IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process

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

Similar News