THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.506 AND 904 OF 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
This judgment and order will dispose of both writ
appeal Nos.506 and 904 of 2013.
2. We have heard Mr. Parsa Anantha Nageswar Rao,
learned Special Government Pleader for Revenue for the
appellants and Mr. Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Both the appeals arise out of the order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing writ petition No.18442 of 2011 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 as the writ petitioners. While State of Andhra Pradesh (now State of Telangana) and its officials are the appellants in writ appeal No.506 of 2013, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation is the appellant in writ appeal No.904 of 2013. Appellants in writ appeal No.506 of 2013 were arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 5 in writ petition No.18442 of 2011, whereas appellant in writ 2 appeal No.904 of 2013 was arrayed as respondent No.6 in writ petition No.18442 of 2011.
4. The related writ petition No.18442 of 2011 was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents i.e., appellants herein in interfering with their possession in respect of land admeasuring Acs.18.00 cents in survey No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ('subject land') on the basis of panchanama of the Mandal Revenue Inspector dated 20.08.2007 and the sketch enclosed thereto is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 further sought for quashing of the same.
5. Above prayer was made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the backdrop of the following facts:
5.1. P.Narsimha Reddy and P.Seetharam Reddy being brothers and constituting a joint family were owners of land admeasuring Acs.82.68 cents in survey No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga 3 Reddy District. P.Seetharam Reddy filed ceiling declaration, so also his son P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy in discharge of their obligations under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 in respect of their share of Acs.41.34 cents in the above land before the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer. Additional Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders on 28.10.1976 in the ceiling declarations holding the declarants to be non-surplus land holders. Thus, lands admeasuring Acs.41.34 cents out of the total extent of Acs.82.68 cents in survey No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District which was the share of P.Seetharam Reddy and P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy remained unaffected by the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (briefly, 'the 1973 Act' hereinafter). 5.2. Likewise, P.Narsimha Reddy and his son P.Anji Reddy filed declarations under the 1973 Act in respect of their shares out of Acs.82.68 cents of land. On 30.10.1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal passed a 4 common order declaring that the two declarants were holding surplus lands.
5.3. Consequently, P.Narsimha Reddy and his son P.Anji Reddy in discharge of their obligations under the 1973 Act surrendered the surplus land admeasuring Acs.38.26 cents out of their share of Acs.41.34 cents. 5.4. On 01.06.1989, P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy i.e., the non-surplus land holder executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of respondent No.1, R.Bhaskara Raju who on his death has been substituted by his legal heirs i.e., respondent Nos.4 to 7. Respondent No.1 was authorised to sell land admeasuring Acs.4.00 in survey No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Additionally, P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy orally agreed to sell another extent of land admeasuring Acs.10.00 cents in the same survey number to respondent No.1. As the entire sale consideration was received pursuant to the oral agreement, on 30.11.1989 he executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of N.Purnachander 5 Rao and another in respect of land to an extent of Acs.10.00 cents authorising them to execute and register a regular sale deed in favour of respondent No.1. 5.5. On 11.12.1989 P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy sold another extent of land admeasuring Acs.4.00 cents out of his share to respondent No.1 through a registered sale deed and delivered possession of the land to respondent No.1.
5.6. Under sale deed dated 06.02.1990, respondent No.1 sold to respondent No.2 land admeasuring Acs.4.00 cents in survey No.307 and Acs.5.00 cents in survey No.307 out of Acs.10.00 cents of land which he possessed. 5.7. Similarly, N.Purnachander Rao and another, the constituted attorney of P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy executed another sale deed dated 03.07.1990 in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of the remaining land admeasuring Acs.5.00 cents. Since then respondent No.1 has been in possession of the land in his own right as purchaser.
65.8. Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad through proceedings dated 21.05.1993 granted quarry lease for building stone and road metal in the name of respondent No.1 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.4.00 cents in survey No.307. That apart, respondent No.2 also leased out his land admeasuring Acs.9.00 cents in survey No.307 to respondent No.1 for running a stone crushing unit under the name and style of M/s.Mechanised Aggregate Industries. Thus, respondent No.1 contended that he was in possession of the entire land of Acs.18.00 cents in survey No.307 out of which he was the owner of Acs.9.00 cents and respondent No.2 was the owner of remaining Acs.9.00 cents of land.
5.9. It was stated that respondent No.1 had obtained commercial electricity connection for the purpose of running the stone crushing unit. He had also obtained another commercial electricity connection in the name of M/s.Granite Metal Industries besides obtaining a domestic service connection.
75.10. According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, as pleaded in the writ affidavit, total extent of land in survey No.307 was Acs.441.13 cents, out of which possession of Acs.318.27 cents were taken over by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of the 1973 Act. The balance lands are patta lands including Acs.18.00 cents of land belonging to respondent Nos.1 and 2.
5.11. Out of the lands admeasuring Acs.318.27 cents surrendered by various declarants under the 1973 Act, State Government allotted on lease basis land to an extent of Acs.238.28 cents to Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (briefly, 'the Corporation' hereinafter) through G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16.08.2007, possession of which was handed over to the Corporation by the Mandal Revenue Inspector vide panchanama dated 20.08.2007.
5.12. When one of the purchasers of land in survey No.307, P.Netrananda Reddy sought clarification, Joint Collector of Ranga Reddy District through proceedings 8 dated 27.03.2009 informed the Corporation that the land in respect of which clarification was sought for by the individual was retainable land. According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, a comparison of the sketch enclosed to the proceedings dated 27.03.2019 and the sketch enclosed with the panchanama dated 20.08.2007 would clearly show that ceiling surplus land surrendered to the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer was encroached upon by third parties. The encroachers had developed the land into house plots. They alleged that on the basis of the panchanama dated 20.08.2007 appellants were interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in respect of their land admeasuring Acs.18.00 cents in survey No.307 unaffected by ceiling proceedings. Thus, assailing the panchanama dated 20.08.2007 and the sketch enclosed thereto as well as the action of the appellants in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of respondent Nos.1 and 2 over land admeasuring Acs.18.00 cents in survey No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the 9 related writ petition came to be filed seeking the relief as indicated above.
6. The writ petition was contested by appellant No.4 i.e., Deputy Collector and Tahsildar by filing counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit. Stand taken was that the land to an extent of Acs.441.13 cents in survey No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was classified as Dasthagardan in the name of Smt. Lala Begum and others; the same was purchased by P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy, P.Ramchandra Reddy and D.Laxmi Narayan Reddy. After coming into force of the 1973 Act, the above named persons filed individual declarations. After due computation by the Land Reforms Tribunal, the above named persons retained an extent of Acs.122.70 cents and surrendered land to the extent of Acs.318.27 cents to the government as surplus land, the details of which were mentioned as under:
10
Sl. Name of the pattedar Surplus Retainable No. land land
1. P.Seetharam Reddy -- Ac.55.12
2. P.V.Narsimha Reddy Ac.38.26 Ac.44.42
3. P.Ramchandra Reddy Ac.137.80 --
4. D.Laxminarayana Ac.142.21 Ac.23.18 Reddy Ac.318.27 Ac.122.72 6.1. Thus land to the extent of Acs.318.27 cents vested with the government being the absolute owner of the above land since pattadars had surrendered this land under the 1973 Act. In this connection, Revenue Divisional Officer had issued Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in respect of land to the extent of Acs.123.28 cents.
6.2. P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy and P.Anji Reddy were declared to be surplus land holders. They had surrendered land to the extent of Acs.38.26 cents. According to village records, the land admeasuring Acs.317.25 cents was classified as kharij khata ceiling surplus land; an extent of Acs.79.00 cents is covered by crushers; and an extent of Acs.20.00 cents was allotted to the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Qutbullapur Circle.
116.3. Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16.08.2007 had issued orders to alienate Acs.33.11 cents of government land in survey No.308 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and to allot government land to an extent of Acs.238.28 cents in survey No.307/1 in favour of the Corporation on lease basis for a period of 99 years @ Rs.40.00 lakhs per acre. The land was allotted to the Corporation to enable it to utilise the land for raising its capital base. District Collector of Ranga Reddy vide proceedings dated 20.08.2007 handed over possession of Acs.33.11 cents of land to the Corporation under the cover of a panchanama. Assistant Director of Mines and Geology vide letter dated 02.12.2010 informed that temporary permissions issued for quarry lease were withdrawn in respect of land to the extent of Acs.33.02 cents in both survey Nos.307 and 308.
6.4. Declarants had already sold away the retainable patta land admeasuring Acs.122.72 cents in survey No.307 to different individuals. Consequently, names of 12 the purchasers were recorded in the pahanis and the land was covered by different layouts. There was no land available to the extent of Acs.18.00 cents out of the retainable land in survey No.307 as claimed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. On verification from the sketch enclosed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 relating to the subject property, it is stated that the same is not matching with the boundaries of the land purchased through registered sale deed dated 11.12.1989. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 under the guise of retainable part of land were trying to grab valuable government land allotted to the Corporation for public purpose. Thus, the Deputy Collector-cum-Tahsildar sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Further clarifications were made by the Deputy Collector-cum-Tahsildar by filing additional counter affidavit.
8. Likewise, counter affidavit was filed by the Corporation. It was contended that there was a serious dispute on facts about the title and possession of 13 respondent Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the land claimed to have been purchased by them. The dispute about title and possession should not be adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Proper forum would be the civil court.
8.1. Corporation stated that G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16.08.2007 was issued by the State to alienate government land to the extent of Acs.33.11 cents in survey No.308 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of the Corporation and also to allot government land to the extent of Acs.238.28 cents in survey No.307/1 of the same village to the Corporation on lease basis for a period of 99 years by taking the value of the land at Rs.40 lakhs per acre. While doing so, it was declared that such allotment of land would be construed as government equity contribution for which Corporation was required to allot appropriate shares to the government covering the value of the land. The land was to be utilised by the Corporation to raise its capital base.
148.2. Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16.08.2007 possession of the land admeasuring Acs.228.28 cents and Acs.33.11 cents were handed over to the Corporation under a panchanama dated 20.08.2007. After taking over possession of the land, Corporation started fencing the same besides raising boundary so as to protect it from encroachers/land grabbers. However, because of the quarrying operations carried out by the encroachers, the fencing was completely damaged.
8.3. While denying that Corporation had encroached upon the land of respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is alleged that the real motive of respondent Nos.1 and 2 was to grab valuable government land allotted to the Corporation for a public purpose.
8.4. Denying that handing over of government land to the Corporation was arbitrary or unreasonable, Corporation challenged the delay of more than three years in instituting the challenge to the panchanama and 15 sketch plan. Therefore, Corporation sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Surprisingly, instead of adjudicating the grievance of respondent Nos.1 and 2 through the relief sought for or maintainability thereof, learned Single Judge posed the question that the issue to be addressed in the writ petition related to sanctity of the surrender proceedings under the 1973 Act, which was neither questioned by anybody nor was an issue. After an elaborate discussion on the provisions of the 1973 Act, learned Single Judge also referred to provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 as well as the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and made exclusive references thereto. Learned Single Judge, thereafter, referred to proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 08.02.1991 and 23.02.1991 culminating in order dated 07.03.1991. Learned Single Judge held as follows:
Section 11 of the Land Ceiling Act required the Revenue Divisional Officer to take possession of ceiling surplus lands which he did in the instant 16 case. While surrendering the surplus lands, landholders have simultaneously retained Ac.123.72 cents as retainable land with them.
Therefore, the alienations made by the landholders to the extent of Ac.123.72 cents retainable extent of land cannot be faulted at all. The petitioners have successfully demonstrated as to how they acquired title to Ac.18.00 of land forming part of the retainable extent of land held by the landholders. Though, Sri Y.N.Lohitha, learned counsel for the sixth respondent has raised a contention that the land purchased by the petitioners is not forming a contiguous block, but however, Sri Hari Sreedhar has successfully demonstrated as to how the Ac.18.00 cents of land formed into contiguous block, with reference to the land held by Sri Netrananda Reddy. He could demonstrate that this Ac.18.00 of land belonging to the petitioners is lying to the south of Sri Netrananda Reddy's land. I am therefore of the opinion that, the survey sketch presented by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Qutbullapur Mandal, indicating that the land held by the petitioners as forming part of the retainable extent of land deserves acceptance unhesitatingly. Still, the objection raised on behalf of the sixth respondent that, when the facts are in such serious disputes, the parties must be relegated to the Civil Court to enable the evidence to be gathered properly, need to be answered. There is no real bar or prohibition from collecting evidence in a proceeding initiated under Article 226 of our Constitution. If the circumstances so warrant, such 17 an exercise can be carried out. But, as a rule of prudence and self imposed restraint, the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 would not normally undertake collection of evidence. In fact, the material papers, produced, so long as admissible in evidence, are considered as evidence and on that basis writ petitions are decided. In the present case, the controversy was centered around the nature of the land. What was essentially required to be decided is whether this land vested in the Government pursuant to the Abolition of Inams in 1955 or was it vested in the Government, free from all encumbrances, pursuant to their surrender by the excess landholders after statutory adjudication in accordance with the Land Ceiling Act. Once this controversy is resolved and a firm opinion is reached that the lands in question vested in the Government free from all encumbrances as it was surrendered by the surplus landholders, in terms of the Land Ceiling Act, what remains thereafter to be resolved is the mere localization of the land in question. At the time of surrender proceedings, as is required in terms of Section 11 of the Land Ceiling Act, necessary Panchanama is prepared and a sketch is also prepared localizing the surrendered extents of land. Therefore, there was never any difficulty with regard to localisation of the land. The difficulty arose only because of the encroachments allowed to be made freely in the ceiling surplus land by various individuals who are backed by the Occupancy Rights Certificates granted improperly by the 18 Revenue Divisional Officer, subsequent to the land being surrendered to the State Government under the Land Ceiling Act. Therefore, I am of the firm opinion that the controversy in the present case is not such a type as to require collection of oral evidence warranting institution of any civil suit. Further, the principle that no person can be deprived of his legitimate right of use/possession of landed property without recourse to law is too well known, to be allowed to be disturbed on the basis of a Panchanama prepared by a Tahsildar while delivering possession of land to the sixth respondent.
For all the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners succeed in this writ petition. Inasmuch as, the petitioners not challenged the validity of the orders of the State Government alienating the land in favour of the sixth respondent, they have no manner of any right to object the State Government from allocating or alienating the land belonging to it, other than the one held by them, in favour of the sixth respondent. But what the petitioners can legitimately object to is, the land held by them cannot be included in the land allocated or alienated in favour of the sixth respondent, unauthorizedly. The petitioners have every right to protect their right, title and interest in the land in question. They can be divested of such a right, only through a process of law but not by preparing a Panchanama by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Hence, the respondents are not liable to prevent the petitioners from put to effective use the land of 19 Ac.18.00 purchased by them in Sy. No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal.
10. Thus, from the above, it is seen that learned Single Judge has recorded a finding of fact that respondent Nos.1 and 2 could successfully demonstrate their title over Ac.18.00 cents of land forming part of the retainable extent held by the landholders. When it was pointed out that purchase of the aforesaid land by respondent Nos.1 and 2 could not be accepted as the land did not form a contiguous block, learned Single Judge noted that learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/writ petitioners had successfully demonstrated as to how Acs.18.00 cents of land formed a contiguous block; and that he could further demonstrate that this Acs.18.00 cents of land belonging to respondent Nos.1 and 2 lie to the south of Netrananda Reddy's land. Therefore, learned Single Judge unhesitatingly accepted the survey sketch presented by the Revenue Divisional Officer indicating that land held by respondent Nos.1 and 2 formed part of the retainable extent of land.
20
11. We are afraid, learned Single Judge had delved into an arena which is purely within the domain of civil court jurisdiction. It is not for the writ court to decide title and possession of a petitioner in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that a writ proceeding is not meant for establishment of one's right but for enforcement of such a right. Existence of such a right is a pre-condition for a writ court to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Declaration of title and possession over land would require examination and determination of various factual aspects including adducing and analysing evidence, both documentary and oral. Though there is no bar for a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India from collecting evidence nonetheless such an exercise is required to be avoided as a writ court is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of title and possession.
12. Proceeding further, learned Single Judge realised the difficulties, but posed the question as to the nature of 21 the land and observed that what was essentially required to be decided was whether the land vested in the government pursuant to the 1955 Act or was it vested in the government free from all encumbrances pursuant to surrender of surplus land by the landholders after statutory adjudication in accordance with 1973 Act. Learned Single Judge again proceeded that there was no difficulty with regard to localisation of the surrendered land and therefore, the controversy was not of such a type as would require collection of oral evidence warranting institution of a civil suit.
13. We are afraid, learned Single Judge committed a fundamental error in entering into an arena which should be avoided by a writ court for the reasons mentioned supra.
14. Finally, learned Single Judge noted that as respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not challenge the orders of the State Government alienating land in favour of the Corporation, they would not have any manner of right objecting to the State Government allocating or alienating 22 land in favour of the Corporation but respondent Nos.1 and 2 can certainly protect their right, title and interest in respect of their land. Here also, learned Single Judge fell into grave error as such a direction would require clear demarcation of land between respondent Nos.1 and 2 on one hand and Corporation on the other hand. Without such clear cut demarcation, learned Single Judge directed the appellants not to interfere with the effective use of Acs.18.00 cents of land by respondent Nos.1 and 2.
15. We are of the view that these are matters which are best left for adjudication by the civil courts. Therefore the conclusions and findings rendered by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained at all.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to agree to the line of reasoning and findings rendered by the learned Single Judge. However, it would be open to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to establish their right over what they claim to be their land before the competent civil court, subject of course to limitation. 23
17. That being the position, order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.18442 of 2011 is hereby set aside and quashed.
18. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed and the writ appeals are allowed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J 28.04.2023 pln