Sunteți pe pagina 1din 14



CCLAs PROCEEDINGS No. V1/275/2010 , Dt:


The Revision Petitioner:
1.Sri Maddula Neelakantam S/o. Late. Venkata Ramana, H.No.11-28-32, Subash
Road, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondents:1. Sri Chilka Satya Venkateswara Rao S/o.Late. Rajagopala Rao Naidu, H.No.36-172/2, Hyderguda.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
3.The Spl.Dy.Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Smt.Doosa Sarojini Ramayyamma W/o. Adnarayana, (died) per LR Sri Dusa
Sahitya @ Kota Sahitya aged 19 years H. No. 49-39-24A, NGOs Colony

Visakapatnam rep by Sri Kota Mehar Kumar GPA holder.

This Revision petition was filed by Sri Maddula Neelakantam, S/o Venkata
Ramana @ Demullu U/s 14(A) of A.P. (Andhra Area) Inam (Abolition & Conversion
into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Visakhapatnam passed in Inam Appeal 1/2007 in Rc.No.5556/2006/C
dated 05.06.2010 which was confirming the order of Special Deputy Tahsildar
(Inam), Visakhapatnam District, in Inam Case A.I.P.No.1500/2005, dt.25.04.2006.
RP. No. V1/275/2010 :
1. The Claim of the Petitioner in R.P.No. V1/275/2010 is that the petition schedule
land is Ac.2.70 cents which is a portion of Ac. 8.95 cents in S.No. 258/1 (Old
S.No.79/1) patta Number 439 of Kapuluppada Village of Bheemunipatnam
Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

The SDT (Inam) in his Proceeding order AIP No.1500/2005, dt. 25.04.2006
has stated that as per the IFR and confirmed and continued as
personal Inam in favour of Sri Chintakandi Ramadas as T.D.No.439 by the
Inam Commissioner and this Inam land is personal and also hereditary with all
benfits of the holder.


SDT (Inam) further stated that as per Gillman survey & Settlement record
O.S.No. 79/1 for an extent of Ac. 9-80 cts recorded in favour of Sri
Chintakandi Peda Rama Somayajulu and vagyralu here the owner of this
Vagyrlu is not mentioned.
During Re-Survey operations conducted by the settlement officer the
O.S.No.79/1 correlates to R.S.No.258/1 and the extent is Ac 8-95 cents under

T.D. No.439 recorded in favour of Sri Chintkandi peda Rama Somayajulu etc.
and it was classified as Inam wet land under Kambala Cheruvu.
And further stated that in the village 10(1) account this T.D.No. 439
was not yet been converted into Ryotwari and the T.D.No. is recorded in
favour of Chintakandi Venkatanarayana and China Somayajulu. As per
cultivation account for Fasili 1405 and there upon and from previous fasilies it
was recorded in favour of Sri Chilakavari family for and extent of Ac. 2.70 cts.

Further, at the time of inspection of the claim lands on 06.04.2006,

schedule land is easily demarked from the adjacent ryots from stone wall
raised on Northern side from the sale lands of Maddula family and on wes side
from Gambheeram Gedda water erosion. As per registered sale deed Noo.333,
dt.21-10-1896 produced by Sri Chilaka Satya Venkateswarlu, the Claimants
fore father Sri Chilaka Sanyasi Naidu purchased an extent of 9-00 cts from Sri
Digumurti Latchayya, S/o Suryanarayana the legal heir of Chintalakandi China
Rama Somayajulu.


He also stated that during Resurvey operations the names of Chilaka Sanyasi
Naidu or the Digumarthy Lachayya were not brought on record for S.No.
258/1. But the entile land recorded infavour of Sri MAddula Demudu uraf
Kamaraju(S.No.258/1 for an entire extent of Ac 8.95 cents) though he
purchased Ac.6.25 cents and during the enquiry Form 5 notices issued to
Maddula family and Sri Maddula Atchuta RAo, S/o Sri late Maddula Venkata
Ramana deposed that their family has no right or title over the claim land and
they purchased an extent of Ac 6.25 cts only.
As per the recitals of the sale deeds both chilaka family registered an
extent of Ac. 9.85 cts in T.D.No.439 before Survey operations in 1896 and
maddula family after Gillman Survey operations registered an extent of Ac 895 cts in the same O.S.No. 79/1. But the extent of land on O.S.No. 79/1 is Ac.
8-95 cts only.
This S.No.258/1(P) for an extent of Ac. 2-70 cts out of a total extent
of Ac 8-95 cts classified as wet under T.D.No. 439 is personal Inam lands in
Zamindari village under the present enjoyment of the Chilaka family.
As per the pre and post abolition records it is clear that these Inam
lands are in Zamindari village and it was recorded originally in favour of Sri
Chintkandi peda somayajulu, armadas etc., and transferred to the present
claimant Sri Chilaka Satya Venkateswara Rao through hereditary rights as well
as through registered sale deeds from time to time and the lands are in the
peaceful possession and the enjoyment of the present claimant.
Finally the Form 8 patta was issued by SDT(Inam) ,VSP district in
favour of Sri Chilaka Satya Venkateswara rao , S/o late Rajagopal Rao Naidu.
After that Sri Maddula Neelakantam filed an appeal before Revenue
Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam against the issuance of Form 8 Ryotwari
patta granted in favour of Sri Chilaka Satya Venkateswara Rao for the extent
of Ac 2-70 cts in S.No.258/1 in Kappuluppadu Village of Bhemunipatnam
Mandal vide order of Spl.Dy.Tahsildar(Inam), Visakhapatnam District in
A.I.P.No.1500/2005/SDT(Inam), dt 25.4.2006.
The Revenue Divisional Officer,Visakhapatnam confirmed the order of
SDT(Inam), VSP in A.I.P.No. 1500/2005/SDT(Inam), dt 25.4.2006 of vide his
order Rc.No. 5556/2006/C, dt.05.06.2010 by dismissing the appeal.

Schedule land:
Total extent
Claim extent

258/1 (Old S.No. 79/1)
Ac. 8.95 cts
Ac. 2.70 cts

Now the present Revision Petition is filed challenging the said proceeding of
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam in Rc.No.5556/2006/C, dated
05.06.2010 on the following grounds.

The RDO Visakhapatnam ought to have held that Inam enquiry in respect of
this land was completed prior to 1960 as per Register B-Beriz.


The RDO Visakhapatnam failed to see that Revision Petitioner father

purchased Ac.9.80 cents under a Registered Sale Deed in the year 1939
(Annexure-16) and Revision Petitioners family sold away to the possession of
this Revision Petitioner for which Pattadars Pass Book and Title Deed Book
were issued.


The RDO Visakhapatnam failed to see that notice required in Form-5 of the
Act was not given to this Revision Petitioner even though entire Revenue
Record in respect of this land stands in his name or his predecessors in title.


The RDO Visakhapatnam ought to have seen that the S.D.T. accepted the
sale of Ac.6.25 cents by family of Maddula people (Revision Petitioners) in
this Survey Number and for the balance of Ac.3.55 cents out of Ac.9.80
cents, a Ryotwari Patta was granted to the 1st Respondent. The RDO
Visakhapatnam should have held that if Title of this Revision Petitioners
family is accepted for Ac.6.25 cents the title to the balance of Ac.3.55 cents
should also be accepted.


The Hon,ble RDO, Visakhapatnam failed to see that the 1st respondent
registered sale deed of the year 1896 the patta number is shown to be 440
while the patta number of this land is 439d and the said sale deed did not
mention the survey number and the boundaries are not tallied. Thus the 1st
respondent failed to prove or establish his right over this land.


The learned RDO,VSP ought to have held that 1st respondent has only Ac
0.5o cents in survey number 258/2 and no land in survey number 258/1.


the learned RDO, VSP failed to see that the Spl.Dy.Tahsildar in her finding
stated that she visited the land and found paddy was being cultivated while
the fact as per MRO, Bheemunipatnam report the standing cropis Casurina on
the field.


The learned RDO,VSP failed to notice that the land in S.No.258/1 was Subdivided into S.No. 258/1 P1, 258/1 P2, 258/1 P3 in the names of vendees of
Maddula people while the balance of Ac 3.15 cts as S.No.258/1 P4 is in the
name of this Revision Petitioner.


The learned RDO, VSP should not have believed the version of the Spl.Dy.
Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam in her order that Digumarthi people
(Vendors of the document of the year 1896 of 1st respondent) are the legal
representative of the Chintakindi people (Vendors of the Document of the
year 1939 of Revision Petitioners father) without any evidence.


The learned RDO, VSP and the Spl.Dy.Tahsildar (Inams) have not seen that it
is the burden of the 1st respondent to show by documentary evidence that
the land in question belonged to him, and inam enquiry under the Act was
not conducted and that the land was not coverted into Ryotwari . however
the learned RDO, VSP and Spl.Dy.Tahsildar (Inams) allowed the application
of the 1st respondent on the strength of Revision Petitioners document and
the contents thereof. They filed to see that the 1st respondent has not
produced any document in his favour connecting the land to his family and
on the other hand the Registered sale deed of the year 1896 which is the
only registered document shows a different patta number and boundaries,
and failed to see that SLR, Settlement Register, stand in the name of
Revision Petitioner or his predecessors. The basic principle that it is the
Applicant before the Spl.Dy. Tahsildar (1st respondent herein) shall prove his
case and Title to the land and a relief cannot be granted on his prayer basing
on the documents of Respondent, was ignored by both the lower forums.


The learned RDO, Visakhpatnam in his order merely stated the grounds
urged and did not give any findings on the same and stated that Revision
Petitioner did not come up with relavnt grounds leaving all the grounds urged
without any finding.


In the order of leaned RDO, Visakhapatnam should have held that the
Applicant before the lower forum failed to prove his case and that the Inam
enquiry in respect of this land was completed prior to year 1960 and that SLR
is in the name of Revision Petitioner predecessor in title and that the
document of the year 1896 has no connection what so ever to the land in

Counter filed by the 1st Respondent on 26.10.2010:

In the counter affidavit the respondent has stated the following points:
1. It is respectfully submitted that the first respondents great grandfather Chilka
Sanyasi Naidu was the original owner of property and who purchased 9 acres of
agricultural land from one Digumarthi Lachaiah and Digumarthi Suryanarayana
and this respondents neighbor towards northern boundary is one Chintakandi
Pedda Rama Somayajulu and others. The said land was described in the sale
deed as,
Kambala Cheruvu Diguvununna Passiman Isthuva bounded by
East: Inam pallam (Inam Wet Land) of Danthuluri Narayana Rajugaru to
some extent Akmadlu (Seed beds) of Chakiravu Pollam relating to this
Esthuva and to some extent are Zerayathi lands.
South: Gadda
West: Gadda (Gambheeram Gadda vagu)
North: Chinthakandhivari anyam boohmi ki ye bhoomiki mandhadini vunna
ye bhoomi ki Kambala chervu neeru pravahencha Bodhi kaluva sthalam.
50 cents land pertaining to Chaki revu bounded by:
East: Zeeraithi lands
South: Zeeraithi lands
West : Pasiman Isthuva Palllam
North: Dhanthuluri Narayana Rajugari Inam Pallam
West to East: In the year 1902 Chilaka Sanjeevarao Naidu grand father of the
respondent constructed a stone wall called popularly as Rathi Gattu towards
West to East and all around North to South in the year 1902. The sale deed
dated: 21-10-1896 clearly indicates the land purchased by the family of late
Sri Chilka Sanyasi Naidu now described in revenue records as this land in
survey No. 258/1 (old Survey No. 79/1). The land in question is more than
hundred years back covered under registered sale deed bearing No. 333
dated: 21-10-1896. A copy of the said sale deed is submitted herewith for
ready reference. As per this sale deed specific boundaries were mentioned
for the land purchased by Late Chilka Sanyasi Naidu.
2. It may be noticed, there is a canal flowing by name Gambheeram Gadda Vagu
is on the Western side. Because of the floods and rain water drain the land
which was reclaimed by the canal. In the course of time, 9 acres got eroded and
now remains only 3 acres 75 cents. In order to avoid further erosion of Chilaka
Sanjeevarao Naidu grand father of the respondent constructed a stone wall in the
year 1902 towards West to East and also North to South all around at Borders to
avoid erosion of the land which is still standing to-day. So far as Northern
boundary is concerned it is intact. Late Mr. Chilka Sanyasi Naidus estate was
devolved on his so Late Mr. Chilka Sanjeeva Rao Naidu and from him to his so
Late Chilka Rajagopala Rao Naidu and from him it was devolved to the first
respondent Chilka Satya Venkateswara Rao. This land having marketable title
with specific boundaries. The sale deed being 100 years old even in law the
presumption is the recitals and boundaries stated therein are correct as during

those days there was no survey or survey numbers were given by the revenue
department the then.
3. It is submitted as per the Survey Settlement Register of Kapuluppada village
the Vizianagaram Samasthanam in their Survey & Settlement Register they have
mentioned as Sy. No. 79/1 (New sy. No. 258/1) Wet Land under the Ayakut of
Kambalal Tank which extends Ac. 9-50 cents in which the Pattadar is Sri
Chinthakandi Peddarama Somayajulul Vagaira (etc.,). It may be noticed that
Revenue Authorities instead of writing all the names of the land holders and the
extent of lands held by them for the purpose of brevity of record they put
Vagaira (etc.). It does not mean that Sri Chinthakandi Pedda Rama Somayajulu
is the owner of the entire land in Sy. No. 258/1. It may be noticed that in Sy.
No. 258/1 in which Sub-Divisions part-I & part-II this Respondent is also holding
wet land of Ac.3-75 cents and 0-50 cents respectively which is covered and in
the sale deed dt. 21-10-1896.
4. It may be noticed that after re-survey correlates to Sy. No. 258/1 but the
extent of land got reduced to 8 acres 95 cents under title deed No. 439 recorded
in favour of vendor. This land was classified as Inam wet land under Kambhala
Cheruvu as per cultivation land from Fasli onwards indicates the land is recorded
in favour of Chilaka Vari Family which is none other than the first respondents
family. As the land got mutated in the name of Chilka family by virtue of
registered sale deed No. 333 dated: 21-10-1896. One can trace the title deed
history. There was no land towards Western side in view of Gambheeram Gadda
Vagu. Further, there is no dispute for Western South boundary area. The only
dispute arose because of the revision petitioner making a claim towards the
Northern side. So far as the schedule land is concerned the Northern side is a
stone wall popularly called as Rathi Gattu which was constructed by the grand
father Late Mr. Chilka Sanjeeva Rao Naidu of the first respondent in the year
1902. At that time, there was no land dispute with the neighbors of the Northern
side. The Rathi Gattu boundary wall is well within the land and the border of the
land of Survey No. 258/1 after Rathi Gattu there is no land for the respondent.
The said Rathi Gattu was even now called and identified by the public as Chilaka
Sanjeevarao Gari Rathi Kattu.
5. It is respectfully submitted that the revision petitioner with a sinister motive
to occupy the land started trespassing into the scheduled land of this respondent,
as such OS No. 543 of 1994 on the file of first additional senior civil Judge
Vishakhapatnam was filed by this respondent and the 4th revision petitioner to
look after the interest as she is none other than his natural sister. Though the
first respondent took diligent steps during the course of filing the suit
unfortunately third respondent authority failed to cooperate on the ground
records are not available and they are old and thus more by omission supported
the cause of the revision petitioner. The lower court by erroneous reason came
to a conclusion that the revision petitioner is not a trespasser. Aggrieved of the
same first respondent filed AS No. 1513 of 2000 on the file Honourable High
Court challenging the judgment and decree in OS No. 543 of 1994. The said
matter is still pending.
6. It is respectfully submitted, taking advantage of an erroneous judgment
though the appeal is pending the revision petitioner without the knowledge of his
own family members and also without knowledge of this respondent has chosen
to fabricate documents and brought them into existence to grab the land, which
is covered under sale deed bearing No. 333, dated: 1896. If one has to occupy
the land from Northern side they have to cross the Northern side Rathi Gattu. To
the utter surprise of this respondent the revision petitioner is making a claim for
the alleged land from Northern side. In the mean time, this respondent realized
that some of the revenue officials joined hands with revision petitioner and more
by omission supported the revision petitioner to enable him to grab the land.
7. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent herein to avoid the
misconceptions and also to conduct a survey for the scheduled land covered
under sale deed 333 of 1896 several steps were taken. In that process, the
respondent filed the writ petition No. 18991 of 2000 before the Honble High

Court. The Revenue officials several times took adjournments to file the counter.
In the mean time the respondent herein applied to survey and settlement
authority to survey the land and identify the Chilka Sanjevarao Naidus land in
Survey no. 258/1 as per sale deed bearing No. 333 of 1896 and to identify the
land basing upon Register B entries in Adangal Pattadar pass book etc.
Further, this land being very old Vijayanagaram Estate Diaglot in respect of the
land. The revenue authority issued notice that they will identify the land and
passed the orders in AIP No. 1500 of 2005. After surveying, verifying the
revenue records and identifying the land only then the order was passed in
favour of the first respondent. Aggrieved of the same this Revision Petitioner
preferred an Appeal 1 of 2007 before Revenue Divisional Officer,
Vishakhapatnam. The said appeal was also dismissed on 5-6-2010. Aggrieved
of the same the present revision petition is filed.
8. It is further submitted, on a diligent enquiry by the respondent, certain
important facts have come to light, i.e. the revision petitioner Mr. Neelakantam
started making a claim by showing that his mother executed a registered deed
upon her death that 3.55 acres has to be devolved on this petitioner. The
revision petitioner made a claim that as per the will, he got the land in question
from his mother, on the alleged ground that land in survey No. 258/1 is the said
land. Thus, a series of omissions and commissions were made by the revision
1) There is a mistaken identity of scheduled land as it was not referred with the
sale deeds and other documents available at that point of time.
2) The Neelakantam family members Smt. Jagadamba or any of her family
members are not having any land in survey No. 258/1.
3) The land which was identified by the revision petitioner is the land of this
respondent which was not sold to any third parties nor created any charge on
the said property either by the vendors of the Late Chilka Sanyasi Naidu or his
children and grandchildren Late Chilka Sanyasi Naidu or any of the Chilka family
and they were holding the said land since 1896 till the appeal is filed and there
is no mistaken identity as alleged by the revision petitioner, so far as this
respondent is concerned he has furnished the necessary documentary proof to
prove his case.
9. It may be noticed to give a colour as though this revision petitioner is
prosecuting the issue in question as genuine owner has chosen to brought into
existence certain documents. Thus the revision petitioner made a claim that his
mother M. Jagadamba alias M. Sanyasamma partitioned the lands of her husband
among her sons i.e. the brothers of the revision petitioner without admitting the
facts stated therein Smt. M. Jagadamba would not get any right to partition third
parties properties or identify third party properties to be given to the share of the
revision petitioner i.e. Sri Maddula Neelakhantam. In fact the records as well as
the sworn statements of Maddula Neelakhantams brothers clearly indicate that
the revision petitioner is not having land either or after Rathi Gattu or before
Rathi Gattu. No land has fallen to his share adjoining to the Rathi Gattu. To be
specific so far as this respondent is concerned the Rathi Gattu is an identifying
area towards Northern side of the suit schedule property. The Rathi Gattu will be
Western side for Maddula family land if one looks into the documents from their
10. It is respectfully submitted that the mother of the revision petitioner
Maddula Jagadamba and their family consists she and her four sons were holding
6.25 acres of land in survey No. 258/1 in Kapuluppada village, Bheemunipatnam
Mandal, Visakhapatnam District Eldest son Maddula Venkata Satyanarayana
already took his share of portion of Ac. 1-25 cents in Kapuluppada and living
independently. He relinquished his right in the remaining joint family properties
and registered the same as document No. 1847/1976 in the Sub-Registrar Office,
Bhemunipatnam. He is no way concerned with the properties any more. In the
year 1980 Maddula Jagadamba and her remaining three sons Maddula Atchuta
Rao, Maddulu Neelakantam. Maddula Appala Narasimham portioned among
themselves and registered the same as document No. 2611 of 1980 in the SubRegistration Office, Bheemunipatnam. According to said document the remaining
land of Ac. 5-00 cents was divided into 4 portions, as per the said partition deed

the middle portion was apportioned to Maddula Neelakhantam in the year 1980
itself and not the land adjoining Rathi gattu, i.e. Southern side of the land
Maddula Venkata Ramana which is evident from their own documents. The land
which is adjoining to Rathi Gattu towards Southern side which originally belongs
Maddula Venkata Ramana has fallen to the share of M. Appala Narasimham the
brother of revision petitioner described as A Scheduled property of 1-25 acres.
This was sold away by M. Appala Narasimham to one Garakana Nookanna under
registered sale deed 2199 dated: 15-6-1993 and it is the said vendor who is in
possession of the land today.
So far as the revision petitioner Maddula
Neelakhantam is concerned E Schedule property as per their partition deed was
apportioned to him which is also 1-25 acres. As per this deed for Maddula
Neelakhantams land Southern boundary is his own brother Sri Maddula Achyuta
Rao holding B Schedule land of 1-25 acres and from the Northern boundary for
Rathi Gattu is his mother Smt. Sanyasamma and the said land was also
described as A schedule as per the partition deed. As such, there is no land
adjoining to Rathi Gattu i.e. towards Northern boundary. Even otherwise in and
around Rathi Gattu Maddula Neelakhantam is not having any land. If he has to
make a claim for the land covered under sale deed 333 of 1896 he has to make
an off step jump to his brothers land and then tress pass into this respondents
land. Though the respondent took necessary steps during the trial of the suit,
because of non co-operation of revenue officials and the learned Judge closed the
case hurriedly thus an erroneous finding was given with a mistaken identity,
which was taken as an anchor sheet by the revision petitioner and started
harassing this respondent. To dispel the doubts, having initiated the revenue
proceedings the same was intimated to the Honble High Court and got dismissed
the writ petition which will not have any bearing in this case but it cannot be
alleged that this respondent failed to secure relief from the Revenue Authority,
Civil Court or High Court.
11. It may be noticed, the dispute between the revision petitioner and this
respondent is that of a trespass by him into the respondents land which is a civil
rights because of non-cooperation of revenue officials, some evidences could not
be let into be recorded i.e. with regard to survey and settlement of Survey No.
258/1 and the said matter is sub judice in the High Court. There is no bar for
this respondent to take steps in law as per Revenue Act and Survey and
Settlement Act, which he has set in motion. It may be noticed, the revenue
authority after verifying all the relevant record and after physical verification and
survey of the land identified the land and then passed the orders. At that point
of time a substantial evidence was let in by this respondent about the partition of
the family properties of Neelakantams father and the property apportioned and
also an affidavit was given by his brother which was filed before the revenue
authorities and also before the Honble High Court. As the revision petitioner
could not get over the same and lost the appeal and preferred the present
revision petition. So far as the Civil matters are concerned they have no bearing
as there is no dispute with regard to the title of the land of Chilka family and
none of them have sold even a cent of land covered under sale deed 333 of
1896. If the extent of land got eroded because of Gambheeram Gadda Vagus
water flow for more than hundred years and land naturally gets reduced.
12. It is respectfully submitted that as per revenue survey there is only 3 acres
and 55 cents land now in survey No. 258/1 is existing which is covered under the
ale deed No. 333 of 1896.
13. It is respectfully submitted that there is no dispute with reference to
classification of the land or title of the land. From the beginning the land is
identified as Inam land and the title belongs to Chilka Sanyasi Naidu. In the year
1954 when revenue authorities are surveying they committed certain omissions
and commissions took place who have not issued any notice to this respondent
before survey or called upon to produce the necessary records to identify the
land to classify. Though the land is identified as Inam wet land shown by the
revenue department in Adangal is non other land but the land covered under sale
deed No. 333 of 1896. So it is the duty of the officials to record in proper
manner. The third respondent authorities for some reason, if omitted that land
cannot disappear from the ground reality much less it can be occupied by the

revision petitioner as though the said land is part of sale deed No. 2611 of 1980.
The adjoining land to the Rathis Gattu which belongs to Maddula family has fallen
to the share of Appala Narasimha who sold the same to one Garekana Nookanna.
So question of making a claim is a remote contingency so far as this revision
petitioner is concerned. As such revision petitioner cannot raise any claim much
less can taken the assistance Revenue Register omission to his favour.
14. With reference to the ground No. 2, the material facts are not correct even
as per the sale deed No. 1618 of 1939 purchased by Maddula Venkata Ramana
alias Maddula Demullu who has purchased only 6.25 acres of land but wrongly
mentioned 9.80 acres but the land as per its boundaries is only 6.25 acres and it
is settled principle that boundary prevails over the extent. Under this sale deed
document bearing No. 2611 of 1980 Southern boundary was shown as Chilka
Sanjeeva Rao Naidu Rathi Gattu. A partition document between M. Jagadamba
and her three sons and each one got 1-25 acres as such from the estate of his
father Neelakantam became owner by virtue of partition deed B schedule
property 1-25 acres and he is in between the land apportioned to his mother and
lands apportioned to his brother but not adjoining Rathi Gattu of Chilka Sanjeeva
Rao Naidu. This fact is also evident if one peruses the sale deeds as well as
partition deeds of revision petitioner and his brother and mother. So question of
this petitioner retaining 3 acres 55 cents land is not correct. The Revision
Petitioner herein taking advantage of the respondents absence as he was not
staying as Vishakhapatnam by making false representations managed to get his
name recorded in Patta / pass book and title deed book both these entries are
bad in law. There is no land either side of Rathi Gattu in favour of the revision
petitioner. The said mistake was rectified by the original authority in AIT No.
1550 of 2005 on 25-4-2006. This revision petitioner brought into existence
certain document like Pattadar Pass book and title deed book with an intention to
grab first respondents lands under the garb of these title deeds little realizing
that the predecessor in title themselves have no land in survey No. 258/1
covered under sale deed 333 of 1896.
15. The allegation that RDO failed to issue Form 5 of the Act to the revision
petitioner as the entire revenue record in respect of this land stands in his name
is a distorted version as the foundation laid for incorporating the revision
petitioners name in revenue recorded is based on fraud and also by mistaken
impression given to the revenue officials who also adopted an indifferent attitude
and not referred the original Gilmans survey book and the title deeds of Chilak
Sanyasi Naidu. One can by physical verification with respective sale deeds can
make out the land in question.
16. With reference to ground No. 4, it is submitted that the RDO & Special
Deputy Tahsildar accepted 6 acres 50 cents of Maddula family which is outside
the Rathis Gattu and is not within the Rathi Gattu. At no point of time Maddula
family owned 9 acres 80 cents even as per their record as the extent is less than
what was mentioned in the sale deed as petitioner its boundaries as stated
supra. The revision petitioner failed to trace the title deeds which itself will
speak the facts. The 3-55 acres land covered under 333 of 1896 of Chilka family
but not that of Maddula family. That was the reason, time and again, it was
pointed out that there is a mistaken identity by the respondent, whereas the
revision petitioner with a sinister motive, misrepresented and got incorporated
his name in the revenue records and to rectify the same the present proceedings
were initiate. These proceedings are original proceedings, the entire cause is
dependent on rectification of the mistake and to bringing the record into order as
per the sale deeds as the issue in question goes to the root cause of the problem
can be solved only by this sort of enquiry and verification which cannot be
objected by revision petitioner as the enquiry and physical verification and
identification is fact finding enquiry based on related Revenue Records and the
documents of all contesting parties can be verified to know the truth. But there
is no such law for the purpose of interpretation. As such the RDO having verified
all the records and identified the facts, prepared the order Sec. 7(2) and also
prepared a plan with clear identifications which itself speaks the facts. As such,
there is no such erroneous discretion exercised by the RDO as alleged.

17. It may be noticed, the Patta numbers given in 1896 were renewed and new
patta numbers were given. There are no two patta numbers for Chilka family
members, as per the Revenue Record title deed is mentioned as 439 even as on
today. The allegation 440 was shown in 1896 sale deed is not correct. The
interpretation and reasons given for ground number 6 that there is only 0.50
cents of land in Sy. No. 258/2 and this respondent ahs no land in survey No.
258/1 is an utter lie and contrary to record. As per revenue record Sy. No.
258/1 is totally acres 8-95 cents which is sub-divided between Chilka and
Maddula divided by Rathis Gattu. As such the inference drawn for ground
number 6 is un-sustainable.
18. With reference to ground No. 7, it may be noticed, that when civil matters
are pending, as there was no stay in the appeal, taking advantage of the said
situation the revision petitioner planted casuarinas and the fourth respondents
husband lodged a criminal complaint against the revision petitioner and by
removing casuarinas trees and though the land does not belong to revision
petitioner and when matters are subjudice he cut off certain plantation and kept
it barren. There is no paddy cultivation since filing of the suit.
19. The placing of the title was done correctly by the respondent basing upon the
title deeds, as such, revision, petitioner cannot say that there is no evidence or
RDO believed respondents version without evidence.
20. It may be noticed, in ground number 8 the sub division of 258/1, P-1, P-2,
P-3, P-4 and P-5 cited are pertaining to acres 6-25 of Maddula Venkataramana
alias M. Devullu which is covered under the registered partition deeds and that
land in question is not the land or part of the land covered under the said deeds
and it is the land covered under sale deed No. 333 of 1896 after erosion. In fact
the alleged partitioned lands were already sold to third parties by the revision
petitioner and their family members and those third parties have acquired the
rights. It may be noticed, as per ground number 10 this respondent ahs
discharged his onus and legal obligations by giving documentary evidence and
also initiating proceedings for personal inspection by RDO and Special Deputy
Tahsildar who have brought along with them the revenue records, surveyed and
verified and identified this petitioners as well as respondents lands, as such the
allegation that this respondent ahs not produced any document in his favour
connecting the land to his family and on the other handed registered sale deed
1896 with patta number and boundary does not arise because after 1896 Chilka
family has not sold this land to any third parties as such the original patta
continued till date, it is only devolved on legal heir from generation to generation
thus three generations passed. The SLR and Settlement register was prepared in
the absence of the respondent and without issuing notice and contrary to
Revenue Act. As such the entries in the SLR and settlement register are bad in
law, un-sustainable and to the extent the revenue authorities delete and
incorporate this respondents name basing upon the present proceedings. These
document being brought into existence it is justified on the part of the revenue
officials to ignore those documents and look into original documents showing the
correct facts and figures so these records and the original settlement will not give
title and right. It is a settled principle of law that stray entries in Revenue
Records cannot confer title much less the entries in the Adangal. Whenever a
Jamabandi is made, oral enquiry is conducted by revenue officials who
incorporate the names and these village officials are subjected to political and
influential and hooligan personnel influences and pressures and they succumb,
resulting in giving away not to uphold rule of law and making wrong entries in
revenue records as well as settlement registers. As such the reliance placed by
the revision petitioner on wrong entries is unsustainable in law as well as on
21. The contention of the petitioner that the DO has not adverted to the grounds
urged by the petitioner is not correct. There is no valid cogent and legal
evidence submitted by the respondent to correlate facts and figures to is not
correct and the allegations and grounds raised are un-sustainable in law and as
well as on facts.

22. The ground numbers 12 and 13 are based on surmises and conjectures and
not on legal evidence. No case has been made out by the revision petitioner and
it is not a case that the authorities concerned erroneously exercised their
discretion and vested the revision petitioners land in favour of this respondent.
Even as per the age of title in possession are as per original records this
respondent is legally entitled to but by creating frivolous records and information
the revision petitioner wants to gain basing upon his own grounds. It is a settled
principle of law that no one can take advantage of his own wrong and build up a
case on false documents, brought into existence, to claim a legal title. The
revision petitioner was not in existence when Chilka family was holding the
property, there is a difference of nearly 100 years between both the title deeds
are traced. The revision petitioner ahs not made out any case and the other
grounds will be urged at the time of hearing. There is concurrent finding by the
original authority and appellant authority so question of reversing a fact on the
revision jurisdiction does not arise.
23. It is respectfully submitted the land in question was never in the possession
of the revision petitioner as such this Honourable authority may be pleased to
vacate the stay order passed in the above in view of circumstances mentioned
therein and in the interest of justice.
This Revision Petition was admitted and ordered to call for lower court
records on 29.07.2010. And this case was posted for hearing on 31.08.2010 for the
first time and issued stay order on the orders of R.D.O, Visakhapatnam in
Rc.No.5556/2006/C, dated 05.06.2010 upto 31.08.2010. conducted several
hearings from time to time and posted for final hearing on 03.02.2015. At the time
of final hearing SGP present, counsel for revision petitioner, counsel for 1 st
respondent, counsel for 4th respondent were present and argued. At the time of
final hearing, arguments were heard by me from both sides. Examined the related
documents, sist recipts etc., submitted by the revision Petitioner and respondents
and lower court orders.
The following documents submitted by the Revision Petitioner:
1.Register- B Beriz of permanently settled estate and Inam Villages and
Bheemunipatnam Taluk, kappuluppada Village.
2. VSP District Gazette, dt.14.4.1960.
3. Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 18.08.1960. document
4. Memorandum of Appeal in As 1513/2000 High Court Of AP.
5. Order Copy in CMP 10057 of 2000 CMP.No.13105 of 2000 of AP High Court.
6. Counter Affidavit of MRO in W.P.No.189/91 of 2000.
7. Order copy of MC No.33/94 by R.D.O of VSP.
8. Letter addressed to R.D.O VSP by M.R.O Bheemunipatnam dated 3rd March,2006.
9. Pattadar passbook in the name of revision petitioner.
10. Title deed book in the name of revision petitioner.
11. VA(3) Adangal Copy of NAgtarpalam of Bhhmili patnam 1412 fasli.
12. 10(1) extract 1378 fasli of KAppuluppada Settlement register.
13. SLR of Kappuluppada for the lands in Kappuluppada.
14. Settlement anangal of Kappuluppada.
15.Register Sale deed, dt.24.10.1939.
16. Estate Diaglot of Vizianagaram Zamendari of Kappuluppada.
17. Land reforms tribunal order 17.12.1975 in the name of MAddula Sanysamma.
18. Order kof IDT.
19. Registered settlement deed dated 03.12.1975 in favour of name of MAddula
20. Register will of MAddula Sanysamma.
21.Land Revenue Receipt dated 07.12.1940.
22.Land Revenue Receipt dated 18.12.1941.
23.Land Revenue Receipt dated 1.07.1971.
24.Land Revenue Receipt dated 05.04.1992.
The following documents submitted by the 1st Respondent:
1.Neat Copy of Sale deed bearing No. 333 of 1986.

2.Certified copy of the sale deed bearing No. 333/ 1986.

3. Neat Copy of Sale deed bearing No. 1618 of 1939.
4. Certified copy of the saled deed bearing No. 1681/1939, C.C of Doc. No.
5.Neat copy of the D.C.No. 2458 of 1957 settlement deed.
6.C.C. of the D.C.No. 2458 of 1957 settlement deed.
7. CC.No. 1847 of 1976 release deed.
8. CC.No.2611/1980 registered family partition deed.
9. English translation of C.C. No. 2611 of 1980 registered family partition deed
along with plan.
10. CC. registered sale deed No. 2199/1993.
11. CC of registered sale deed 4458/1988.
12. Honble Court of Revision Authority cum Joint Collector, VSP RP No.
15/2010, RC.No. 4230/2010/D2- Order adjourning due to pendency of
appeal in CCLA reg. Land Ac.3.15 cts covered by Sy.No. 258/2 of
Kappuluppada Village of Bheemunipatnam Mandal.
13. Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate, VSP Rc.No. 4230/2010/ D2
RP. No. 15/2010- Notice of hearing on 27.04.2013.
14. RDO & Appellate Authority U/ A.P. Record of Rights Act 1971, VSP
Case (ROR) No. 1715/2007- Order U/s 5 (5) of the A.P. Rights in Land
PPB Act.
15. RDO, VSP Order inRc.No. 5556/2006/C, Field Measurement Sketch,
Adangal/ Pahani, Grama Lekka No.3 in Sy.No. 258-1 and 258-2 and
some other.
I have carefully examined with reference to the above said documentary
evidence submitted by the Revision petitioners and the Respondents, lower court
records, Court Orders, Adangal, Sist receipts etc., and observed the following:
1. While observing the Register B-Beriz of Permanently settled Estates and Inam
Villages and Minor Inams included therein the Bheemunipatnam Taluk,
Visakhapatnam District, it clearly shows that in S.No. 79/1, T.D.No. 439 in
Kappuluppada village, there is Ac. 9.80 cts in the name of Sri Chintakandi
Venkata Narayana and China Rama Somayajulu which was already converted
into Ryotwari under the Inam Abolition Act 1956 vide Form VIII issued on
2. In Visakhapatnam District Gazette Published on 14.04. 1960 clearly
that in T.d.No. 439, Sy.No. 79/1 has a total extent of Ac. 9.80 cts only.
3. The claimants argued that the document No. 333 of 1986 does not show any
Survey number , Patta Number or Title deed number, which is correct that
there is No Nubbers were mentioned in the above said document in which the
respondent's predessesors purchased the lands from Digumarthi Lachaiah and
Digumarti Suryanarayana vide Document No. 333/ 1896, dt.18.08.1986.
4. In W.P.No. 188j91 of 2000 filed by Sri Chilaka Satya Venkateswara Rao before
the Hon'ble High Court against the Director of Settlements, Govt.of A.P,
Nampally, Hyderabad and others, The MRO, Bheemunipatnam who is the third
respondent in the above W.P , in his counter filed on 14.10.2006 stated that Old
Survey Number 79/1 is renumbered as Sy.No.258/1 in 1954 Re- survey. The
Survey and Settlement Register (S.S.R) maintained by Vizianagarm Samstanam
Shows that the land in Sy.No. 79/1 belongs to Sri Chintakandi Peda Rama
Somayajulu and the land measuring an Extent of Ac. 9.80 ct in Sy.No. 79/1
belongs to Sri Chintakandi Peda Rama Somayajulu as per the records. Maddula
Demullu alias Venkata Ramana purchased the said land under a registered sale
deed in the year 1939 from the said Chintakandi People and ever since the land
in Sy.No. 79/1(New 258/1) is recorded in the name of said Maddula Venkata
Ramana alias Demullu as per the revenue records.

The MRO further stated that it is noticed that as per the Survey of 1902, a
printed diaglot of Vizianagaram Estate comprising the land held by particular
individual, extent, Sy.No, rate per acre, assessment and Pattadar/ Inamdar etc.
details were available. According to the said diaglot or Survey and settlement

register, the respondents fore fathers herein shown only in Sy.No. 79/2B to an
extent of Ac 0.26 cts and Sy.No. 79/2A to an extent of Ac. 0.50 cts only and
Sy.No. 79/1 an extent of 9.80 cts is shown in the name of Sri Chintkandi
Pedarama Somayajulu. Hence the contention that the lands covered by 1986
sale deed include the land in Sy.No. 79/1 is not correct as the extents of the
Gilman Survey in 1902 and otherwise.
6. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, A.P, Hyd in CMP.No. 13151 of 2000 which
was filed by Sri Chilaka Satya Venkateswara Rao and other has delivered an
order on 14.08.2000 by dismissing the appeal and stated that the plaintiffs
have mainly relied on Ex.A.1 the document dated 18.08.1896 which however
does not show any Sy.No. or Patta number.The court has categorically observed
after considering the evidence on record that the very suit document Ex.A.1
does not show any number nor the other documents filed by the plaintiffs
establish any such Survey or reallotment. The Advocate Commissioner who was
appointed for local inspection and who was examined as P.W.2, in his report Ex.
C.1, dt. 26.1.
. sought to rely on the xerox copies of FMB which was
subsequently, on a comparision with the other documents in Exs.B.7, B.5 etc,
found to be not correct. Except these documents, no further documents was
filed by the plaintiffs to show the possession over the suit land which is a sine
qua non for the grant of the relief of injunction. Both the Counsel have also
taken me through the record including the evidence and I do not find any valid
material to show any prima facie case in favour of the petitioners herein both
on the title and possession.
7. The Hon'ble Court of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in M.C.No.
33/94 filed by Sri Chilaka Satya Venkateswara Rao has delivered an order on
07.01.1995 by dismissing the petition and stated that in the Order, upon the
request of both parties, this Court made a local inspection after direction of
Mandal Revenue Inspector etc., to be present with land records on 04.09.94. In
the local inspection the petitioner could not show the extent of Ac. 9.00 cts with
in the described boundaries. The land revenue record shows the names of
Chilaka People only in respect of S.No. 258/2 measuring 0.50 cts and the
names of Chintakandi people and Maddula People are shown in so far as Sy.No.
258/1 is concerned. Upon verification it was found that petitioners have never
enjoyed the land in Sy.No. 258/1 and that 1st and 2nd respondents (Smt.
Maddula Sanyasamma is the 1st respondent and Maddula Neelakantam is the
2nd respondent) and their predecessors were in enjoyment. And also stated that
the petitioners even though have claimed that they have document evidence to
show their title to Ac 9.00 did not produce any record excepting a registered
sale deed. The registered sale deed does not contain any Sy.No or patta
number, but only boundaries were given, which could not be identified. The
petitioner failed to explain as to how the names of Predecessors of the
Respondents 1 and 2 are shown in all the revenue records so far an land in
Sy.No. 258/1 is concerned. Thus the petitioner miserably failed to establish
their title to the position schedule land excepting 258/2 for 0.50 cts nor could
they show their physical possession as on the date of petition or two months to
8. The MRO, Bheemunipatnam in her report, dt. 03.03.2006 which was called by
the RDO, VSP on the representation made by Smt. Dusa Sarojiniramayya
stating that as per the Survey and Settlement Register of Kappuluppada Village
the lands in Sy.No. 258/1 an extent of Ac 8.95 cts in favour of Sri Chintakindi
Venkata Narayana & China Somayajulu and in Sy.No. 258/2 an extent of Ac
0.50 cts in favour of Sri Chilaka Satya Venkateswararao. And also stated that
the land in S.No 258/1 was originally purchased by MaddulaNeelakantam father
under a Regd.Sale deed 24.10.1939 in an extent of Ac. 9.80 cts from
Chintakandi people. It was devolved on Maddula Neelakantam's mother Smt.
Sanyasamma by his father under Regd. Settlement deed dated 7.12.1957.
Maddula Sanyasamma filed a declaration before the A.P. Land Ceiling Tribunal
showing this land and it was declared that her holding was within ceiling limits.
About Ac. 6.25 cts was sold away by the family of Maddula Neelakantam and
presently Ac 3.15 cts is remaining in his holding. And also stated that on ground
the land in S.No. 258/1 covered with Casurina Tope and the said land in

possession and enjoyment of Maddula Neelakantam and prior to it in the

possession of his mother and father.
9. Verified the Sist Receipts submitted by the Petitioners for the fasli 1351, 1362,
1378, 1380 ,1396 to 1401, Settlement Adangal of Kappuluppada,
Bheemunipatnam Thana,Vijayanagara samsthanam,
Survey & Settlement
Register, Land Reforms(Ceiling and Agriculturam holdings), which are all proved
the possession of the Respondents in S.No. 258/1 to an extent of 9.80 cts.
10.Verified the Registered sale deed dated 24.10.1939 of the revision petitioner's
father, Registered settlement deed dated 3.12.1957 in favour of Maddula
Sanyasamma, Registered family partition deed 2611/1980, Registered will of
Maddula Sanyasamma. All are proved that the schedule lands which are located
in Sy.No. 258/1(old Sy.No. 79/1) an extent of 9.80 cts are belongs to Sri
Maddula Neelakantam as ancestral property.
11. The MRO, Bheemunipatnam in his report which was asked by the RDO, VSP has
stated that as per the Register, B-Beriz of permanently settled estates and
Inam villages and minor inam included there in Bheemunipatnam taluk, VSP the
extent covered by O.S.Nos. 79/1 correlating to R.S.No.258/1 of Kappuluppada
village, included in the T.D.No. 439 along with some other lands were converted
into Ryotwari on 28.10.1960.
12. It is also noticed that the Inam Dy.Tahsildar has sent a reply with his remarks
to the RDO, VSP in respect of this land in question on 03.03.2006 in which she
stated that Sri Maddula Neelakantam raised casurina tope on the field and that
he is in possession. But in the order of Inam Dyputy Tahsildar in Inam Case
venkateswararao has been in possession of the land and there were no
allegations or any types of disputes noticed on the land. The boundaries noted
in the claim as well as the sale deeds were tallied with the physical possession
of the land. Paddy was raised on the land and Kambala Cheruvu &
Gambheeram gedda is the main water source of Irrigation of the land.
Strangely for the same land MROs given two types of statements which are
quietly opposite.
13. The respondents put forth the argument that as per the Survey Settlement
Register of Kappuluppada Village, the Vizianagaram Samsthanam in their
Survey & Settlement Register have mentioned as Sy.No. 79/1(New
Sy.No.258/1) wet land under the Ayakut of Kambala Tank which extends Ac.
9.80 cts in which the pattadar is Sri Chintakande Peddarama Somayajulu
Vagaira(etc.). It may be noticed that Revenue Authorities instead of writing all
the names of the land holders and the extent of lands held by them for the
purpose of brevity of record they put Vagaira(etc.). This argument cannot be
bought because when the land holders of the same family or same surname
would be quoted as others.
14. While verifying Sist Reeipts submitted by the 1st respondent for the fasli 1390
to 1395, 1396 to 1401, they were found as bogus. And also for the same
faslis 1396 to 1401 the VRO has issued Land Revenue receipts to the
petitioners also.
In the above circumstances, under the powers conferred U/s 14-A of
the A.P (A.A) Inams (A&C into R) Act, I came to a conclusion that the schedule
lands located in Sy.No.258/1 (old 79/1) , T.D.No.439 , total extent Ac 9.80 cts,
Kapuluppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Taluk, VSP District belong to the petitioner
Sri Maddula Neelakantam, S/o late Venkataramana. And the order of the RDO, VSP
passed in Inam Appeal 1/2007 in Rc.No.5556/2006/C dated 05.06.2010 which was
confirmed the order of Spl. Dy.Tahsildar (Inam), VSP, Dated 25.04.2006 in which
Ryotwari patta was granted in favour of Sri Chilaka Satya Venkateswara Rao is
hereby set aside.


Typed to dictation, corrected by me and pronounced the orders in the open

court on this 9th day of April, 2015.

Sd/- A. Surya Kumari

The Revision Petitioner
1.Sri Maddula Neelakantam S/o. Late. Venkata Ramana, H.No.11-28-32, Subash
Road, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
through M/s. Mavidi Rama Rao and D. Gopala Krishna, Advocates, Flat No.301, Sai
Balaji Apartments, D.No.48-8-4, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam. Mobile 98497
67526 (BY RPAD)
Respondents:1. Sri Chilka Satya Venkateswara Rao S/o.Late. Rajagopala Rao Naidu, H.No.3-6172/2, Hyderguda-Hyderabad through M/s. G. Sudha, Advocates,
H.No.10-316/2, Humayunnagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-28. (BY RPAD)
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam (BY RPAD)
3. The Spl. Deputy. Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
4.Smt.Doosa Sarojini Ramayyamma W/o. Adinarayana, (died) per LR Sri Dusa
Sahitya@ Kota Sahitya aged 19 years H. No. 49-39-24A, NGOs Colony
Akkayyapalem, Visakapatnam rep. by Sri Kota Mehar Kumar GPA holder.
through counsel M/s. Posani Venkateswarlu, Advocates, H.No.501, Doyew
Chambers, Beside Sarathy Studios, Ameerpet, Hyd. 500 073

to : The Spl. Govt. Pleader, O/o. CCLA, Hyderabad.

to : Peshi of Commissioner, Appeals, O/o the CCLA, A.P, Hyderabad.
to: Settlement II(1) seat.
for Stockfile.

Addl. Asst. Commissioner (Settlements)