GODAVARI MANYAM (Visakhapatnam) | place with historical importance, household yard

Comments

• 
  qzWwww (guest)

  fdqwfcx

  15 years ago | reply | hide comment
• 
  Ramachandra (guest)

  GODAVARI MANYAM The all GAVARA ryots in occupation of R.s.No.40 in an extent of 15-02cents of land known as ‘Godavari Manyam’ situated at Dondaparthi village in china Waltair Zamin Estate. The said land has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession by the forefathers and by the ryots herein were in possession and enjoyment of the same since generations, long before and after taking over of the estate i.e., on 12-1-1951 and they are in continuous enjoyment as ryots.The ryots have sufficiently established their continued possession in the prior civil proceedings, and in the proceedings before the Settlement officer u/s 15(1) of the Act. After taking over of the estate on 12-1-1951 the entire estate i.e.,China Waltair Zamin estate vested in the Government by operation of section 3(b) and the entire estate including the minor Inam, post settlement or presettlement shall stand transferred free from all encumbrances . The lands were surveyed u/s 22 and the O.S.No.2 was correlated as R.S.No.40.The land revenue payable to the Government was affected u/s 23 of the Act and the ryots were paying the same all through. The Assistant Settlement Officer,Anakapalli,initiated suo motto enquiry under sec.15(1) of the Act in his S.R.No.15(1)/226/58 Visakhapatnam. In the said proceedings the land holders who claimed patta u/s 15(1) of the Act and participated in the enquiry and M.Seetharama Chandra Rao was examined on 18-9-1958. He admitted that the lands are Darmila Inam and that they are entitled to patta etc., as being the land holders. The land holders sold the property to others and after they came on record and they took the specific stand that they do not want any patta under Estate Abolition Act etc. Ultimately the said proceedings u/s 15(1) were culminated by an order of the Settlement officer , Visakhapatnam dated 10-3-1986 holding that the land holders are not claming patta under this Act, and accordingly held that they are not entitled to Ryotwari patta u/s 15(1) of the E.A.Act and the enquiry under sec.15(1) was dropped. In view of the judgement in W.A.No.363 of 1978 dated 12-9-1985 the proceedings under sec. 11(A) was taken up on 19-3-1986 and the ryots were directed to prove their claims etc. In the section 11(A) proceedings the alleged land holders filed I.A.7/86 in S.R.11(A)/3/86 VSP to implead them as respondents on the ground that they are interested in opposing the grant of patta to the ryots herein and raised several illegal and untenable contentions. On an erroneous view of fact and law the Settlement Officer allowed the application by his order dated 14-7-1986. The Settlement Officer went beyond the scope of the enquiry under sec.11 and the prayer in the order 1 Rule 10 petition and decided the issues which are unconcerned u/s 11 of the E.A.Act and passed an order contrary to the findings given by the High Court in W.A.No.363 of 1978 dated 12-9-1985.Aggrieved by the said order the ryots filed Revision Petition before the Director of Settlements ,against the orders of the Settlemnt Officer, Visakhapatnam in I.A.7/86 in S.R.11(A)/3/86 Visakhapatnam dated 14-7-1986.The Revision Petition was admitted on 30-7-1986 and numbered as R.P.No.122/86.On 11-5-1990 one Rajagiri Ramanayya filed a petition to implead him as respondent along with other respondents and adding his name along with the names of other respondents on record. On the ground that he has 7/36th un-divided share in the claim lands for which his predecessors are in title which was granted under Inams Abolition Act, 1956 in respect of his share , thus interested in opposing the claim of the ryots.On 31-1-1991 the counsel for the counsel for the proposed respondent filed L.R.petition to bring L.R.s.Rajagiri Appayyamma W/o.Ramanayya,Budda Kamalamma D/o Rajagiri Ramanayya of proposed respondent i.e., Rajagiri Ramanayya who died on 12-1-1991 on record. On 18-2-1991 the ryots filed joint memo of compromise and withdrawal of R.P. along with the respondents. On 26-391 the M.R.O., Visakhapatnam (urban)filed memo stating that he has no objection for dismissing the R.P.as withdrawn by the ryots as no Government interest are involved. After perusing the records the ryots wants to withdraw the petition in view of compromise dt.30-1-1991.Hence therevision petition dismissed by Director of Settlements as withdrawn.

  15 years ago | reply | hide comment