THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.2065 of 2005
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. A.Santhosh Kumar, learned Special
Government Pleader attached to the office of learned
Advocate General appearing for the appellants; and
Mr. K.Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for
respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 8.
2. Appellants before us are the District Collector, Adilabad and revenue officers of Adilabad District.
3. This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.08.2005 allowing W.P.No.22429 of 1994 filed by respondents No.1 and 2 as the writ petitioners.
4. During the pendency of the writ appeal, respondents No.1 and 2 had expired and they have been substituted by their legal heirs as respondents No.4 to 8.
25. Respondents No.1 and 2 had filed the related writ petition seeking a direction to the appellants who were arrayed as respondents No.1 to 3 therein to demarcate the land bearing Survey Nos.21/1/A & 21/1/D measuring Acs.10.00 each situated at Dasnapur Village under the then Adilabad Mandal and District.
6. Case of respondents No.1 and 2 as projected in the writ petition was summed up by the learned Single Judge in the following manner:
"3. The claim of the petitioners rests on the basis that late husband of the first petitioner and late father of the second petitioner Sri Yellaiah and Sri Lakshmaiah along with two others were assigned the Government Porambok land of 10 acres each in Survey No.21/1 situated in Dasnapur village, Adilabad Mandal since they were landless poor Harijans. The said survey No.21/1 consists of vast extent of land, out of which 40 acres were assigned to four persons at the rate of 10 acres each. It is stated that proposals were initiated in File No.47/11 of 1952 and subsequent to the assignment made under Laoni Rules, they were put in possession respectively. However, having regard to great chunk of land, petitioners made representation to the authorities for making sub division of the land pointing out individual extents. However, the same was not made. Instead, in the year 1981 under a misconception, treating the said land as Government land, respondents 3 sought to divide the land into house site plots for allotment to teachers. Therefore, the petitioners had to file earlier a Writ Petition in W.P.No.2125/1981 challenging the said action of allotment to others and they also obtained interim stay of allotment of land pending writ petition on 2.4.1981. The said writ petition was allowed on 9.4.1986 with a further direction that possession of the assignees was not to be disturbed.
Once again, the petitioners' predecessors in title and other assignees went on making representations for the purpose of sub-division and they paid necessary charges for demarcation and issuance of supplementary Sethwar under Challan Nos.4192, dated 25.7.1980 and 4185 dated 28.7.1986 on the file of State Bank of Hyderabad, Adilabad Branch. In spite of the same, no action was taken. However, memo No.A1/1932/85, dt.1.9.1987 was issued stating that the land claimed by the petitioners was already alienated in favour of Government Polytechnic College, Adilabad-respondent No.4. Therefore, the petitioners had to file another writ petition in W.P.No.15136/1987 challenging the said alienation of land in favour of respondent No.4 and the petitioners obtained interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.20133/87 on 13.10.1987 restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession. However, the said writ petition was dismissed and thereafter, on further appeal in Writ Appeal No.776/90, a Division Bench of this Court called upon the respondents to file additional affidavit pointing out the exact position. Accordingly, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that the land, which was alienated to respondent No.4 is totally different from the land, which was assigned to the petitioners. The said Writ Appeal was disposed of on 4 5.9.1990 leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the authorities to safeguard their rights in respect of their land. Hence, the petitioners again filed representations dated 19.1.1990 and 10.10.1991 for demarcation of their respective lands to an extent of 10 acres each. In spite of the said representations, no action was taken. The petitioners filed Contempt Case No.482/92 and the same was disposed of on 31.12.1992. On further appeal, the Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.No.17943/94, as per orders dated 28.10.1994 held that any observations made in these proceedings would not be deemed to be concluded and the petitioners are entitled to canvass the correctness before the appropriate authorities.
4. In the meanwhile, the first respondent issued notices on 4.4.1994 to show cause as to why original assignments made in the year 1952 should not be cancelled. In fact, the said show cause notice was issued in favour of the original assignees who died long back and it further points out that the land assigned was in fact alienated to the 4th respondent in the year 1982 and 1990. Such an action is wholly contrary to the stand taken by the respondents herein before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.776/90. Therefore, the petitioners submitted a detailed explanation on 27.4.1994 pointing out all these aspects. Yet, no action has been taken. Therefore, the petitioners had to file another writ petition in W.P.No.9876/92, which was disposed of on 6.8.1992 with a direction to consider the representation dated 19.11.1990 within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, especially in the light of the orders of the Division Bench 5 in W.A.No.776/90. Still, no action has been taken. Therefore, the entire action on the part of the respondents in once again falling back on the plea that the land belongs to Government and the same is alienated in favour of 4th respondent is wholly unsustainable and illegal and further, the petitioners being landless poor Harijans and the assignment having been made as long back as in the year 1952 needs no variation, much less cancellation. Hence, petitioners sought directions for the purpose of proper demarcation of their respective lands and for issuance of Sethwar."
7. The writ petition was contested by the appellants. It was stated that though there was a proposal and endorsement for allotment of Acs.40.00 of land in favour of four persons at the rate of Acs.10.00 each, no assignment certificates were issued nor physical possession of the land was delivered to those four persons. It was contended by the appellants that it was only a paper assignment and therefore no claim could be made by the writ petitioners based on such paper assignment. Appellants further stated that the said land was sought to be used for construction of Teachers Housing Colony.
8. We may mention that respondent No.3 in the writ appeal i.e., Sanjay Gandhi Government Polytechnic, was 6 arrayed as respondent No.4 in the related writ petition which also filed a counter affidavit stating that it was in possession of the land where permanent buildings etc., have been constructed.
9. Learned Single Judge after considering the rival pleadings and materials on record allowed the claim of respondents No.1 and 2 in the following manner:
"8. There is no dispute to the various proceedings, especially filing of the writ petitions on the earlier occasion, on behalf of the petitioners and the assignees in this Court and the orders passed therein. The petitioners' claim rests on the basis of the assignment made in File No.47/11 of 1952 and having regard to the same, petitioners filed various representations for sub- division of the land. Even in the counter affidavit, there is no serious dispute in regard to the endorsement made by the then Collector for allotment of 40 acres of land in favour of four persons at the rate of 10 acres each.
However, it is their case that it is only a paper assignment and no assignment certificate is granted or there was any delivery of possession. On the face of it, this plea is quite contrary to the stand taken by the respondents on the earlier occasion, especially before the Division Bench while the proceedings were pending in W.A.No.776/90, wherein the stand of the respondents is that the land which has been assigned to the petitioners is totally different from the land which has been transferred in favour of respondent No.4. The orders in the said Writ Appeal have already become final 7 and the respondent No.4 cannot resile from the stand earlier taken and try to dispute the very assignment as such at this late hour. Admittedly, the survey in respect of which the petitioners are claiming consists of vast extent of land. There is also no serious dispute in regard to the fact that on the extent of land, which has been allotted in favour of respondent No.4, buildings have already come up and the same is also functioning. It is very difficult to accept the contention now sought to be raised on behalf of the respondents denying the very assignment in favour of the petitioners at this late hour, more so, in view of the chequered events and especially the stand taken by the respondents themselves on the earlier occasion before the Division Bench. In view of the same, it has to be held that the petitioners are entitled to be shown their respective areas to an extent of 10 acres each, which has been assigned to them, as long back as in the year 1952 and consequently issue necessary revenue title documents. Hence, I do not find any merits in the objections raised on behalf of the respondents or any justification in their stand.
9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to take immediate steps for the purpose of demarcation of the land of the petitioners to an extent of 10 acres each as claimed by them and fix the boundaries and issue necessary Sethwar and also give effect to the same in all the revenue records and accounts. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the petitioners shall be given due notice and opportunity before giving effect to such demarcation. No costs."
810. From a perusal of the above, we find that according to the learned Single Judge, assignment was made in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 (writ petitioners) in File No.47/11 of 1952. Writ petitioners had filed various representations for sub-division of the land since the allotments were for four persons totalling Acs.40.00 of land which would mean Acs.10.00 per each person. Since no assignment certificates were issued and there was an inordinate delay, claims were made by the writ petitioners.
11. At this stage, we may mention that on an earlier occasion, respondents No.1 and 2 had filed W.P.No.15136 of 1987 assailing the proceedings dated 11.03.1982 of the District Collector, Adilabad, in alienating Acs.20.00 of the subject land. When the said writ petition was dismissed, respondents No.1 and 2 preferred W.A.No.776 of 1990. In the judgment and order dated 05.09.1990 whereby the said writ appeal was disposed of, it was clearly mentioned that as per the Special Laoni Statement, Deputy Collector of Adilabad had recommended patta to be granted to M.Yellaiah and M.Laxmaiah for Acs.10.00 of the land each.
9Division Bench noted that there were endorsements of the Collector's office in the said Laoni Statement according sanction for alienation in favour of M.Yellaiah and M.Laxmaiah. Accordingly, Division Bench held that legal formalities for assignment of land under the Laoni Rules have been complied with. What only remained was the actual sub-division and measurement of the land. That apart, Division Bench noted that names of M.Yellaiah and M.Laxmaiah were recorded in the revenue records as occupants which were subsequently changed to pattadars in the year 1986-87. There is a further finding of fact that the land claimed by the writ petitioners is adjacent to the residential school and staff quarters; both plots of land being different.
12. It is in the above circumstances, learned Single Judge held that writ petitioners are entitled to be shown their respective areas to an extent of Acs.10.00 each assigned way back in the year 1952. Therefore, overruling the objections raised by the State Government, the impugned directions were issued by the learned Single Judge.
1013. In the intra-court appeal, we do not find any irregularity or legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Moreover, at this distant point of time, it would be wholly inequitable to disturb such findings recorded by the revenue authorities way back in the year 1952 and which has attained finality.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal.
15. Writ appeal is accordingly 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 16.11.2022 vs