1. The impugned order of the High Court, passed in writ jurisdiction, was based on two decisions taken earlier the same day by it being Writ Appeals Nos. 1449 and 1450 of 1984. We have gone through with care the decision of the High Court passed in the aforementioned writ appeals. Therein are interpreted certain provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Mahals (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969. The view expressed therein is that a lessee of "lanka" lands cannot be a tenant and hence disentitled to obtain ryotwari patta under the Regulation. "Lanka" lands are undeniably those lands which are in the river beds. The finding of the Revenue authorities endorsed by the High Court is that the lands to which claim is laid by the appellants are "lanka" lands and therefore ryotwari patta cannot be granted.
2. Mr Kanta Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, has attempted to bring to our notice that in the orders of the Settlement Officer, there is mention only of one Survey No. 72/2 as "lanka" land and the decision can at best be applied to that land, but not to his other lands which have not been made mention of in the orders of the Revenue authorities as well as by the High Court. Ex facie, such distinction was not ever drawn before the High Court. We are not even sure whether the appellants were right in saying that they had staked no claim to any other lands than the survey number mentioned above. It has otherwise been pointed out by the respondents' learned counsel that the Commissioner in revision had in his order made mention of not only Survey No. 72/2, but of others too as "lanka" lands to which claim had been laid by the appellants. A new controversy about the identity or measure of lands cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage. Suffice it to say that the judgment of the High Court pertains to "lanka" lands found leased to the appellants and hence under the provisions of the Regulation, those cannot be reckoned towards obtaining ryotwari patta. The view of the High Court in all events, thus appears to us to be the correct one in the facts and circumstances, requiring no interference. We therefore dismiss this appeal. No costs.