(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction i to declare the inaction of Respondents in deleting land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.18 Cts in Old Sy. No.71, present Sy.No.2/1, 2/2, 2/3 in Mudasarlova Village, Visakhapatnam District from prohibitory list and in mutating Petitioner's name in revenue record as manifestly arbitrary, inherently capricious, per se illegal, unreasonable, perverse, contrary to Rule of law, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Area Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India ii to set aside proceedings bearing Rc. No.33/2022/A and Rc.No.34/2022/A dated 30.09.2022 issued by Respondent No.4 iii to set aside the Order vide bearing Computer No.334641/2023/E3(Lands) dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 and iv consequently to direct Respondents to delete the subject land from prohibitory list issued under Section 22A of Registration Act and to update the revenue records accordingly and/or pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Prayer is amended as per Courts Order dt.30.12.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2025

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and to issue pattadar passbooks title deeds in respect of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac 4.18 cents in old Sy.No.71, present Sy.No.2/1, 2/2 and 2/3 in Mudasarlova village, Vishakhapatnam District by suspending the proceedings bearing Rc.No.33/2022/A dated 30.09.2022 issued by Respondent No.4 and/or pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to grant leave to file reply for the counter affidavit dated 29-01-2025 in W.P.No.25486 of 2024, and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Hon‟ble Court to amend the Main Prayer in the instant Writ Petition as “(i) to declare the inaction of Respondents in deleting land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.18 Cts in Old Sy.No.71, present Sy.No.2/1, 2/2, 2/3 in Mudasarlova Village, Visakhapatnam District from prohibitory list and in mutating Petitioner‟s name in revenue record as •* manifestly arbitrary, inherently capricious, per se illegal, unreasonable, perverse, contrary to Rule of law, Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India; (ii) to set aside proceedings bearing Rc.No.33/2022/A and Rc.No.34/2022/A dated 30.09.2022 issued by Respondent No.4; (iii) to set aside the Order vide bearing Computer No.334641/2023/E3(Lands) dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 and (iv) consequently to direct Respondents to delete the subject land from prohibitory list issued under Section 22A of Registration Act and to update the revenue records accordingly and/or pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. instead of “(i) to declare the inaction of Respondents in deleting land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.18 Cts in Old Sy.No.71, present Sy.No.2/1, 2/2, 2/3 in Mudasarlova Village, Visakhapatnam District from prohibitory list and in mutating Petitioner‟s name in revenue record as manifestly arbitrary, inherently capricious, per se illegal, unreasonable. perverse, contrary to Rule of law, Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India; (ii) to set aside proceedings bearing Rc.No.33/2022/A And Rc.No.34/2022/A dated 30.09.2022 issued by Respondent No.4 and consequently to direct Respondents to delete the subject land from prohibitory list issued under Section 22A of Registration Act and to update the revenue records accordingly and/or pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case” and/or pass)

1. The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

                  “to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order i to declare the inaction of Respondents in deleting land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.18 Cts in Old Sy. No.71, present Sy.No.2/1, 2/2, 2/3 in Mudasarlova Village, Visakhapatnam District from prohibitory list and in mutating Petitioner's name in revenue record as manifestly arbitrary, inherently capricious, per se illegal, unreasonable, perverse, contrary to Rule of law, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Area Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India ii to set aside proceedings bearing Rc. No.33/2022/A and Rc.No.34/2022/A dated 30.09.2022 issued by Respondent No.4 iii to set aside the Order vide bearing Computer No.334641/2023/E3(Lands) dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 and iv consequently to direct Respondents to delete the subject land from prohibitory list issued under Section 22A of Registration Act and to update the revenue records accordingly and/or pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Prayer is amended as per Courts Order dt.30.12.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2025….”

2. Heard Sri N.Subbarao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Avanija, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for respondents.

3. Initially the petitioners 1 and 2 have filed the present Writ Petition questioning the inaction on the part of the respondents in mutating the names of the petitioners in revenue records and not deleting Ac.4.18cents in old Sy.No.71, present Sy.No.2/1, 2/2 and 2/3 in Mudasarlova Village, Visakhapatnam District from prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Subsequently, after filing counter, the prayer in the Writ Petition has been amended and assailed the proceedings dated 25.01.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 and consequently prayed the Court to direct the respondents to delete the subject land from prohibitory list and to update the revenue records.

4. The father of the petitioners was granted Karanam Service Inam for a land in Sy.No.71, part of Mudasarlova Village of Visakhapatnam Taluk. Father of the petitioners used to work as Village Karanam in the estate of Vizianagaram. Head of Vizianagaram estate granted Inam of Ac.4.18cents in old Sy.No.71, present Sy.No.2/1, 2/2 and 2/3 in Mudasarlova village of former Visakhapatnam Taluk. Service Inam was prepared and updated entry in Enam fair register i.e. TD No.496 reflects the service inam in the nature of personal grant was issued infavour of father of the petitioners. Regularly they have paid cists and receipts were also issued in favour of the father of the petitioners from 01.01.1970 to 01.12.1974, 01.01.1975 to 12.12.1978 and 01.01.1979 to 01.12.1984. As per settlement fair adangal, land admeasuring in an extent of Ac.1.44cents in Sy.No.2/2 and Ac.0.56cents was noted as dry land.

5. Subsequently, vide registered gift deed bearing document no.1248/1965 dated 25.6.1965, father of the petitioners gifted land admeasuring in an extent of Ac.2.00cents in Sy.No.2/2 and 2/3 to the 1st petitioner and Ac.2.18cents in Sy.No.2/1 to 2nd petitioner. Ever since, the petitioners have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of said land and had been cultivating roses, neem, cashew and palmyrah in the subject lands. In fact, in the year 1979, adangals were also updated in the name of the petitioners as possessor for an extent of Ac.2.00cents in Sy.No.2/2 and 2/3. Accordingly 10(1) adangals extract reflects the names of the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners made a request on 12.01.2017 and 30.01.2017 to make necessary mutations of the names of the petitioners in all registers and revenue records pertaining to the subject lands. At that point of time, when it came to the notice that the respondents have illegally changed the classification of land to “AWD”/Assessed Waste Dry Land, immediately, the petitioners have made an application under Right to Information Act to the respondent no.2 to provide copy of the Visakhapatnam District Gazette published on 30.8.1971 regarding TD.No.496, Form II decisions with regard to the subject land in Sy.No.2/2 and 2/3. In fact, basing on the representation made by the petitioners for grant of patta in form-VIII and the respondent nos.6 and 7 have conducted enquiry and submitted a report to respondent no.2 on 16.5.2018 and the District Collector vide order dated 26.12.2018 also directed the Tahsildar to examine the request of mutating their name in revenue records and deletion of subject land from 22A prohibitory list.

6. Despite the same, when the respondents have not acted upon the representation by deleting the subject matter from 22A list, left with no option, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.16487 of 2021 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 09.8.2021 with a direction to the respondent authorities to dispose the Meeseva application bearing no.RMU012106576748 dated 17.4.2021. Basing on the said directions, respondent no.4 has rejected the meeseva application on 25.5.2021 for change of classification of their land without deletion from prohibitory properties. Aggrieved by the same, 2nd petitioner filed W.P.No.994 of 2022 before this Court challenging the rejection order passed by respondent no.4. On 13.7.2022, the Court set aside the rejection order dated 25.5.2021 by giving liberty to 2nd petitioner to make a separate application to the respondent no.2 for deletion of land from the prohibitory list and respondent no.4 for carrying out mutations in revenue records and to pass appropriate orders. When the said orders were not complied, the present Writ Petition is filed. While pending the Writ Petition, respondents have filed counter and along with the counter, they have also placed orders dated 25.01.2023 passed by respondent no.2 rejecting the case of the petitioners for deletion of their property from 22A list. Aggrieved by the said action, the Writ Petition is filed.

7. The respondents have filed their counter. In the counter, they have stated that there are serious questions of facts are involved. In fact as per S.F.A., Sy.No.2/1 measuring an extent of Ac.2.18cents stands classified as “Poramboke” and remarks column noted as “Adavi” and the land in Sy.No.2/2 measuring an extent of Ac.1.44cents stands classified as "Anadheenam Punja" and the land in Sy.No.2/3 measuring an extent of Ac.0.56cents stands classified as "Anadheenam Punja" and recorded as "Gayalu" in the remarks column. The petitioners are claiming that a Karanam Service Inam was granted to their father late L.Sangam Naidu for an extent of Ac.4.18cents in old Sy.No.71 and present Sy.No.2/1, 2/2 and 2/3 of Mudasarlova village and that the grant reflects in TD.No.496 as Service inam and also that after introduction of the A.P.(AA) Inams (Abolition and 'Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 the Spl. Deputy Tahsildar, Inams, Visakhapatnam has issued orders on 28.12.1964 to publish Form II notification in District Gazette with regard to lands covered by 2/2, 2/3 (old Sy.No.71, TD.496). But on perusal of the said District Gazette, it is clearly evident that the impugned Ryotwari Patta in Form VIll dated 28.12.1964 alleged to have been issued u/Sec.7 of The Andhra Area Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Rules 1957) (for short the Act). In fact, before issuing of any ryotwari patta, the following steps have to be followed under the Act.

                  Under Section 3 of the Act, the Tahsildar may suo-motu and shall, on application, enquire and determine whether a particular land in his jurisdiction is an inam land; whether such inam land is in ryotwari, zamindari or inam village and whether such inam land is held by any institution. The determination under Section 3 of the Act is only with regard to the nature of the inam and the same would not confer any right either on institution or individual. After such decision is made by the Tahsildar under Sec.3(3) and 3(4), the next step is to conversion of inam lands into ryotwari land under Sec.4 of the Act. Then the Tahsildar shall grant ryotwari pattas in respect of the inam lands concerned and after giving them reasonable opportunity of being heard, then ryotwari pattas shall be granted in the prescribed form u/s.7 of the Act in Form VIII. But in the instant case, the ryotwari patta was granted on 28.12.1964 and Gazette publication of 3(3) decision in Form II was made in the year 1971 which is uncommon and erroneous. Hence in view of the above, the claim of the petitioners is based on dubious documents and the TD.No. 496 claimed by the petitioners is related to Sy.No.10/4 of Mudasarlova but not Sy.No.2/1, 2/2 and 2/3. It is a "Bariki Inam" but not "Karanam Inam" as claimed by the petitioners and the inam grant measures a total extent of Ac.3.38cents but not Ac.4.18cents as claimed by the petitioners. For the above reasons, prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

8. Based on the above averments, learned senior counsel Sri N.Subbarao, appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the father of the petitioners which is placed as Ex.P25 in the Writ Petition. A perusal of the patta shows that the same was issued in form-VIII under Rule 7 of the Act which reads as follows:

                  In accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Andhra Inams (Abolotion and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 Andhra Act XXXVII of 1956 Latchupatni Sangam Naidu, Son of Appalanaidu residing at Dairy form, Visakhapatnam shall hold the lands specified below under ryotwari at tenure and shall be liable to pay the ryotwari assessment in respect of the said Act, and such additional and other provisions of section 12 of the said Act, and such additional land other dues and amounts if any, as may be leviable, in respect of the said land.

                  According to the said document, the Survey numbers clearly mentions 2/1, 2/2 and 2/3 and classification is inam dry and extent is Ac.2.18cents, Ac.1.44cents and Ac.0.56cents. Further learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the Gazette Notification published in the District Gazette which was filed as an annexure Ex.P-22. In fact, the said document has been furnished to the petitioners through an endorsement of the Public Information Officer, District Revenue Officer for Collector, Visakhapatnam dated March 2017. The endorsement is filed as Ex.P4 which reads as follows:

                  “With reference to the letter cited, you have filed an application with a request to furnish the copy of the Visakhapatnam District Gazette published on 30.8.1971 regarding the TD.No.496, Form-II Decisions is herewith enclosed under RTI Act, 2005.”

9. Along with the above said endorsement, the Public Information Officer, District Revenue Officer for Collector, Visakhapatnam has also furnished the Visakhapatnam District Gazette Extraordinary published by the authority, Visakhapatnam on Monday, August 30, 1971. In the said Gazette, it clearly stated that Form-II decision under Rule-3 has been decided by the Deputy Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam under sub Section 3 of Section 3 of the Act. The land specified below-I is inam land II-is inam Village and III-is not held by any institution. In the said Gazette also clearly mentioned the TD.No.496 pertaining to Sy.No.2/2 and 2/3 an extent of Ac.1.44cents and Ac.0.56cents of Mudasarlalova Village.

10. Learned senior counsel has contended that the said document i.e. District Gazette has been provided by respondent no.2 office under an application made under the Right to Information Act. Hence it should be construed as genuine document. Further learned senior counsel has relied on the registered document of gift settlement in favour of the petitioners and basing on the same, the name of the petitioners have been entered in the registered document. To support his contention, he also placed reliance on the Encumbrance Certificate issued by the concerned authorities on 20.12.2016. In fact, the senior counsel has also placed reliance on survey settlement register of Mudasarlova. According to the said register, old Sy.No.70 is a land classified as “poramboke”. Even now, according to the respondents, the said land is classified as Gayalu. Hence the counsel has relied on the glossary. According to the glossary of judicial and revenue terms, gayalu means „land unfit for cultivation or upon it is being abandoned by the cultivator‟. Relying on the above documents, learned senior counsel has submitted that the father of the petitioners was granted service inam patta under Section 12 of the Act in Form-VIII. Accordingly, the petitioners have also paid cist to the respondents which are not in dispute. Surprisingly, the respondents have changed the classification. Then immediately, the petitioners have made an application under Right to Information Act. Considering the said application, the respondents themselves have supplied the copy of the District Gazette published on 30.8.1971 regarding the TD.No.496, Form-II Decisions. As per the said Gazette it clearly discloses that the land is an inam land and it is an inam village and is not held by any institution. According to the above said documents, here there is no dispute with regard to the grant of patta in favour of the father of the petitioners and subsequently by way of a gift settlement deed, two acres were granted infavour of the petitioner and subsequently his name was also entered in the records. When that being the position, the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioners for deletion of the subject property from 22A prohibitory list.

11. To support his contention, learned counsel has relied on the following judgments.

                  In Peddinti Venkata Muraliranganatha… vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another(1996 SCC (3) 75) and the relevant paragraphs reads as follows:

                  In Boppudi Punniah & Ors. v. Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy Varu & Ors. [(1963) 2 A.W.R. 214], the applicability of the Act to service inams held by office holders enjoying the inams and the right to grant of ryotwari patta had fallen for consideration. The Division Bench, after an exhaustive review of the Act, held that service inams formed a considerable proportion of inams in the Andhra area, be it in ryotwari or zamindari area. There is no justification for attributing ignorance to the legislature of the existence of this class of inams. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that the legislature thought of keeping out of the purview of the Inams Abolition Act this class of inams, especially then the intendant of the Act was to abolish and convert inam land into ryotwari lands. The absence of a provision enabling the authorities concerned to insist upon performance of service could not lead, to the conclusion that all service inams were excluded from the purview of the enactment. Service inams also must be held as inams governed by this enactment. The ryotwari patta should, therefore, be held to have been issued to the service holders.

                  Another Division Bench of the High Court to which one of us (K.Ramaswamy, J.) was a member in Sri Bhavanaravanaswami Vari Temple v. Chintapudi Rudraiah [AIR (1986) 1 A.L.T. 444], after exhaustive consideration of the controversy, had held that a conjoint reading of Section 7 and Form VIII and Section 12 would posit that on and from the date of the grant of the ryotwari patta, the inam extinguishes. The grantee becomes absolute owner. He is liable only to pay ryotwari assessment to the Government. No condition has been fastened therein making the grantee render service to the respondents. There is presumptive evidence that the legislature is aware of the pre- existing law and it intendant to bring about alteration in the pre- existing liability by putting an end thereto and created new rights under the Act. The Act intended to extinguish the pre-existing vestige of obligation to render service running with the land and relieved the holder of the land from the said obligation. The vested rights, therefore, cannot be divested except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Section 15 gives over-riding effect over the Act though it is inconsistent with any other law or any instrument having force of law by virtue of any such law.

                  According to the above observations, it is categorically held that a conjoint reading of Section 7 and Form VIII and Section 12 would show that from the date of the grant of the ryotwari patta, the inam extinguishes and the grantee becomes absolute owner and he is liable only to pay ryotwari assessment to the Government. In the instant case, father of the petitioners has been granted inam patta under Section 7 of the Act under Form-VIII. Section 12 of the Inam Abolition Act and the said patta is still subsisting and the same was not interdicted in any appeal by the revenue Court or by the authority. The identical issue was also considered by the Division Bench of this Court in The State of Andhra Pradesh vs. L.Ramesh (2023 APHC 11975) wherein the Division Bench has observed as follows with regard to valuable rights.

                  “Further, another issue to be considered by us is as to whether it is open to the authorities to seek to unsettle the settled position, insofar as the rough patta granted as long as back in the year 1959 is concerned, and at that, in the proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 to 3. It is also to be noticed that respondents 1 to 3, when they filed W.P.No.4038 of 2000, only sought mutation of their names in the revenue records and did not seek issuance of a ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act. In the present case, we are only called upon to determine as to whether the Rough Patta No. 85, which remained undisturbed all these years forms a sufficient basis for the request of the respondents 1 to 3 to enter their names in the revenue records in respect of the subject lands. Keeping in view the fact that the possession of respondents 1 to 3 over the subject lands is not denied and the Rough Patta No. 85 is evidence of the recognition of this fact by the authorities, we have no doubt that the answer to this query should be in the affirmative. Therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench in R. Elamalai Chetty's case (supra) is of no avail to the authorities.

                  In view of the above law laid down by the Division Bench, the rough patta granted to the vendor of the petitioners creates rights in favour of the said vendor which have now been passed on to the petitioners and the petitioners would thus to be entitled to seek mutation of their names in the revenue records and issuance of pattedar pass books, on the basis of the said rough patta.”

                  Finally held that as the petitioners claims are under estate abolition Act and not the Board Standing Orders as such the provisions of the Board Standing Orders would be applicable to the claims raised arising under the Estate Abolition Act.

12. Finally, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Constitutional bench of the composite High Court in Nellore Bujjamma and others vs. The Tahsildar, Rapur and others (MANU/AP/0113/1980) . In the said judgment, the Constitutional Bench has considered elaborately with regard to the provisions of the inam abolition Act and rights of the land held by Religious, Charitable and Educational institutions which are in inam village, the institutions concerned as entitled to get a ryotwari patta but the tenants in occupation are conferred rights of occupancy in the said land and are made transferable and heritable and observed as follows:

                  “From the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it will be seen that the object of the Act, is to abolish and convert inam tenures into ryotwari tenures. There is no specific provision in the Act expressly stating that the abolition and conversion of the inam land into ryotwari tenure will take place on the date of commencement of the Act or on any other date. No doubt, section 1(3) of the Act states that the Act shall come into force at once, but the question still arise for consideration as to whether arise for consideration as to whether the inam land stood abolished and got converted into ryotwari tenure on the date of commencement of the Act or on a later date.

                  One other contention raised by Sri Kodandaramayya, the learned counsel for the petitioners is that if the date of the grant of the ryotwari patta is held to be the date on which the inam tenure stands abolished and gets converted into ryotwari tenure, there will be different dates on which the inam land gets converted into ryotwari tenure. But there is nothing illogical or incongruous in providing for the conversion of the inam lands into ryotwari tenures on different dates. The provisions of the Act indicate that ryotwari patta can only be granted after all the steps have been taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and necessarily, the ryotwari pattas will be granted on different dates after determining the nature of the inam land, and the person or institutions of (or) the tenants entitled to the grant of pattas. There is no express provision in the Act that all the inam lands governed by the Act should stand abolished and get converted into ryotwari tenure on the same.”

                  Basing on the above findings, this Court has also dealt in identical issue in Writ Petition No.3383 of 2022 dated 25.4.2023 and held that after conducting enquiry basing on records, if the Deputy Tahsildar has granted a patta under Section 3(3) of the Act and the Gazette notification clearly discloses that the subject properties mentioned in the patta or private lands and declare that the inclusion of the said lands in prohibitory list under Section 22A is contrary and held it should be deleted.

13. Basing on the above observations of the various Courts, learned senior counsel has placed his arguments that there is no dispute with regard to grant of patta in favour of the father of the petitioner and Section 3(5) of the Act clearly prohibits that the decision of the revenue Court under sub section 4 of Section 3 of the Act and in case of any appeal is filed, the decision of the Tahsildar under sub section 3 shall be final. So in the instant case as against the grant of patta under Section 3(3) has not been questioned by way of an appeal under Section 3(4) of the Act. Hence the patta granted in favour of the father of the petitioner became final. Though in the counter filed by the respondents, they have only stated that the gazette notification dated 30.8.1971 which is almost after one year after issuance of impugned form-II decision in the year 1970 is uncommon. Except that the respondents neither disputed the patta granted in favour of the father of the petitioners or the Gazette notification. Further just because of change of classification in the settlement in S.F.A. would not defeat the rights of the petitioners. In fact as per the glossary on judicial and revenue terms, it clearly says that gayalu means unfit for cultivation or abandoned by the cultivator. That does not mean that the said lands are prohibited for grant of patta under the provisions of the Act.

14. Finally, considering the above contentions raised by both the counsel and on perusal of the record, in fact identical issue was considered by the Apex Court in Yerikala Sunkalamma and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue and others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 630) wherein the Apex Court has analyzed the entire issue under Section 113 of B.S.A and observed as follows:

                  39. To put it more elaborately, a “Patta” is a type of land deed issued by the government, indicating ownership or the right to hold land. Consequentially, the person who holds this land deed (Patta) is called a Pattadar. The Pattadars are responsible for paying land revenue to the government and their names are registered in the land revenue accounts of the government as a Pattadar, or as an occupant, or a khatadar. A Pattadar Passbook is a document that contains all the information about the land owner, including their landownership details. Revenue officials, such as Tahsildars are responsible for maintaining land records and verifying, modifying, and registering Pattas. The Patwari is the land record official at the village level, who maintains records of rights and other records concerning land.

                  40. Upon a comparison between a Land Patta Holder and a Land Allottee, it can be seen that a Land Patta Holder is a person who has been granted a Patta (a legal document) that confers rights over a specific piece of land, typically indicating ownership or entitlement to use the land. On the other hand, a Land Allottee is a person to whom land has been allotted by the Government or relevant authority, often under specific conditions and for designated purposes.

                  42. As far as their legal standing is concerned, the Patta Holder is recognized as having a legal claim to the land, which can be defended in court. The Patta serves as evidence of ownership or entitlement. A Land Allottee, on the other hand, may have limited rights, especially if the allotment was made under specific government schemes or conditions that restrict ownership rights. For instance, the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the “Act of 1977”), imposes restrictions on the transfer of assigned lands. While Land Patta Holders generally have the right to transfer their interests in the land, subject to any conditions specified in the patta, the allottees may face restrictions on transferring their rights, particularly within a specified period or without government permission.

                  84. The presumption, which is rebuttable, is attracted when the possession is prima facie lawful and when contesting party has no title.

                  85. The appellants could be said to have established their possession over the suit land in question right from the year 1970. There is cogent and convincing evidence in this regard. They were in peaceful enjoyment of the suit land in question. In our opinion, the respondent State has not been able to prove its title to the suit land. Just because the suit land is surrounded by few other parcels of land owned by the Government, that by itself will not make the suit land of the ownership of the Government. If the Government claims title over the land, it has to establish it by producing relevant records in the form of revenue records etc. In our opinion, the State has failed to advance any credible evidence on record to rebut the presumption. Consequently, the appellants have Pattadars’ title to the suit land in question.

                  124. Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. This Article has been inserted by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978. Prior to this amendment, the right to property was guaranteed by Article 31. While Clause (1) of that Article has been shifted from Part III to Article 300-A, Clause (2) of that Article, which dealt with compulsory acquisition of property, has been repealed. Sub-Clause (f) of Clause (1) of Article 19, which guaranteed the right to acquire and hold property, has also been omitted by the same 44th Amendment Act, 1978. The result of these changes, in short, is that the right to hold property has ceased to be a fundamental right under the Constitution and it has been left to the Legislature to deprive a person by the authority of law.

                  125. Article 300-A provides that the property of a person can be deprived by authority of law. The phrase “save by authority of law” came before the Court for interpretation. This Court in the case of Wazir Chand v. State of H.P., reported in (1954) 1 SCC 787 held that under the Constitution, the Executive cannot deprive a person of his property of any kind without specific legal authority which can be established in Court of law, however laudable the motive behind such deprivation may be. In the same decision, this Court also held that in case of dispossession of property except under the authority of law, the owner may obtain restoration of possession by a proceeding for mandamus against the governmental authorities. Further, this Court in Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1982) 1 SCC 39 held that the phrase “by authority of law” means by or under a law made by the competent Legislature. The same position is reiterated by this Court in the case of Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat reported in 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596 wherein it has been observed that “Article 300-A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300-A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation.”

15. In the above referred observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court clearly demonstrates that the burden lies on the respondent-State to prove its title and just because the suit land is surrounded by few other parcels of land owned by the Government, that by itself will not make the suit land of the ownership of the Government. If the Government claims title over the land, it has to establish it by producing relevant records in the form of revenue records etc before the Court of law and clearly held that under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, no person shall be deprived of his property several by the authority of law and also held that just because of entries in RSR will not final to claim the title and once patta is granted in favour and held that “Patta” is a type of land deed issued by the government, indicating ownership or the right to hold land and the pattadars are responsible for paying land revenue to the Government and they are the absolute owners.

16. In the instant case, as contended by the learned senior counsel and also on perusal of Ex.P-26 and also P-4, P-22, it clearly discloses that the inam patta has been granted in favour of the father of the petitioners and subsequently the subject property has devolved to the petitioners by way of a registered settlement deed which also confers on perusal of the Encumbrance Certificate placed along with the Writ Petition. More specifically, on perusal of the District Gazette which is supplied by respondent no.2 office through an endorsement clearly discloses the grant of patta in favour of the petitioners with regard to the subject lands. In the said circumstances, the respondents ought not to have included subject land under Section 22A of prohibitory list and without cancelling the patta or without filing an appeal before the revenue Court. At this juncture, the authorities have no right to interfere with the possession of the petitioners and to include the properties under prohibitory list. In fact in the judgment reported in between The State of Andhra Pradesh vs. L.Ramesh (referred to supra) the Division bench has categorically held that it is not open for the authorities to seek to unsettle the settled position, insofar as the pattas granted long back. In the instant case, the patta was granted to the father of the petitioners way back in the year 1964 and the same was included in the Gazette in 1971. Once, the patta has been granted under Section 3(3) of the Act and if any appeal has not been filed under Section 3(4) of the Act, under Section 3(5) of the Act such patta became final. By declaring that the patta granted in favour of the petitioners became final under the provisions of the Act, the respondents ought not to have included the same under Section 22A of prohibitory list.

17. In view of the above observations, the impugned order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 is set aside and consequently directing the respondents to release the subject properties from Section 22A of prohibitory list by mutating the names of the petitioners in the revenue records. The said exercise shall be completed within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

                  As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall also stand closed.