryotwari Patta for 77 cents of land in Tiruchanur Village. Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held that the petitioners failed to establish possession or title to the land at the crucial date of January 7, 1948, and therefore could not claim the Ryotwari Patta under the Andhra Pradesh (A.A.) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956.

The petitioners claimed that their vendors had transferred the land to them through various sale deeds between 1967 and 2004. They sought a Ryotwari Patta under the Act of 1956, contending that the order passed by the Inam Tahsildar on January 4, 2002, in favor of one C. Vishwanathaiah, was illegal and passed without notice to interested parties. The petitioners approached the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Director (Appeals), both of whom rejected their claim. Aggrieved, they filed the present writ petition.

The central issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to the Ryotwari Patta for the disputed land in Sy.No.305/4. The Court noted that under the Act of 1956, applicants must prove that they derive their rights from Inamdars, purchasers of Inam land, or tenants of Inamdars. The petitioners, however, failed to produce any documents proving such a connection. The Court further observed that the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioners related to Paimaishi No.464, corresponding to a different survey number, and could not be linked to the land in question.

The Court held that the petitioners were unable to establish possession of the land as of January 7, 1948, or at any time prior to the issuance of the Ryotwari Patta to C. Vishwanathaiah in 2002. Additionally, the deeds of sale produced by the petitioners did not provide clear evidence of title or possession over the disputed land.

Justice R. Raghunandan Rao dismissed the petition, noting that even if the petitioners had been entitled to a notice, they failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the lack of notice. The Court emphasized that without proof of possession or title, there was no right to claim the Ryotwari Patta. The Court also pointed out discrepancies in the petitioners' documents, which referred to different survey numbers and did not establish a continuous flow of title.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that applicants seeking Ryotwari Patta must provide clear evidence of possession and title, especially when claiming rights under the Inams Abolition Act. The petitioners' failure to meet these requirements resulted in the dismissal of their writ petition.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2024

Smt. C. Bhagyalakshmi & Others v. Director (Appeals) & Others

Latest Legal News