THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.764 and 765 OF 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Bhaskar Reddy)
Heard Mr. P. Radhive Reddy, learned Special
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned
Advocate General for appellants; Mr. M.V.S. Suresh
Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
Mr. M.V.Pratap Kumar for respondent No.1 in
W.A.No.765 of 2019; and Mr. P. Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Ch. Siddhartha Sarma for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.A.No.764 of 2019.
2. Both these writ appeals are preferred by the State and its officials under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, calling in question the correctness of the judgment and order dated 03.06.2019 rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.39232 and 39825 of 2017. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.A.No.764 of 2019 and respondent No.1 in 2 W.A.No.765 of 2019 are the writ petitioners concerned who instituted the aforementioned two writ petitions.
3. Since the contentions are common and also in view of the fact that both the writ petitions were decided by a common judgment, it is appropriate that both these appeals should be disposed of by this common order. W.A.No.765 of 2019, which arises out of W.P.No.39825 of 2017, is taken up as leading case which will resolve the issues raised in both the writ appeals.
4. The related writ petition i.e., W.P.No.39825 of 2017 has been filed by respondent No.1 herein i.e., Sri Priya Plot Owners Welfare Association (registered under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001), questioning the Gazette Notification No.238-A, Revenue (Registration-I) Department, dated 22.08.2017, notifying G.O.Ms.No.187, Revenue (Registration-I) Department dated 22.08.2017, issued under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short "the Registration Act") prohibiting registration of documents relating to immovable properties situated at Survey Nos.1 to 21 of Kancha 3 Parvathapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, to an extent of Acs.362.15 guntas as illegal, arbitrary and for other reliefs.
5. The writ petitioner society, consisting of its 2000 members, is said to have purchased plots in Survey Nos.3 to 9 and 12 to 14 in Kancha Parvathapur Village, total extent of Acs.110.00 under registered sale deeds executed between 1994 and 2000 and majority of its members (plot owners) regularised their plots availing benefits under Layout Regularisation Scheme introduced by the State Government and also obtained building permission from the local authorities and constructed houses in their respective plots. It is the case of the society that the land purchased by them is a patta land of Mr. Budram Singh, whose name has been recorded as pattadar in Sethwar of 1356 Fasli (1946) as well as Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 and the name of pattadar and his successors are reflected in the revenue records from 1950-2010. It is their case that the sons of original pattadar filed a declaration under the provisions of the 4 A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (briefly "the Land Ceiling Act", hereinafter) in C.C.Nos.2058/E/75, 2059/E/75, 2060/E/75, surplus land was determined by the authorities under the said Act, the excess land was surrendered and from the retainable land, the legal heirs of Budram Singh sold plots to the members of the petitioner society and the State Government is not having any authority to notify the patta land under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
6. Appellants (respondents in the writ petition) filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition stating that as per Khasra Pahani of Kancha Parvathapur Village, the land is recorded as "Salarjang Kancha", one Nawab Syed Ali Abdul Hassan filed a petition on 27.03.2010 on the file of District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, claiming as successor of late Nawab Salarjung Bahadur-III, he is the defendant in O.S.No.156 of 1980 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, suit for partition of lands instituted by the legal heirs of late Nawab Syed Abdulla and said suit was decreed vide judgment and 5 decree dated 12.10.2004 declaring defendant Nos.24 to 43, 47 to 65, 109 and 110 as successors of Nawab Salar Jung III. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the contesting parties therein filed an appeal vide A.S.No.222 of 2005 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the same was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.156 of 1980. Thus they claimed as owners of the land purchased by the society.
7. Acting on the representation of the decreeholders in O.S.No.156 of 1980, the District Collector issued Letter No.F1/4611/2007 dated 10.05.2012 directing the Sub- Registrar, not to entertain any registration in respect of the subject land and also directed the District Panchayat Officer to ensure that no building permissions are given over the land in the said survey numbers. The District Collector vide Letter No.F1/4611/2007 dated 08.05.2013 directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, to maintain vigil over the land and to protect it from unauthorised encroachment and also to submit 6 proposals for notifying the said lands as prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. It is the further case of the Government that land in Survey Nos.1 to 21 of Kancha Parvathapur Village is commonly called as "Salarjung Kancha" to an extent of Ac.362.15 guntas, as the same was taken over by the Government as the custodian under the provisions of the Telangana Area Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasli (briefly "the Court of Wards Act", hereinafter).
8. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has addressed Letter No.NA1/181/2012 dated 09.02.2016 to the Government relying on the report of the District Collector in Letter NO.E5/4993/2013 dated 31.08.2015 stating that the property was taken custody under Sub-Sections (1) to (7) of Section 10 and Section 11 of the Court of Wards Act and the property was prone to illegal encroachments, it is necessary to protect the land till a final decision is taken by the Government as per Section 11 of the Court of Wards Act. The District Collector vide Letter No.ES/4993/2013 dated 28.07.2016 7 submitted a report mentioning the nature of the lands and its classification and expressed his inability to verify the correlation of the subject lands that if the lands resumed by the Jagir Administrator and further stated that he could not verify the records relating to the lands whether these lands are under the control of Court of Wards at any point of time. Inspite of the said report, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration in letter No.NA1/181/2012 dated 29.11.2016 has stated as under:-
"In view of the above, after examination of the report of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and report of the Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, it is to inform that, taking into consideration of all the averments made by the Collector, regarding the lands in question, it is came to know that the lands are very valuable lands. And also these lands are recorded as Ceiling Surplus Lands, still court cases are pending on the issue and also the matter is pending before the Court of Wards for release of the property by the legal heirs of the Salar Jung. The land is highly valuable and in prime locations besides the Hyderabad to Warangal high Way which is rapidly developing with Engineering Educational Institutions and small scale industries.(emphasis supplied)"
9. A preliminary Gazette Notification No.109/2013 was issued notifying various extents of lands in Survey 8 Nos.1 to 21 of Kancha Parvathapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, under Section 22-A of the Registration Act as prohibited properties. Objections were filed to the said Notification by M/s. Sri Sai Aiswarya Colony Residents Welfare Association, M/s. Sree Ramana Co-operative Housing Society Limited and the petitioner in W.P.No.39825 of 2017. After appreciation of material and basing on the reports of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration issued proceedings No.NA1/181/2012 dated 14.02.2014 stating as under:-
"As per the report of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the extent of Ac.362.15 gts., in the reference 4th cited and as per the entries in Khasra Pahani, one Sri Budaram Singh is Pattedar and Possessor. This land was also filed under the Land Ceiling Act as excess land ceiling and determining it was Private Patta land excess land possession was taken over. Hence, as per the records of the Revenue Department, the lands are Patta lands. Meanwhile, in a meeting of the CCLA where the minutes were recorded, it is recorded as the lands of Ac.362.15 gts., were under the control of Court of Wards. There is no specific evidence that has been adduced or referred to, to declare them as lands of Court of Wards. Even if it is lands under Court of Wards, they do not become Government lands and cannot be declared under 22(a). 22(a) declaration which prohibit registrations in the lands is only available for Government lands. Further, there is no 9 formal communication from CCLA office and the Collector, Ranga Reddy seems to have gone ahead for a Preliminary Declaration under 22(a) based on minutes of a meeting which is not a right procedure to be followed."
10. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, after considering the nature of the lands, its classification and the report of the District Collector has directed to withdraw the preliminary notification issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and clarifying that the prohibited notification is valid in respect of land to the extent of Ac.38.35 guntas in Survey Nos.1, 10, 11 of Salarjung Kancha. In compliance with the said directions, the District Collector issued proceedings No.E5/4993/2013 dated 14.03.2014 withdrawing the preliminary Gazette Notification dated 08.10.2013 published under Section 22-A of the Registration Act to the extent of Ac.324.11 guntas in respect of Survey Nos.1 to 9 and 12 to 21 situated at Kancha Parvathapur Village.
11. It is the further case of respondents that even though the preliminary notification was withdrawn but 10 the same was re-considered again by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration basing on the report of the District Collector dated 31.08.2015 wherein after referring to the Gazette Notification dated 15.02.1956, it was found that the lands denotified were classified as "Arazi Maqthas (free assessment lands/rent free lands)" and this fact was not considered earlier while denotifying the lands.
12. Learned Single Judge, after considering the rival submissions and the material on record, has allowed the writ petitions by declaring G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 22.08.2017 as illegal. Aggrieved by the same, the writ appeals are filed.
13. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that the land admeasuring Ac.362.15 guntas in Survey Nos.1 to 21 of Kancha Parvathapur Village was classified as "Salarjung Kancha"; the said lands were taken control under the provisions of the Courts of Wards Act as a custodian legacy; originally this land belonged to one late Nawab Salarjung III and 11 after his lifetime his legal heirs instituted O.S.No.156 of 1980 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming as the successors in interest; the said suit was decreed after prolonged litigation on 12.10.2004 declaring defendant Nos.24 to 43, 47 to 65, 109 and 110 as successors of late Nawab Salar Jung III; questioning the said decree and judgment, A.S.No.222 of 2005 has been filed on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the same was dismissed on 01.08.2007 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.156 of 1980; and in fact as per the report of the District Collector, the said lands were taken under the custody of the Court of Wards. Learned counsel would further submit that as per Section 4 of the Court of Wards Act, the land owners are disqualified for management or control of the property and the District Collector has reason to believe that successors of person who are disqualified under Section 7 of the Court of Wards Act to manage the properties has invoked the power under Section 8 of the Court of Wards Act and has taken possession of the property and the properties are 12 under control of the Court of Wards. It is further contended that to protect the property from gullible people, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has exercised jurisdiction to notify the lands under Section 22-A of the Registration Act prohibiting from registration. He would also submit that preliminary notification issued earlier was withdrawn relying on the report of the District Collector who reported that records were not available to correlate the lands resumed by the Jagir Administrator and the same are under custody of Court of Wards. He would further submit that the District Collector vide his report dated 31.08.2015 stated that the subject lands are classified as "Arazi Maqthas" notified in the Gazette dated 15.02.1956, since the said fact was not mentioned in earlier reports, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has issued proceedings No.NA1/181/2012 dated 29.11.2016 notifying the lands in view of subsequent material, there is no illegality and prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
13
14. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners, would submit that objections were submitted by M/s. Sri Sai Aiswarya Colony Residents Welfare Association on 31.12.2013 and 02.01.2014 to the preliminary Gazette Notification and based on their objections, the District Collector has examined the entire records relating to the subject land and submitted a report in Letter No.E5/4993/2013 dated 12.02.2014 and basing on the said report, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration & Special Chief Secretary to Government has issued proceedings No.NA1/181/2012 dated 14.02.2014 inter alia informing the District Collector for withdrawal of the preliminary notification except land to an extent of Ac.38.35 guntas in Survey Nos.1, 10, 11 of Salarjung Kancha notified earlier under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the remaining extent of land was de- notified as patta land and on the very same material issued the impugned notification, in colourable exercise of power, non-application of mind and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned Senior 14 Counsel would also contend that the members of the petitioner society, after purchase of the property, applied for regularisation of the said plots, and the Government having considered the title deeds regularised the plots under Layout Regularisation Scheme and the municipal authorities have granted building permissions, plot owners obtained loans from the financial institutions and with an intention to disturb the settled rights under the influence of the third parties who are unsuccessful in recovery of the lands from the members of the petitioner society and the present notification was once again issued with an intention to secure the lands from the custody of the petitioner so as to deliver the same to the third parties, and as such the action of the Government is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Government is not having any power to notify the lands by issuing the impugned notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, as there is no avowed interest of Central or State Governments.
15
15. We have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
16. The District Collector gave a report in Letter No.E5/4993/2013 dated 12.02.2014 wherein it has been stated that as per Sethwar of 1356 Fasli (1946), Khasra Pahani of 1954-55, Mr. Budram Singh is recorded as pattadar and the land owners also filed declaration under the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act; the competent authority while computing the lands, excess lands were taken possession by the Government; further there is no evidence that the lands were taken under the control of Court of Wards; and even if the lands are taken under the custody of the Court of Wards, the same cannot be declared or notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act prohibiting from registration. Basing on the said report, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, vide notification No.NA1/181/2012 dated 14.02.2014, withdrew the earlier notification issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act except to the 16 extent of Ac.38.35 guntas in Survey Nos.1, 10, 11 of Salarjung Kancha and the remaining entire extent of land was denotified from the preliminary notification. Surprisingly, the Government acting on the representation of the third parties who claim to be successors of late Nawab Salar Jung III once again issued the impugned notification basing on the very same material which was the basis for denotifying the lands vide proceedings 14.02.2014. There is no other material available on record to state that there was subsequent or additional information as available which necessitated the appellants to issue a fresh notification notifying the subject lands as prohibited properties exercising powers under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
17. Further, as per the report of the District Collector, in Letter No.ES/4993/2013 dated 28.07.2016, it has been specifically stated that there was no record to state that these lands are resumed by the Jagir Administrator or any provisional commutation award was passed or that these lands are under the control of Court of Wards 17 at any point of time. Curiously, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration even after referring to the above said report, has issued proceedings No.NA1/181/2012 dated 29.11.2016 stating that basing on the reports of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, as the subject lands are valuable lands recorded as ceiling surplus lands and matter is pending before the Court of Wards, directed the authorities to notify the same. This would clearly show that at the instance of the third parties, who failed to secure their lands from the possession of the petitioners, have other way round have instigated the Government to issue the impugned notification. Further, the appellants have not placed either before the learned Single Judge or before us any notification taking possession of the subject lands under the provisions of the Court of Wards Act. In the absence of any material, the Government is estopped from claiming that these lands have been taken possession under the Court of Wards Act.
18
18. For the aforementioned reasons, as the appellants have not filed any material to substantiate their contentions for re-notifying the subject lands under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and as the impugned notification issued under G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 22.08.2017 is bereft of any reasons, we do not find any justifiable reason to entertain these appeals.
19. The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 29.10.2022 JSU