THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.638 of 2018
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. A.Venkataswamy, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswara Rao, learned
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. This intra-court appeal has been filed assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.23463 of 2013 filed by the appellants questioning the order dated 20.07.2013 passed by respondent No.2 and consequential proceedings dated 24.07.2013 of respondent No.4.
3. By the order dated 20.07.2013, Joint Collector, Warangal, cancelled the pattadar pass book and title deed issued to appellant No.1 (since deceased), predecessor-in- interest of the remaining appellants. Exercising suo motu 2 power under Section 9 of the then Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (briefly, 'the 1971 Act' hereinafter), in compliance to the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.5558 of 2013, the related proceedings were initiated by the Joint Collector for cancellation of pattadar pass book and title deed issued to appellant No.1 for an extent of land measuring Ac.1.20 guntas in Survey No.287/1 of Gummdur Village of Mahabubabad Mandal .
4. In this connection notices were issued to appellant No.1. Matter was heard on several occasions, but neither appellant No.1 nor her counsel had appeared. Appellant No.1 only appeared on 10.07.2013, but failed to submit anything in writing as to her claims. Finally, the case was called for hearing on 20.07.2013. On that day also there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. Upon examination of the record, Joint Collector ordered as follows:
"This is a case where pattadar pass book and title deed issued to Smt. Guguloth Neji, W/o.Rajya based on the false fake patta certificate granted in favour of her 3 father-in-law, Sri Guguloth Nattu. On verification of records, the following grave irregularity is observed.
The father-in-law of Smt. Guguloth Neji, Sri Guguloth Nattu said to have been issued permanent patta certificate to an extent of Ac.1.20 Gts. in Matruka land without having Sy.No. in Gummudur village of Mahabubabad Mandal vide Rc.No.A4/445/1979, dated: 09.05.1979. Matruka Land is also called as Government land which is left over land without allotting Sy.No. at the time of initial survey, long back. As per the records, there is no matruka land existing in Gummudur village. Hence, it is clear that the said patta certificate is a fake and bogus. Taking advantage of the said fake patta certificate, Smt. Guguloth Neji illegally occupied the Government land to an extent of Ac.1.20 Gts. in Sy.No.287/1 of Gummudur Village and she was fraudulently issued pattadar pass books for the suit land.
It is well known fact that pattadar pass books in respect of government lands are issued only after granting of assignment patta certificates. In this case, no patta certificate issued to Smt. Guguloth Neji or to her father-in-law in respect of the suit lands.
In view of the above, I deem fit to cancel the pattadar pass book and title deed issued to Smt. Guguloth Neji, W/o.Rajya, R/o. Gummudur village to an extent of Ac.1.20 Gts. in Sy.No.287/1 of Gummudur village with Khata No.607. The Tahsildar, Mahabubabad is directed to resume the suit lands duly following the procedure laid under the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905."
4
5. This order came to be challenged by the appellants before this Court in W.P.No.23463 of 2013. After tracing the case history and considering the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, learned Single Judge held as follows:
"There is no Matruka land existing in Gummudur Village. Survey No.287 is Government land. The patta relied upon by the petitioners does not have survey number. The patta is fake and bogus. The pattadar pass book is issued for Government land and the same amounts to fraud.
From the contentions urged by the petitioners, it is clear that the petitioners are unable to point out any infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded by the 2nd respondent. On the other hand, consideration of permanent patta relied upon by the petitioners discloses that the patta was issued without a survey number. The patta if was issued, the possession of petitioners subsequent to grant of assignment is evidenced in Pahanis. There is no evidence to prove possession as alleged by them. On the contrary, letter dated 10.05.2013 shows that the name of 1st petitioner is not entered in the Pahani before 2005-2006. The pattadar pass book is issued in respect of Government land. The assignment, if is established, results in a claim for consideration of issuing pattadar pass book. Once the assignment is found to be illegal and untenable, then the pattadar pass book is granted on Government land. The Act has no application to Government land. The 5 pattadar pass book can be issued to survey number assigned to an individual. In the case on hand, the basic documents on which the petitioners are relying upon do not show survey number and that they are not reliable. Hence the findings recorded by 2nd respondent do not warrant interference. The ancillary submissions of learned counsel were summarily noted supra, to be rejected. Having regard to the scope of judicial review of an order passed under Section 9 of the Act, this Court is of the view that the record of 2nd respondent justifies the conclusions in the proceeding impugned in the writ petition. The proceeding impugned in the writ petition does not suffer from irregularity, illegality or error apparent on the face of record. The issue of notice under the Land Encroachment Act is in line with the findings recorded by 2nd respondent and no exception to the notice issued under the Land Encroachment Act is pointed out. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs."
6. Thus, according to learned Single Judge, the subject land is Government land. Patta relied upon by the appellants does not have any survey number. Patta was found to be fake and bogus. Pattadar pass book was issued for Government land, which was a fraudulent act. There was no evidence on record to support possession of the appellants over the subject land. Rather, the record 6 discloses that the names of the appellants were not entered in the pahani during the year 2005-2006. In the circumstances, learned Single Judge concluded that the order passed by respondent No.2 did not warrant interference and dismissed the writ petition.
7. In the hearing today, learned counsel for the appellants submits that Joint Collector i.e., respondent No.2 has no power to carry out suo motu exercise of power under Section 9 of the 1971 Act. Secondly, he submits that pattadar pass book and title deed issued to appellant No.1 was cancelled without notice and hearing.
8. Insofar the first contention of learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, we find that as per Section 9 of the 1971 Act, the Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof 7 and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for re-consideration, he may pass orders accordingly, but before doing so, the affected parties must be put on notice and heard.
9. Section 2(2) of the 1971 Act defines Collector to mean Collector of a district and includes "Joint Collector". Therefore, the Joint Collector is competent to exercise power under Section 9 of the 1971 Act. Thus, this contention of learned counsel for the appellants is not at all sustainable. As a matter of fact, this Court in the earlier round of litigation i.e., vide order dated 13.03.2013 passed in W.P.No.5558 of 2013 filed by the appellants had clarified that Joint Collector may exercise his powers of revision suo motu under Section 9 of the 1971 Act.
10. Insofar violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, a perusal of the order dated 20.07.2013 would go to show that notices were issued to appellant No.1 who was present on 10.07.2013, but failed to submit anything in writing as to her claims. On the date of final hearing 8 i.e., on 20.07.2013 none had appeared on behalf of the appellants despite notice.
11. In the circumstances, we do not find any good reason to entertain the writ appeal.
12. Consequently, writ appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 29.08.2022 vs