SRIMANTHU RAJAH YARLAGADDA SIVARAMA PRASAD BHADUR ZAMINDAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SRIMANTHU RAJAH YARLAGADDA SIVARAMA PRASAD BHADUR ZAMINDAR
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Ekbote, C.J. -
(1.) These writ petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seek to quash the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Krishna dated 10-1-1968 by the issue of a writ of certiorari. The Tribunals order is a common order passed in several Tribunal appeal suits. The writ petitions confine the attack on this order to the items in regard to which decision has been given by the tribunal against the petitioner.
(2.) The estate of Devarakota was notified under the Estates Abolition Act and taken over by the State Government on 7-9-1949. The petitioner, who is a landholder, applied for the grant of patta under Section 12 (a) of the act in respect of several items of lanka lands situate in seven villages within the ambit of Deverakota estate on the ground that these lanka lands are his private lands. The claim was based on three grounds. It was firstly contended that the lands in dispute are situate in the river bed of Krishna and since the petitioner is a riparian owner, he is entitled to the river bed up to the middle thread of the stream. He is entitled to the villages on both sides of the river which abut the lanka lands. Thus he is entitled to the whole bed of the river. It was secondly contended that the grant made by the Government at the time of the permanent settlement included these lands and therefore he is entitled to the entire area comprised within the villages named in the grant which area extends upto the middle thread of the Krishna river. The third ground was that since the petitioner and his predecessors have been in enjoyment for over the statutory period, even if it is held that these lanka lands were not part of the grant, they have become by adverse possession owners of the said lands.
(3.) Broadly stated the Assistant Settlement Officer dismissed the petitions mainly on the ground that the evidence put forth by the petitioner did not satisfy the test laid down for the private land.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.