—— - - wobywo sie INTHE COURT OF THE HON’BLE pisrnicT JUDGE: ANANTHAPURAMU OX ee 8 ft nApliants Ma H9* SSenSnasid BOLD SS cv eronown saga hp 8 5.Rm- Ais w 9 ery |Fa, Pave Fa J334 [22> s oy when margtod « Kips eags Savndacrhy & ebyent Dad0, 4 ASH 202 anoeyea CAO Gxt tans « tip os dryenobasoerethy aestoudse, Da md d Rad md oar ebywe' b dgav gogodusp h HEasdoed Dayo Sd day VS:VaA*- A dnd3y Hd pot ned w 6 dakota B Dennis expen dad dbaw , Hep Steed Gagpe a eye gobadas.IN THE COURT OF THE pisTRICT JUDGE CUM-ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :: ANANTAPUR EAT. No, 0d /2024 Between K. Rahim Bee Appellant And 1. The Tahasildar cum Estate Manager ‘Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District 2. The Revenue Divisional officer, Anantapuramu 3. The Joint Collector Cum Settlement officer Ananthapuramu Respondents MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED UNDER SEC. 15(2)a OF ESTATE ABOLITION ACT 1948, Appellant: K, Rahim Bee W/o Fakruddin, aged about 60 years, Loluru Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. ‘Address for service of process;- H, Rama Subramanyam ‘Advocate, Ananthapuramu, ‘Mob:9885734278. Si nan a 1, The Tahasildar cum Estate Manager Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District 2. The Revenue Divisional officer, Ananthapuramt 3. The Joint Collector Cum Settlement officer Ananthapuramu ‘An Appeal is filed against the order of Joint collector cum Settlement officer, Ananthapuramu in SR. No, — 1/15(1)/2024/F2/, R.Dis.No.F2/739/2023, Dated: 20-1-2024. Appellant: K, Rahim Bee W/o Fakruddin, aged about 60 years, Lohuru Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.And Respondents 1. The Tahaslldar CUM Estate Manager tespondents:- singanarsala Mal Ananthapuramu Distt. caren Dssonal officer, Ananthapuram he Joint callectot CUM Settlement officer, ‘Ananthapuramt UM OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1) ‘The order of the lower court is against the law weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 2) The learned Settlement Officer fail to See the documents filed along with claim petition as well as the report submitted by the Tahsildar / respondent. 3) ‘The learned Settlement Officer ought to have taking the counter and the records which are filed by respondent as the respondent himself admitted that the lands are fit for cultivation and survey report also filed. 4) The learned Settlement Officer ought to have consider the claim as the appellant filed the petition under basing proving the title as well as induicting in to possession and enjoyment of vendors as the same was executed by the shrotriumdars by name Laxmi Devamma in the year 1940 with specific boundaries. It is admitted that the Laxmi Devamma is also recognised as shrotriumdars in the order itself. 5) The learned settlement officer ought to have allow the case of appellant basing on the report or counter of Tahsildar without discussing and not verifying the counter properiy. Simply passed an order stating that the lands are recorded in the revenue entries as Gayalu (sas) Lands. Admitted that the appellant is in possession and enjoyment inheridently6) The lower court fail to see the digcuments and connected records which are filed by the appellant ic., Mucchelike, (23> ner the claimant succeeded the ) which was executed by shrotriumdars in favour of appellant fat athedule property from her Sather ba the; lower without applying mind t9 verify the documents and records mere taking in to consideration that the ppanint aman fo oF mation inf C- The’ @-C. Sled] (Phare he Co that no transactions took place by her father who got this property from shrotriumdars, The E.C, shows the sale transactions here is the case the sale or mortgage transactions regarding i any transaction took place then only saments ‘appellant or his father are not made the schedule mentioned property. to the B.C. The lower court fails to see the doc the names will enter i which are filed by the appellant to prove her case. 7) The lower court fail to see the order which was passed in S. R- No. (03/15(1)/2006 dated 16-3-2006 in the name of Pavan Kumar no way connected to the appellant property as the patta relates to paimashi No. 96 in continue from 1943 as well as 1985 document with specific boundaries. It is very surprise that the government taken over village conduct the survey 1974 But the register document filed by the said Pavan Kumar the Sy. No. not disclose mere mentioned paimashi No. 96 with boundaries. The extent of paimashiNo.96 correlated to Sy.No.259,261 and 262. But the appellant claiming basing on the 1940 document with specific boundaries. The boundaries mentioned in the Appellant document by way of Mucchelika not tally with the documents produced by Pavan Kumar in S. R. No. 03/15(1}/2006 dated 16-3-2006 any corner i.e., east, west, north and south 8) The lower court ought to allow the claim of appellant in view of the report submitted by respondent as well as documents filed by the appellant. The lower court order itself in consisting as on one hand it elicited that the schedule land orders passed in the year 2006 on other hand admit that the land is in possession and enjoyment of appellant in the report submitted by the Tahasildar, but the name of petitioner is not disclose in the B.C. and inthe FLR cannot tae jy FUR itis dtacloed a8 cayelv: Mere entriee 1 the tiles ins re proved that tHE Person who gol SR vo, srryacee dated 1652006 10 the name of Pavan Kumar no yay aaeen nee appetiant proper IC18 wry clear thatthe Patt granted in connect a : favour of the Pavan Kumar mere mentioning the Sy. Nos. without any sort of consideration. Jink document. 9) The lower court ought to have allow the appeal on the basis of observation made in the order iteef as admitted title, possession and enjoyment more ‘over the counter of respondent clearly stated that the appellants are in possession and enjoyment and the land is not required for public purpose. But the lower court fails to allow the claim, 10) The lower court fails to see the citations submitted by the claimant regarding the entries in the revenue records. As the lord ship held that ifthe Jand is fit for cultivation and the claimant are in possession and enjoyment as on the date of inspection mere taking in to consideration of entry the rejection of claim set aside, The claimants are entitled to grant of settlement order under sec 15(1) of . A. Act 11) The appellant further submit that the they are having right title interest, over the schedule mentioned property. The land belongs to Loluru shrotrium. The Shrotriumdars executed document under the name and style Mucchelika in the year 1940 with specific boundaries in favour of claimant father. After the death of her father by name Dorri Babaiah claimant succeed from her father being only daughter, ‘The land is in possession and enjoyment of petitioners in continue from Shrotriumdars sale transaction 1940-The claim petition filed for grant of settlement order for the extent which is in possession and enjoyment by the claimant. But the lower court fail to see the records which are filed by the respondent and ‘ecords in their office reject the elaim shown in Schedule record as Gaya in the FLR The documents filed along this petition may read as part and Parcel of this petition. The petitioners filed all Xerox copies of documentsUnder take that all certified copies and original document will be filed at the time of enquiry. 12) The appellant reserve the right to argue the matter on some other rounds also at the time of hearing by Ming documents 13) A court fee of Rs.3/- is paid under rule 12 (7) of estate Abolition act 14) It is therefore the Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the appeal by set aside the orders passed by settlement officer relating to Schedule, in S. R No. 1/15(1)/2024/F2, R Dis.No.F2/739/2023 dated 20-01-2024. Pass such other relief or reliefs deem fit in the circumstances of the case. ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT SCHEDULE Property situated within Loluru Shrotrium Village, Lotura Singanamala ‘Mandal with SRD at Singanamala and RD at Ananthapuramu Sy.No. Paimashi No, “Total extent. extent rejected to whom rejected. 261-1 96 Ac 5.14 ‘Ac. 5.14 K. Rahim Bee wife of 261-3 B. Fakruddin, List of documents filed: Copy of orders S. R. No. 1/15(1)/2024/R2, R.Dis.No.F2/739/2023 dated 20- 01-2024.i NTHAPURAMU COURT OF THE HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE-cuyy.esTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: ANANTHAPURAN EAT.No. 9} /2004 “en Appellant Takin ee os al obra 33 acuminate 922030 ‘Ananthapuramu, fg 20 3 03 a0 (6 dd00 anoeake 20Bs 28 tsa eryoou mornoy ebyes aay hod & Me! 086 dewodserd’y # ebyene 5 Davey I Sow saeseysan OL a0 F/ obs # hp 20 Dewodaine sh, Demefousss, Dawg dy mdh heed md oor ehyend! b Dogan gagodoyp b SE Asvedd 96,8 3d Ved Wea. s002) REE ErbeoW Suod ar 6 doivew B DUay erpw dadd dv, hip Saco Isp ar wbyer doydosnsssd DDadIAdE DAA. Awe OF 3 0 Berto wm dgeniy Hip arden) SHOE ny orc ge |! f ENN Seb detetaatent ¥ i) A Ce = ae Court é tom etoodsodsan ages 3d D7) derat 4 Cao cama a a eeeIN THE COURT OF THE pisTRICT JUDGE-CUM-ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL !: AN! BAT. No, 9) (2024 Between: K. Rahim Bee And LY. Pavan Kumar, 8/0 ¥.R.K. Murthy, 2. The Tahsildar cum Estate Manager ‘Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District 8, The Revenue Divisional officer, Ananthapuramu 4.The Joint Collector Cum Settlement officer Ananthapuramu Respondents, |ORANDUM OF FILED UNDER SEC. 15(2)a OF ESTATE ABOLITION ACT 1948, Appellant: K. Rahim Bec W/o Fakruddin, aged about 60 years, Loluru Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. Address for service of process;- 1H, Rama Advocate, Ananthapuramu. ‘Mob:9885734278, ‘Respondents: 1. Y. Pavan Kumar, S/o Y.RK. Murthy, Loluru Village, Singanamala ‘Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. 2. The Tahsildar cum Estate Manager Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District 3 The Revenue Divisional officer, Ananthapuramu 4. The Joint Collector Cum Settlement officer Ananthapuramuagainst the order of Joint collector cum Setti, An opel ean 8. R, No, 03/18(1)/2006 dated: 16, otic, Bee W/o Fakruddin, aged about 60 years, Lolun, opdliant: Fein Mandal, Ananthapuram E Village, Singanamel® a 1. ¥, Pavan Kumar, 8/0 YK. Murthy, Loturu Village, Singanamala ” Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. 2.The Tahsildar cum Bstate Manager, Singanamila, Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, 3.The Revenue Divisional officer, Ananthapuramu, 4.The Joint Colletor Cum Settlement officer ‘Ananthapuramu, 1)The order ofthe lower court is against the law weight of evidence and ‘probabilities of the case. 2) The learned Settlement Officer fail to see the documents filed along with claim petition as well as the report submitted by the Tabsildar / Respondent. t 9) The leamed Settlement Officer ought to have taking the counter and the records which are filed by the respondent as the respondent himself ‘admitted that the lands are ft for cultivation and survey report also file. 4) The learned Settlement Officer ought to have consider the claim as the ‘ppeilant fled the petition under basing proving the tile as well as intucting in t posession and enjoyment of vendors aa the same was ‘executed by the Shrotriumdars by name Laxmidevamma in the year 1940 with spetfic boundaries, It jy admitted that the Laxmidevamma is also recognised as Shrotriumdars in the order itself.5) ke termed settlement ocer ought to have llow the cane of lat basing on the report or counter of Tanallar without dieeweng oat et the counter properly simply pansed an order stauing that the lands are retonded ia. the reverse extaafas igo tans: Admitted Cat te ‘appellants are in possession and enjoyment: which are filed by the appellant icchelika which was executed by imant succeeded the 6) The lower court fail to see the documents documents and connected records, je, Mu Shrotriumdars in favour of appellant father the clal schedule property from her father but the lower without applying mind the claimant name is not mentioned in B.C. The F.C. filed to prove her claim that no transactions took place by her father who got this property from Shrotriumdars. 7) The lower court fail to see the order which was passed in S. R, No 03/15(1)/2006 dated 16-3-2006 in the name of Pavan kumar no way connected to the appellant property as the patta relates to P. No. 96 in continue from 1943 as well as 1985 document with specific boundaries. It is very surprise that the government taken over village conduct the survey 1974 But the register document filed by the said Pavan kumar the R. S. No. not-disclose mere mentioned P, No. 96 with boundaries, The extent of P.No.96 correlated to R.S.No. 259,261 and 262, But the appellant claiming basing on the 1940 document with specific boundaries. The boundaries mentioned in the appellant Mucchelika not tally with the document produced by Pavan kumar in any comer i-c., east , west, north and south . 8) The lower court ought to allow the claim of appellant in view of the report submitted by respondent as well as documents filed by the appellant. The lower. court order itself in consisting as on one hand it elicited that the schedule land orders passed in the ear 2006 on other hand admit that the land is in possession and‘enjoyment of appellant in the report submitted by the Tehsildar but the name of petitioner is not disclose in the E.C. and in FLR it is disclose as Goyallu. Mere entries in the FLR cannot take in to consideration, It is proved that the person who got the orders in S. R. No.ted 169-2006 in the name of Pavan kumar no way it Property it in very clear that the patta granted in jar mere Mentioning the R.9. Nos. without any sort 08/15(1)/2006 dat ‘connected to the clalmaD favour of the Pavan Kum of tink document. 19) The lower court ought # BAV® allow the appeal on the basis of observation rade in the order itself a# sdlted tte, possession and enjoyment more ‘over the counter of respondent clearly stated that the appellants are in ‘posession and enjoyment and the land is not required for public purpose. ‘But the lower court fails to allow the claim, 10) The lower court fail 19.86 the citations submitted by the appellant regarding the entries in the reVenUe records, As the lord ship held that ifthe land is fit for cultivation and the claimant are in possession and enjoyment fas on the date of inspection mere taking in to consideration of entry the rejection of claim set aside. The claimants are entitled to grant of settlement order under see 15(1) of B.A. Act. 11) The appellant further submit that they are having right tile interest over the schedule mentioned property. The land belongs to Lolura shrotrium. The Shrotriumdars executed document under the name and style Mucchelika in the year 1940 with specific boundaries in favour of claimant father. After the death of her father by name Dori Babaiah ‘appellant succeed from her father being only daughter, The land is in possession and enjoyment of appellant in continue from Shrotriumdars sale transaction 1940-The claim petition filed for grant of settlement order forthe extent which isin possession and enjoyment by the claimant. But the lower court fail to see the records which are filed by the 2% respondent and records in their ofice reject the elaim shown in Schedule record as ayaa in the FLR .The documents filed along this petition may read as part and parcel of this petition, The petitioners filed all Xerox copies of documents under take that all certiied copies and original document will be fed at the time of enquiryclaimant basing on orders passed in favour of 1* respondent in 8. R. No. 03/15(1)/2006 dated: 160.2006 then only the ‘Appellant came to know the order which was passed in favour of 1* respondent. Hence this Appeal is filed from the date of the knowledge regarding the orders passed in favour of 1M respondent. The Hon filing of the appeal within ‘Ume is not wilful or intentional as the appellant is not have regarding the orders passed S. R, No. 03/15(1}/2006 dated: 16-3-2006.The appeal is filed within time from the date of the knowledge as the land is in possession and enjoyment appellants till to this day without any interruption the same is admitted in the report filed by the 24 respondent. Hence this appeal filed for cancellation of orders passed in favour of 1* respondent eo as to avoid multiple litigations the order copy Teoeived from the 3% respondent on 06-03-2024.Appeal is filed within limitation from the date of the order received. 13) The appellant reserve the right to argue the matter on some other grounds also at the time of hearing by filing documents 14), A court fee of Rs.3/- is paid under rule 12 (7) of estate Abolition act. Itis therefore the Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the appeal by set aside the orders passed by settlement officer relating to Schedule, in S. R. No. 03/15(1)/2006 dated 16-3-2006 for conducting fresh ‘enquiry so as to dispose the matter on merits to avoid multiple litigations and pass such other relief or reliefs deem fit in the circumstances of the case, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTLLL) — lCcrElhlrtttt—t=—“<‘i‘C;3OCDPCéC ml OO 459 SCHEDULE cruinues) witnia Lolurt Shrotrium Village, retary Singancmalt stvnted = Property ents Sgingsnmils +24 RD at Ananthdpuram SS Traimson Ro ol at [Fe Wom Granted ol ele ne ers feat [27 ma Pavan ar so [aoe fost [287 | Sow. nacatarthy Tour Vilage, Singunamade Mandal Shee (Raa) SNe Extent] Canationioe sa [018 ea Puimash Wo, Ro, Eatent Extent Rejected To whom Rajected 9661s AeQAT Ac 247 Rahim nw 96 6s M67 A267 witeof B. Patra. b st of documents Bled: Copy of orders s. R. No. 03/15(1}/2096, dated: 16-03-2006, ‘Advocate for Appellant