THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
C.R.P. No. 417 of 2017
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the State of Telangana, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Judgment and decree, dated 23.09.2016, passed in C.M.A.No.5 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2. The Board of Revenue through its order in letter No.10815/17-A dated 23.07.1953 allotted an extent of Ac.570.00 Guntas of land including Ac.102.00 Guntas of land from out of total extent of Ac.770.27 Guntas in Sy.No.201/1 of Saheb Nagar Kalan village to the Forest Department for establishment of Soil Conservation Research Centre. Respondents 1 to 3 herein claiming to be the Legal Representatives/successors of Salar Jung-III filed a claim petition on 30.11.2005 before the Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, explaining the reasons for the delay in submitting the claim petition against the notification under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, in respect of PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 2 Gurramguda Forest Block, that it is a private property of Salar Jung-III as per the sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Hijri and Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad and Letter No.808/CH, dated 24.04.1954 releasing Sahebnagar Kalan village lands from integration in favour of Salar Jung Estate and as such the land to an extent of Ac.102.00 in Sy.No.201/1 of Saheb Nagar Kalan village may be excluded from the said notification. Considering the material available on record, the Forest Settlement Officer allowed the claim by an order, dated 15.10.2014, requesting the Divisional Forest Officer to exclude the said land from notification of Gurramguda Forest Block. Aggrieved by the said order, the Government preferred C.M.A.No.5 of 2015 and the same was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District vide judgment dated 23.09.2016. Against the said judgment, the State of Telangana preferred the present revision petition.
3. It is a long drawn litigation between the State Government and the claimants in different Forums and authorities. Therefore, I find it reasonable to narrate the facts in brief.
PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 3
4. Initially, the Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, vide proceedings No.B/1428/71 dated 03.09.2010 stated that in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, the Government through G.O.Ms.No.772, Food and Agriculture (Forest-III), dated 18.06.1971 declared an area of Ac.102.00 Guntas situated in Sahebnagar Kalan village, Hayathnagar Mandal, as Reserve Forest and the same was published in District Gazette vide Letter No.1428/B/71 dated 10.01.1971, District Gazette No.15 dated 26.07.1971 and also published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.23-C dated 12.08.1971. Proclamation under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 for the proposed Gurram Guda Reserve Forest Block was published in the District Gazette No.1 dated 05.01.1972 and also published on the Notice Board of Ibrahimpatnam Tahasil Office as certified by the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam in his Ref.No. LDis.A4/949/71 dated 18.12.1971. As per the Survey Settlement Record, Ranga Reddy District, it is evident that the land bearing Sy.No.201, Sahebnagar Kalan village of Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy is recorded as PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 4 Kancha Poramboke Sarkari. The then Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, has prepared the proposals under Section 15 of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and submitted to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, for verification and onward transmission to the Conservator of Forest, Hyderabad vide his Letter No.B/1428/1970 dated 20.12.2004 and the same has been approved by the District Collector and transmitted to the Forest Department, Hyderabad vide Letter No.E4/8097/2008 dated 02.03.2008 for necessary action. As per Form-I and II of Section 15 proposals, it was evident that no such claims were pending in the Forest Block and no patta lands were included in Gurramguda Reserve Forest Block.
5. One Mir Jafar Ali Khan (Respondent No.1 herein) and others filed a claim petition on 02.12.2006 stating that as per the judgment in O.S.No.156 of 1980 dated 12.10.2004 on the file of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, they are successors of late Salarjung-III and as such they claim to have rights over the land bearing Sy.No.201 admeasuring Ac.102.00 Guntas in Sahebnagar Kalan village, which was included in the Forest Block of PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 5 Gurramguda and hence requested for exclusion of their patta land from the Forest Block of Gurramguda in the light of certain judicial orders. On scrutiny of revenue records, it was observed that in the year 1953 the then Secretary Board of Revenue transferred an extent of Ac.570.00 Guntas to Forest Department in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar village of Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District against Ac.770.27 Guntas. The pahani for the year 1976-77 shows that the balance Ac.200.00 in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar village was not transferred to Forest Department as it was under occupation of the Harijans (assignees) since long time as they were doing cultivation. Since the area under occupation of assignees and others was located exactly in the centre of Sahebnagar Forest Block, it was divided into two bits viz., Sahebnagar Forest Block and Gurramguda Forest Block and as such an extent of Ac.570.00 was shown out of Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan village of Hayathnagar Mandal for the year 1961-62 is under the possession of Forest Department. As per the report of the then Patwari of Sahebnagar village dated 29.05.1975, there is no entry of Sy.No.201/1 in the village pahani PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 6 of Sahebnagar village. The entire Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar village admeasures Ac.770.27 Guntas and it comes under "Dastagardhan" (Inam land). The village was also called as Salar Jung Estate village. The remaining extent of Ac.570.27 Guntas is under the possession and control of Forest Department and there is no cultivation in the said area. The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, vide Letter No.C/13845/07 dated 16.02.2008 based on revenue records, stated that as per the pahani for the year 1975-76 an extent of Ac.770.27 in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan village of Hayathnagar Mandal, is classified as Kancha Poramboke Sarkari and in the pattedar column, it was recorded as Salarjung Sarkari. As per the pahani for the year 1980-81, Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan village was classified as Kancha Poramboke Sarkari and in the pattedar column, it was recorded as Arazi Maktha Salarjung Sarkari. But, in the corresponding changes in the pattedar column, there is no reference of any orders issued either by the then District Collector, Ranga Reddy or by any civil/High Court judicial orders. Taking advantage of the said discrepancies in the PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 7 revenue records, the claimant Mir Jafar Ali Khan has filed a claim petition on 02.12.2006 stating that as per the judgment in O.S.No.156 of 1980 dated 12.10.2004, they are the successors of late Salar Jung_III. As per the pahani for the year 1981-82 of Sahebnagar Kalan village, Sy.No.201 was bifurcated as Sy.No.201/1 admeasuring Ac.570.27 Guntas and it was classified as Kancha Poramboke Sarkari and recorded in the pattedar column as Arazi Maktha Salarjung Sarkari and Sy.Nos.201/2 and 201/3 admeasuring Ac.200.00 Guntas were classified as Kancha Poramboke Sarkari and recorded in the pattedar as Potharaju Laxmaiah and 69 others. As per the pahanies for the year 1987-88 and 1988-89, Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan village was classified as Kancha Poramboke Sarkari and in the pattedar and possession column, it was kept blank. The said Potharaju Laxmaiah along with 69 assignees has approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates under Section 8 of Inam Abolition Act, 1955 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.201 admeasuring Ac.200.00 Guntas situated at Sahebnagar Kalan village and that the Revenue PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 8 Divisional Officer, without issuing any Form-II notices to the Government and without holding proper enquiry as required under the Act and Rules, issued the Occupancy Rights Certificates in favour of the assignees. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Government of Andhra Pradesh filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District under Section 24 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. As per the orders of the High Court in C.C.C.A.No.84 of 1982, the Joint Collector vide proceedings No.B3/8854/85 dated 03.11.1997, deleted the names of the assignees from the revenue records to an extent of Ac.200.00 Guntas and thereby corrected and recorded it as Kancha Poramboke Sarkari and from the year 1996-2003 the whole extent of Ac.770.27 Guntas in Sy.No.201/1 was recorded as Sarkari both in pattedar and possession column in the pahanies of Sahebnagar village. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide Letter No.F1/4748/2003 dated 09.11.2004, directed to examine the whole history of the land in the light of the orders passed by the High Court in PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 9 C.C.C.A.No.84 of 1982 dated 16.08.1985 as well as the orders of the Joint Collector.
6. In the light of the above orders, it was observed that there was a similar case in which one Mohammad Hassan Khan Maharaj Kumar of Mahaboobabad of U.P. State, a close relative of late Salar Jung-III, was granted patta on 26th Behman 1355-F by late Salar Jung-III. The claimant filed a petition stating that Government had encroached upon his land in the year 1954-55 and constituted a Reserve Forest Block and hence he was entitled for compensation and thereby filed O.S.No.906 of 1977 before the II-Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration of title and for recovery of compensation in respect of the lands in Quthbullapur village and Sahebnagar village. The then District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, after thorough enquiry, submitted a detailed report to the Government and that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.MS.No.1029 dated 14.11.1973 rejecting the application of the said Mohammad Hassan Khan Maharaj Kumar. The review petition dated 27.04.1976 filed by him was also rejected. But, the suit was PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 10 decreed in his favour with a direction to the Government to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the Government preferred CCCA No.84 of 1982 and that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide its judgment dated 16.08.1985, allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in O.S.No.906 of 1977. The oral application made for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected. As per the directions of the High Court in the said judgment, the then Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, vide proceedings No.B3/8854/85 dated 03.11.1997, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal, to make necessary amendments in the revenue records. In the light of the observations made by the High Court in CCCA No.84 of 1982 that the rights of Salarjung-III Jagirdar herein vis-à-vis the entire Jagirs were in-alienable and Non-Heritable and were restricted to its usufruct for life, the Forest Settlement Officer observed that the land bearing Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar village to an extent of Ac.770.27 Guntas is neither Patta nor Inam and it is a Government land and hence the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 11 Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 will not apply to the Government lands. Further, the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor of Hayathnagar Mandal had conducted joint inspection and reported that an extent of Ac.102.00 in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan village, as claimed by the claimant Mir Jafar Ali Khan for De-Notification, is physically vacant and it is under the occupation of Forest Department and that they demarcated the subject land and submitted location sketch. Accordingly, the Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, rejected the claim petition filed by the said Mir Jafar Ali Khan and others, who claim to be the nominees of late Salarjung-III, for exclusion of patta land from Reserve Forest Block of Gurramguda comprising of Sy.No.201 admeasuring Ac.102.00 Guntas of Sahebnagar village of Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, vide proceedings No.B/1428/71 dated 03.09.2010.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Forest Settlement Officer dated 03.09.2010, the claimants preferred C.M.A.No.142 of 2010 before the S.Cs&S.Ts. (POA) Act-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District and that the learned PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 12 Judge, vide judgment dated 14.03.2012, allowed the appeal in part and remanded the matter to the Forest Settlement Officer with a direction to conduct a fresh enquiry and dispose of the claim petition keeping in view the observations made in the judgment. Accordingly, the Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, after conducting fresh enquiry, allowed the claim petition, vide proceedings No.B/1428/1971 dated 15.10.2014, and the Divisional Forest Officer was requested to exclude the lands admeasuring Ac.102.00 in Sy.No.201/1 of Saheb Nagar Kalan village from the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, from Gurramguda Forest Block.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Forest Settlement Officer dated 15.10.2014, the Government preferred C.M.A.No.5 of 2015.
9. Gurramguda Forest Block comprises of three villages viz., (1) Saheb Nagar Kalan village, Sy.No.201/1 to an extent of Ac.102.00 Guntas (2) Turkaymjal village, Turkayamjal Kancha, Sy.No.93 with an extent of Ac.279.20 Guntas and (3) Nadergul PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 13 Kancha, Gurramguda village, Sy.No.140/1 with an extent of Ac.30.00 Guntas. The Board of Revenue, Hyderabad, by its order in proceedings No.10815/17-A, dated 23.07.1953, allotted an extent of Ac.570.00 Guntas of land including Ac.102.00 from out of total extent of Ac.770.27 in Sy.No.201/1 of Saheb Nagar Kalan village to the Forest Department for establishment of Soil Conservation Research Centre and got it notified under Section 4 of A.P. Forest Act and approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.772, Food and Agriculture (Forest-III) dated 18.06.1971 for reservation of Gurramguda Forest Block, by appointing Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, to consider the objections, if any, against the said declaration. The said notification was published in District Gazette vide Gazette No.15, dated 26.07.1971 and also published in A.P. Gazette No.23 dated 12.08.1971. The Forest Settlement Officer issued a proclamation under Section 6 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 on 15.12.1971 and the same was published in the District Gazette No.1 dated 05.01.1972. The proclamation was also displayed on the Notice Board in the office of Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 14 inviting claims and objections against the notification published under Section 4 (b) (1) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 over the lands proposed and included in Gurramguda Forest Block within a period of one year from the date of publication, for disposal of the claims as required under the provisions of Section 10 (2) (a) of A.P. Forest Act. Thereafter, the proposals under Section 15 of the Act of Gurramguda Forest Block were prepared by the Forest Settlement Officer and submitted the same to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide Letter No.B/1428/1970 dated 20.12.2004 for verification and for onward transmission to the Conservator of Forest, Hyderabad. The District Collector transmitted the said proposals to the Conservator of Forest, Hyderabad, after due verification on 02.03.2008 for further action in the matter and the same is pending scrutiny. In the meanwhile, respondents 1 to 3 herein claiming to be successors and legal heirs of Salar Jung-III as per the orders in O.S.No.156 of 1980 and O.S.No.1451 of 1983 dated 12.10.2004, filed a claim petition on 30.11.2005 along with relevant documents in support of the claim before the Forest Settlement Officer, explaining the PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 15 reasons for the delay caused in submitting the claim petition against the notification under Section 4 of the Act in respect of Gurramguda Forest Block. They contended that the said land is a private property of Salar Jung-III as per the sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Hijri and Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad, Letter No.808/CH dated 24.04.1954, Sahebnagar Kalan village lands were released from integration in favour of Salar Jung Estate. Further, the claimants also filed as many as 26 documents in support of their claim. Considering the documents filed by the claimants, the Forest Settlement Officer issued a letter bearing No.B/1428/1971, dated 12.12.2005 to the Deputy Collector, Hayathnagar, requesting him to send a report about the subject lands and that he has received a letter bearing No.C/13845/2007 dated 16.02.2008 from the Deputy Collector, Hayathnagar. After examining the said report and the documents filed by the claimants, the Forest Settlement Officer admitted the claim and requested the Divisional Forest Officer, Hyderabad, vide Letter No.B/1428/1971 dated 14.05.2008, to keep Section 15 notification proposals pending till the enquiry of the claim petition is PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 16 finalized and also to furnish remarks about the proposal of exclusion of the patta lands in Sy.No.201/1 to an extent of Ac.102.00 pertaining to Salar Jung-III. The said letter was also marked to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Conservator of Forest, Hyderabad. However, the Divisional Forest Officer has not furnished any report, but the Conservator of Forest, Hyderabad, has furnished a report in his letter No.13813/65/D2 dated 09.07.2008 stating that the Forest Settlement Officer is not competent authority to admit the claim filed by the claimants after lapse of several years of publication of Section 4 notification in the year 1971 and also publication of proclamation under Section 6 of the Act in the year 1972 and that the proposal of exclusion of forest land attracts the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Thereafter, the Forest Settlement Officer vide Letter No.B/1428/71 dated 26.11.2008 furnished a detailed explanation clarifying all the points raised by the Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad, and also about the authority of the Forest Settlement Officer for admission of the claim and further stated that as per the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, he was PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 17 convinced with the reasons for causing delay in filing the claim petition and accordingly he allowed the claim petition.
10. The claimants stated that Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad, vide Letter No.13813/63/D2 dated 04.02.2009 in reply to the clarification issued by the Forest Settlement Officer in Letter No.B/1428/1971 dated 26.11.2008, has again stated that the Forest Settlement Officer sent Section 15 proposals to the District Collector on 02.03.2008 and the same has been approved by the District Collector and transmitted to Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad, who in turn requested the Forest Settlement Officer to take appropriate action in the matter, whereas the Forest Settlement Officer sent Section 15 proposals to the District Collector on 20.12.2004, but not 02.03.2008. In the instant case, Section 15 notification was not issued by the Government and the transmission of the proposals by the District Collector to the Conservator of Forests is only a process for notification of the area as Reserve Forest. The claimants further stated that the subject land is a private patta land of Salar Jung-III, but their claim petition was rejected by the Forest Settlement Officer by PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 18 order dated 03.09.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimants preferred C.M.A.No.142 of 2010 and that the learned District Judge, vide judgment dated 14.03.2012, allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter to the Forest Settlement Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry. Pursuant to the said judgment, the Forest Settlement Officer issued notices to the claimants as well as the Divisional Forest Officer to file their remarks and objections, if any, vide letter dated 18.05.2012. After receipt of notices, the claimants appeared through their Counsel and filed written arguments on 06.06.2012.
11. The claimants contended that late Saheb Begum Saheb had purchased Maktha (Arazi Maktha/self-acquired) of village Saheb Nagar Kalan under a sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Hijri and after her demise, her son late Mohammed Ali Khan known as Salar Jung and lastly Yousuf Ali Khan, the only son of Salar Jung-II known as Salar Jung-III, has succeeded the properties. The estate of late Salr Jung-III comprising Arazi Maktha, Jagir etc., were taken over by the Government of Nizam and were kept under the supervision and management of the Court of PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 19 Wards when the Salar Jung-III was aged one month old and after attaining the majority, the properties were released by the Government of Nizam, Hyderabad through Farman dated 18th Rabbi Ul Awwal 1331 Hijri from the Court of Wards and thereafter Salar Jung-III continued to be in possession and enjoyment of all the properties including Arazi Maktha. The said Salar Jung-III died issueless on 02.03.1949 and thereafter a Committee was appointed by H.E.H. Nizam on 23.03.1949 and that a special Regulation was passed by the Government of Hyderabad State known as Salar Jung Estate (Administration) Regulation No.XXXIV 1358 Fasli and all the properties of Salar Jung-III were vested under the Regulation and the Estate was administered by Salar Jung Estate Committee and all the properties were taken over by the Government of Hyderabad under the Abolition of Jagirs Act and Salar Jung Estate was dissolved vide G.O.Ms.No.952, Revenue, dated 18.05.1959. The claimants further contended that Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad, on submission of claim by the Committee of Estate Salar Jung for release of Makthas belonging to the Estate and PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 20 after hearing the parties, ordered for release of Arazi Makthas from integration in favour of Salar Jung vide Letter No.808/CH dated 24.04.1954 and requested the Collectors of Nalgonda, Mahabubnagar and Hyderabad to effect release of the possession of all the 12 Arazi Maktha lands and Saheb Nagar Kalan village lands were listed at Serial No.1 of the 12 Arazi Makha villages attached to the order dated 24.04.1954. Thereafter, the Deputy Jagir Administrator vide judgment dated 26.07.1955 in file NO.19/C had directed the concerned Collectors to effect release of lands already ordered vide 808/CH dated 24.04.1954 with exemption of Goathan, Rastha, Naddi, Nala and other public places.
12. The committee of Estate Salar Jung presented the claim in the office of Nazim Atiyat, Hyderabad, dated 15.10.1955 and thereafter the Office of Nazim Atiya published a preliminary notification No.H1550/1 in File No.2/56 on 15.02.1956 in the Government of Hyderabad Gazette Part-II dated 29.03.1956 declaring the possession of all the properties comprised of Jagirs and the Arazi Makthas shown in the list marked A. B, C & D PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 21 held in possession by Salar Jung-III at the time of his demise for confirmation of possession by Sir Salar Jung-III and issue of Muntakhab. They contended that Sahebnagar Kalan village was listed in the List marked 'D' as purchased property. The claimants further contended that the Court of Nazim Atiyat in File No.2/56 dated 26.06.1968 held that Arazi Maktha villages including Sahebnagar Kalan village listed therein are Arazi Maktha lands and were released in the year 1954 from integration in favour of Salar Jung Estate as they did not come under the Jagir Abolition Act. As directed by the Court of Nazim Atiyat, the claimants filed suits being O.S.No.156 of 1980 and 1451 of 1983 before the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration that they are the successors of late Salar Jung-III and that the learned Judge, by judgment dated 12.10.2004, decreed the said suits by declaring that defendant Nos.24 to 43, 46 to 65, 109 and 110 are successors/legal representatives of late Salar Jung-III. Aggrieved by the said judgment, A.S.Nos.222 of 2005 and 335 of 2005 were preferred before the III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 22 Hyderabad, and the same were dismissed by judgment dated 01.08.2007. As per the judgment in O.S.Nos.156 of 1980 and 1451 of 1983, the claimants, who are defendant Nos.109, 31 and 32 are legal heirs and successors of late Salar Jung-III. The claimants further contended that the pahanies for the year 1975-76 to 1982- 83 shows the name of Salar Jung as patttedar in respect of Ac.570.00 in Sy.No.201 as Arazi Maktha of Salar Jung, as stated by the Tahsildar and Deputy Collector, Hayathnagar, vide letter dated 16.02.2008 addressed to the Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad. The claimants contended that they are not parties in CCCA No.84 of 1982 and, therefore, the judgment passed in the said appeal is not binding on them. They further contended that the order of Joint Collector in file Nos.B3/8789/1985 to B3/8855/1985 is also not binding on them as the said order is based on the judgment passed by the High Court in CCCA No.84 of 1982.
13. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District filed O.P.No.316 of 1988 before the District Judge-cum- Special Tribunal under the A.P. Land Grabbing Act, Ranga PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 23 Reddy District, seeking recovery of possession of land to an extent of Ac.0.26 Guntas covered by Sy.No.60 PP of Lingojiguda village, Saroornagar Mandal, which is one of the villages declared as Arazi Maktha and ordered for release in favour of Salar Jung-III vide Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad, in Letter No.808/CH dated 24.04.1954. The Special Tribunal, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the said O.P. by judgment dated 01.09.1993, holding that Arazi Maktha lands are self-acquired properties of Salar Jung-III and the land in Lingojiguda village is a private property of Salar Jung-III. Against the said judgment, the Mandal Revenue Officer preferred LGA No.31 of 1997 before the Special Court and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 23.06.1998.
14. The Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, in his letter No.B2/1716/80 dated 02.01.1981 addressed to the Project Officer, HUDA regarding alienation of lands in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan village in favour of HUDA, stated that Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan village was registered as Arazi Maktha of Salar Jung and there is no scope for treating the land as Government land and as PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 24 such the alienation cannot be proposed and thus requested for exclusion of Ac.102.00 of land in Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar kalan village from the notification issued under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967.
15. The Divisional Forest Officer filed a written submissions on 08.11.2012 opposing the claim made by the claimants, inter alia, contending that the Secretary, Board of Revenue, vide his letter No.10815/17-A dated 23.07.1953, transferred Ac.570.00 of land from Sy.No.201 comprising of Ac.770.00 of land in Saheb Nagar Kalan village, to the Forest Department for establishing Soil Conservation Research Centre leaving a balance of Ac.200.00 of land in Sy.No.201 for Harijans of Saheb Nagar village. Out of Ac.570.00 of land, an extent of Ac.102.00 in Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar village was included in Gurramguda Forest Block. It is further contended that the claimants filed claim petition after 53 years and as such they have no right over the said land. The Forest Department is the owner of the land and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is in force. As per Section 71 of A.P. Forest Act, 1967, any land can be acquired through notification PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 25 as a Reserved Forest and as such the claimants are not having any right over the land in question. It is further stated that as per letter No.808/CH, dated 24.04.1954, an extent of Ac.2262.36 Guntas in Saheb Nagar Kalan village and an extent of Ac.465.27 Guntas in Saheb Nagar Khurd village were released in favour of Estate Salar Jung, but there is no survey number specified in the said letter and as such identification of the land on the ground is difficult and the claim made by the claimants in Sy.No.201/1 of Saheb Nagar Kalan village is illegal and baseless as the said land is transferred to the Forest Department during 1953. The claimants have not made any claim at the time of passing award in favour of Vipasana International Mediation Centre and as such they have no right to claim the land in question. It is further stated that the Forest Department is in continuous possession of the land since 1953 and the claimants filed the present claim petition in the year 2005 after lapse of 52 years. As per the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, prior approval of Central Government is necessary for de-reservation of forest and for use of forest land as non forest purposes. He further stated that PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 26 there are some court cases pending in respect of Sy.No.201 filed by different persons in W.P.Nos.19942 of 2005, 24749 of 2005 and 28808 of 2012. As per Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the State Government has no power to de-reserve of the forest land for use of forest land for non-forest purpose. The Divisional Forest Officer requested the Forest Settlement Officer not to take any decision on the claim petition of Mir Jaffar Ali Khan and two others until passing of orders by the High Court as well as the Government of India and hence to reject the claim petition filed by the claimants.
16. In the reply arguments filed by the claimants on 22.11.2012, it is contended that as per Section 15 of A.P. Forest Act, 1967, the Government is the competent authority to issue notification declaring the area to be reserved from the date fixed in the notification. Admittedly, Section 15 notification was not issued by the Government and as such the subject lands are not declared as Reserve Forest and as such the claimants have rightly filed the claim petition as per the notification issued under Section 6 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967. It is further PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 27 contended that the provisions of Section 71 of the A.P. Forest Act are not applicable to the facts of the case, as it deals with acquisition of any land under the Act be treated as public purpose under Land Acquisition Act. It is further contended that at the time of Award passed by the Forest Settlement Officer in respect of right of way to Vipasana International Meditation Centre, the claimants were not declared as successors of Salar Jung-III and as such they have not filed any objection to the said Award. It is further contended that the Writ Petitions pending before the High Court are not relevant to the claim petition and as per Section 5 of A.P. Forest Act, 1967, suits are barred and no Court shall, between the dates of application of a notification under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and notification issued under Section 15 of A.P. Forest Ac, 1967, entertain to establish any right in or over any land included in the notification under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act. It is further contended that neither the Forest Settlement Officer nor the claimants are parties to the said Writ Petitions.
PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 28
17. The Forest Settlement Officer after going through the sale deed relied upon by the claimants, observed that late Saheb Begum Saheba had purchased Maktha of Saheb Nagar Kalan village under the sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Hijri. The contention of the claimants is that after the demise of said Saheb Begum Saheba, the said property was succeeded by her grandson Yousuf Ali Khan, Salar Jung-III, who continued to be in possession of the said property and he died issueless on 02.03.1949 and after the demise of Salar Jung-III, Salar Jung Estate Committee was constituted by Special Regulation XXXIV passed by the Government of Hyderabad and all the properties of Salar Jung including Sahebnagar Kalan village were vested with the Salar Jung Committee to administer the estate of Salar Jung-III. The Forest Settlement Officer further held that as per the judgments and decrees in O.S.Nos.156 of 1980 and 1451 of 1983, the claimants are the successors of late Salar Jung-III and they have a right to file the claim petition. He further held that as per the letter issued by Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad, dated 24.04.1954, the lands of Sahebnagar Kalan village were declared PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 29 as Arazi Maktha lands. It is evident from the judgment of the Deputy Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad dated 26.09.1955 that the Deputy Jagir Administrator directed the concerned Collectors to ascertain the areas of public places, determine and release all the arazi makthas with exemption of Goathan, Rastha, Nadi, Nala and other public places in favour of Salar Jung Estate. The Court of Nazim Atiyat by its judgment dated 26.06.1968, held that Arazi Maktha villages including Sahebnagar Kalan village have been declared as Arazi Maktha lands and were released in the year 1954 from integration in favour of Salar Jung Estate as they did not come under Jagir Abolition Act. The Forest Settlement Officer further held that in the pahanies issued by the Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, in pattedar column, it is mentioned as Salar Jung Sarkari and Arazi Maktha/Salar Jung Sarkari. Further, the claimants are not parties to CCCA No.84 of 1982 and that in the said judgment there is no mention of the letter issued by Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad, dated 24.04.1954 and the order of Deputy Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad dated 26.09.1955. The Forest Settlement Officer, after PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 30 evaluating the documents filed by the claimants, held that the lands in Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar Kalan village included in Gurramguda Forest Block and notified under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 are Arazi Maktha lands (Purchased lands) of Salar Jung-III and the successors/claimants/legal representatives of Salar Jung-III have a right and title in respect of the said lands. Further, the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 are not applicable to the private lands and for exclusion of the patta lands, permission of Central Government is not required as per the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.12137 of 1999 dated 24.08.1999. Accordingly, the Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, by order dated 15.10.2014, allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants.
18. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 15.10.2014, the Government of Telangana, preferred C.M.A.No.5 of 2015 before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Admittedly, the suits being O.S.Nos.156 of 1980 and 1451 of 1983 filed by respondents 1 to 3/claimants were decreed by the VII-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by judgment dated PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 31 12.10.2004, declaring them as successors of late Salar Jung-III and that the appeals being A.S.Nos.222 of 2005 and 335 of 2005 filed against the said judgment were dismissed by the III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by judgment dated 01.08.2007. Hence, the appellate authority held that since no second appeal was preferred, the findings given by the Courts below are binding on the Government. Since the notification under Section 15 of the Act has not been issued till 30.11.2005, preferring of a claim by the claimants for exclusion of the subject lands is rightly within limitation as held by the lower authority and the learned District Judge. It is evident from the record that late Saheb Begum Saheba, the great grandmother of late Salar Jung-III, purchased three Makthas by a sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Fasli executed by Rafit-Ul-Mulk and the recitals of the said document shows that it was executed in Persian language and it pertains to the year 1243 Fasli i.e., about 192 years old. The revenue records pertaining to Saheb Nagar Kalan village reveals that the three Maktha lands were purchased by Saheb Begum Saheba in the year 1243 Fasli. Further, it is evident that PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 32 after promulgation of Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulations, 1358 Fasli, the then Hyderabad Government issued a notification on 07.09.1949 transferring the entire estate of Salar Jung to Jagir Administrator, which came into effect on 20.09.1949. As per the letter dated 23.07.1953 issued by the Board of Revenue, Hyderabad in File No.10815/10817/A, an extent of Ac.570.00 Guntas of land out of Ac.770.00 Guntas in Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar Kalan village was allotted to the Forest Department for establishing Soil Conservation Research Centre, though the land was originally belonging to Salar Jung Estate. Pursuant to that, Salar Jung Estate Committee filed a claim for release of the land belonging to the estate. Thereupon, it was decided by the Jagir Administrator, Hyderabad, that the lands detailed in the statement consisting of 12 villages including Sahebnagar Kalan village listed at Sl.No.1 were found to be Arazi Maktha and ordered for release of the same from the integration in favour of Salar Jung Estate vide Letter No.808/CH dated 24.04.1954. The learned Judge further observed that the revenue records till 1985-86 reflects the name of Salar Jung as PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 33 Arazi Maktha for the subject lands. As rightly held by the lower authority and the appellate authority that the Government did not produce any document before the Court to substantiate that the land in Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar village is a Government property except relying on the findings of the High Court in CCCA No.84 of 1982. The learned Judge further observed that since the claimants, who are the successors-in-interest of late Salar Jung-III, are not parties to either O.S.No.906 of 1977 or CCCA No.84 of 1982, the findings therein are not binding on them. The learned District Judge, after going through the entire material available on record and after hearing the parties, held that as per the Jagir Administrator's letter dated 24.04.1954 and the judgment of Deputy Jagir Administrator in File No.19/C dated 26.09.1955, the lands in Sy.No.201/1 of Saheb Nagar Kalan village are Arazi Maktha lands. The Special Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge in O.P.No.315 of 1988 also held that the lands are Arazi Maktha lands and private lands of Salar Jung Estate and the provisions of Jagir Abolition Act are not applicable to the said lands. Further, the revenue record which PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 34 includes pahanies shows that the land was recorded in the name of Salar Jung-III as pattedar and owner of the land till 1982-83. Accordingly, the learned Principal District Judge dismissed the C.M.A. filed by the Government by judgment dated 23.09.2016.
19. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 23.09.2016, the present revision petition has been filed by the State of Telangana, inter alia, contending that the findings of the Principal District Judge passed in the impugned judgment are totally against the mandatory provisions of Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation of 1358 Fasli, A.P. (TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and A.P. (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. The findings are based on inadmissible documents. The appellate Court erred in holding that the subject property is the self-acquired property of the predecessor of respondents 1 to 3, when the property was classified as Government land in the settlement and revenue records. The respondents 1 to 3 claimed title over the subject lands based on unregistered sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Hijri, original of which has not seen the light of the day, but the appellate Court erroneously assumed that the original of the PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 35 document was filed before the primary authority. As per the said sale deed, the subject matter of the property consists of three Makths viz., Gandari Pump, Kamphalla Maqta and Maqta land, which are nothing to do with Sahebnagar Kalan village and that there is no reference of Sahebnagar Kalan village at all in the alleged sale deed. The appellate Court erred in holding that Arazi Maqta are self-acquired lands. As per the provisions of Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 Fasli, Maqtas come within the meaning of 'Jagirs' and the Jagirs are the Crown grants for the life time of grantee only and they are inalienable and upon the Abolition of Jagirs and Inams, no private rights are available in respect of such Jagir/Inam lands. After abolition of Inams, all kinds of interest held by a person in inam land stood abolished and vested in the State with effect from the notified date 20.07.1955 and unless re-grant in respect of Inam lands is made, no private rights are available to any individual. It is contended that aggrieved by the findings of Nazim Atiyat, appeals were filed before the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement and Member, Board of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh and PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 36 that the appellate authority in its judgment dated 31.12.1976 held that the finding of Nazim Atiyat Court with regard to Arazi Maqtas and Inam lands is not in order and as such the same was cancelled and the claimants may approach the Atiyat Collector, Hyderabad District for disposal of their claims and that the said judgment of the appellate authority dated 31.12.1976 has become final. As per 13 (1) of the A.P. (TA) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952, Civil Court's jurisdiction is limited to the extent of determining the question of succession, legitimacy, divorce or other questions of personal law under Section 12 of the A.P (TA) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952. The appellate Court failed to consider the revenue records, wherein the subject lands were classified as 'Kancha Poramboke Sarkari' in column No.2, Salarjung Sarkari as Khatedar in column No.11 and the land is in the possession of Vanasthalipuram society, Forest Department etc., and it is not assessed to land revenue. After the demise of Salarjung-III on 02.03.1949, none approached revenue authorities for mutation of their names in the revenue records as legal heirs of Salarjung-III and till date, the entries in the revenue records in respect of PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 37 subject lands are maintained as 'Kancha Paromboke Sarkari'. As per the provisions of A.P. (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli also, the subject lands fall within the meaning of 'Maqta' and not private patta lands. It is contended that the appellate Court has erroneously placed reliance on the judgment of the Special Tribunal in O.P.No.316 of 1988 and of the Special Court dated 26.06.1998 in LGA No.31 of 1997, when they have no relevancy to the case inasmuch as in the said matter. It is further contended that the subject lands are in possession of the Forest Department since 1953 and no claims were made over the said land till the year 2005 and the respondents made claims after notification was made under Sections 4 and 6 of the A.P. Forest Act, therefore, requested the Court to allow the revision by setting aside the order of the Forest Settlement Officer dated 15.10.2014 which is confirmed by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District by judgment dated 23.09.2016.
20. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the entire record paced before the Court. In PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 38 addition to oral submissions, written arguments along with case laws are also submitted by the learned Counsel on either side.
21. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner/Government contended that no occupancy rights certificates were obtained by respondents 1 to 3/claimants as the land was vested with the Government and re-grant was not made in respect of Inam land and as such no private rights were available to any individual. He further contended that the orders of Nazim Atiyat Court and the appellate authority conclusively establish that the subject lands are jagir lands and that the so-called predecessors of the claimants made a claim for payment of commutation in respect of Sahebnagar Kalan village lands. Initially, Nazim Atiyat Court in so far as Arazi Maqtas shown in the list 'C' and 'D' did not pass any orders observing that in view of Abolition of Inams Act, 1967, the Atiyat Court ceased to have jurisdiction over Arazi Maqta and Inam lands and directed the parties to seek relief under the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Aggrieved by the said findings of Nazim Atiyat, appeals were filed before the Commissioner of Survey PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 39 and Settlement & Member, Board of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh and that the appellate authority in its judgment dated 31.12.1976 held that the finding of Nazim Atiyat Court with regard to rights over Arazi Maqtas and Inam lands is not in order and as such the same was cancelled and as most of the Maqtas and Inam lands claimed are situated in Hyderabad District, the claimants may approach the Atiyat Collector, Hyderabad District for disposal of their claims and that the said judgment of appellate authority dated 31.12.1976 has become final as the claimants did not approach the Atiyat Collector. He further contended that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred under Section 13 of the A.P. (TA) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 to determine the nature of the land. As per Section 13 (1) of the Act, Civil Court's jurisdiction is limited to the extent of determining the question of succession, legitimacy, divorce or other questions or personal law under Section 12 of the A.P. (TA) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952. He further contended that in the revenue records, the subject lands were classified as 'Kancha Paramboke Sarkari' in column No.2, 'Salarjung Sarkari' in column No.11 and the land is in possession PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 40 of Vanasthalipuram society, Forest Department and it is not assessed to land revenue. He further contended that the claimants have not filed any document to show that the subject lands are the self-acquired private patta lands belonging to the predecessor-in-title. He further contended that the Forest Settlement Officer is a member of Salarjung Estate Committee and he participated in the proceedings before the Nazim Atiyat for payment of commutation fee in respect of estate of Salarjung- III including Sahebnagar Kalan village and having participated before the Nazim Atiyat and pleaded that Sahebnagar Kalan is a Jagir village, the respondents/claimants are now estopped to say that Sahebnagar Kalan village is a self-acquired property. He mainly contended that the grant of Arazi Maqtha (Minor Inam) was only for the lifetime of the grantee and after his death, it was open to the Sovereign either to resume the grant or confirm the grant to the successors of the original grantee and in support of his contention, he relied upon a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Mohammad Shoukat Khan vs. PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 41 State of Andhra Pradesh through the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Excise Branch, Hyderabad1.
22. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.Ashok Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants contended that Arazi Maqta is an Inam or grant, whereas self-acquired properties cannot be construed as Inam or Arazi Maqta. In the light of findings of both Forest Settlement Officer and District Judge that the subject land is a private patta land, the question as to whether they constitute Arazi Maqta is inconsequential and has no bearing on the nature of the land being private patta land. The Forest Settlement Officer, after considering all the documents filed by the claimants, held that the subject lands are private patta lands of Salarjung-III and that he construed the entry 'Arazi Maqta' in the revenue records as purchased lands. The said finding was confirmed by the District Court and as such the question of land being construed as Arazi Maqta as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Inam Abolition Act does not arise. As per the note submitted by the Revenue 1 1966 SCC Online AP 211 PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 42 Divisional Officer dated 12.12.1961, prior to integration as per Sethwar of 1936 Fasli (1947), there were several patta lands and in the absence of original files of Jagir Administrator, it cannot be commented upon as to how patta lands were declared as land covered by Arazi Maqta. The said report also shows that entire village of Sahebnagar Kalan was shown as covered by Arazi Maqta including the patta lands. Even as per letter dated 29.09.1962 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad (East) to the Collector, Hyderabad District also shows that Sahebnagar Kalan was at no time granted as Jagir under any account of grant, but purchased by Estate during the time of Salar Jung and after purchasing the lands, new Maqta village was formed in the name of wife of Salar Jung-I. It is further contended that as per the findings of the Forest Settlement Officer and also District Judge, the great grandmother of Salar Jung-III namely Saheb Begum Saheba purchased the subject land comprising Ac.102.00 Guntas from one Rafath Mulk Mir Akhar Ali Khan vide document bearing No.5th Rabi-al-awal 1249 AH/1243 Fasli and that a certified copy of the said sale PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 43 deed was obtained by the claimants from the State Archieves and filed before the Forest Settlement Officer. The genuineness of the said document was not disputed by the Government at any time. After the death of Salar Jung-III on 02.03.1949, Salar Jung Estate (Administration) Regulation 34 of 1358 (1947) Fasli was passed by the Nizam and Clause (2) of the said Regulation provided for the appointment of Salar Jung Estate Committee to administer the Estate of Salar Jung. The said Regulation was amended and Salar Jung Estate (Administration) (Amendment) Regulation LXIV of 1358 (1947) was passed. As per amended Clause-3A, the Estate of Salar Jung including his personal property shall vest with the Salar Jung Estate Committee and the Committee shall have power to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of or deal with Estate including his personal property. It is further contended that on 07.09.1949, notification No.8 was issued by the Revenue Department of the then Government of Hyderabad to transfer the Estate of Salar Jung to the Government for the administration of Jagirs, as if it was a Jagir. On 21.04.1950, the Nawab Salar Jung Bahadur (Administration PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 44 of Assets) Act, 1950 was passed by the Parliament and the Salar Jung Estate Committee formed under Regulation 34 of 1958 (F) was empowered to continue the administration of the Salar Jung Estate. The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Hyderabad, addressed a letter No.10815/17-A dated 23.07.1953 to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad, regarding sanction of an extent of Ac.570.00 of land in Sy.No.201 of Saheb Nagar Kalan village to the Forest Department for establishment of Soil Conservation Research Centre. The Jagir Administrator addressed a letter No.808/CH dated 24.04.1954 to the District Collectors of Hyderbad, Mahabubnagar and Nalgonda stating that it has been decided that the lands detailed in the attached statement have been proved by the documentary evidence to be only Arazi Maqta and that the lands may be released from integration in favour of Estate Salar Jung. Item No.1 of attached list is Saheb Nagar Kalan comprising Ac.2262.36 Guntas and out of the said extent, the subject land is Ac.102.00. Item No.3 of the said list refers to the lands in Lingojiguda comprising an extent of Ac.277.20 Guntas, wherein the District Judge-cum-Special PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 45 Tribunal under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Ranga Reddy District passed judgment in O.P.No.316 of 1988 dated 01.09.1993 holding that the Government is not the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.60 of Lingojiguda village. The Government having aggrieved by the said judgment, preferred LGA NO.31 of 1997 before the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 23.06.1998 holding that the said land does not belong to the Government, but it belongs to the Salar Jung Estate.
23. It is further contended that the judgment in File No.19/C dated 26.09.1955 was passed by the Deputy Jagir Administrator in the presence of Counsels for the Salar Jung Estate and the Government and it refers to the objections raised by the District Collector, Mahabubnagar in respect of Buchiguda, one of the 12 villages released as per the letter bearing No.808/CH dated 24.04.1954 of Jagir Administrator. The Deputy Jagir Administrator issued some clarifications to the District Collectors for implementing the said order of Jagir Administrator and directed them to handover the lands by PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 46 excluding public places to Salar Jung Estate. The notification No.1550/1 dated 15.02.1956 issued by the Office of Nizam Atiyat, Revenue Department and published in Gazette of the Government of Hyderaabd, reveals that the Estate of Salar Jung was previously exempted from Inam enquiry, but, however, it became necessary for issuance of Muntaqab to confirm Jagir and other mash either self-purchased or Royal grants in favour of the Estate. Objections were called for from the claimants regarding the property appended to the notification lists, namely, A, B, C and D. List contains the lands purchased under sub head 'Eastern Circle, District Hyderabad'. Three lands of Saheb Nagar Kalan village were shown at Serial No.3 and Lingojiguda was shown at Sl.No.1. In the judgment of Nazim Atiyat vide File No.2/55/56, it was held that Nazim Atiyat Court should confine its enquiries to Inam enquiries as to any gift, title or interest leaving all questions of succession and ancillary matters to the Civil Court. The Inam enquiry of Salar Jung Estate by Nazim Atiyat in File No.2/56 of 1956 took place and in the enquiry proceedings, it was stated that 12 villages were declared as Arazi PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 47 Maqtas and released in the year 1954 as they did not come under the purview of Jagir Abolition Regulation. Saheb Nagar Kalan was shown at item No.9 and Lingojiguda at item No.7. It was further stated in the said proceedings that in view of abolition of Inams Act, Nazim Atiyat Courts have ceased to have jurisdiction over Arazi Maqta and Inam lands and hence no orders were passed regarding Arazi Maqta as they were not Jagirs. It was further held that Salar Jung Estate Committee was free to seek relief under Inams Abolition Act. However, the Court of 5th Member and Commissioner of Survey and Settlements (Revenue), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the appellate authority against the order dated 26.06.1968 of Nazim Atiyat Court held that the observation of Court of Nazim Atiyat that the Atiyat Courts have ceased to have jurisdiction over Arazi Maqtas and Inam lands and the claimants were free to seek relief under the Inams Abolition Act, 1967 is not in order and as such the same was cancelled. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/claimants further contended that the present revision has been filed by the Government, under Article 227 of PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 48 the Constitution of India, against the impugned judgment dated 23.09.2016 in C.M.A.No.5 of 2015 and that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a very limited one and in support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel2 , wherein it was held as under:
"The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is 2 (2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 181 PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 49 axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. has observed:-
The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 50 High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to."
24. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is any material illegality or irregularity committed by the lower authority as confirmed by the appellate Court in passing the impugned judgment?
25. Unless there is an error apparent on the face of record or perversity in the findings or findings being unsupported by evidence, the High Court cannot interfere with such findings in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Respondents 1 to 3/claimants filed a petition dated 30.11.2005 before the Forest Settlement Officer claiming that the property originally belonged to Salar Jung-III as per the judgment in O.S.Nos.156 of 1980 and 1451 of 1983 dated 12.10.2004 on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and they are the successors-in-interest of Salar Jung-III. After considering the documents filed by the PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 51 claimants, the Forest Settlement Officer rightly held that as per the sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Hijri, the subject land is a private land of Salar Jung-III and as per the decree and judgment of the Civil Court dated 12.10.2004, the claimants are the successors of Salar Jung-III. The Forest Settlement Officer also taken into consideration the letter of the Jagir Administrator dated 24.04.1954; Order of Deputy Jagir Administrator in File No.19/C dated 26.09.1955, the order of the District Judge-cum-Special Tribunal under Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and the judgment of the Special Court in LGA No. 31 of 1997 dated 23.06.1998 and pahanies for the years 1974-75 to 1982-83. The Hyderabad District Gazette dated 29.03.1956 confirms that issue of Munthakab in respect of possession of Arazi Maktha and other properties held by Salar Jung Estate was shows as 'purchased land' in the heading list 'D' of the notification. Similarly, the judgment of Nazim Atiyat in File No.2/56 dated 26.06.1968 held that Arazi Maktha villages including Sahebnagar Kalan were declared as Arazi Maktha lands and were released in 1954 from integration in favour of Salar Jung Estate as they are PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 52 not falling within Jagir Abolition Act. In the judgment in O.P.No.316 of 1988 dated 12.09.1993 on the file of the District Judge-cum-Special Tribunal held that the property does not belong to the Government. The Collector, Hyderabad, in his report dated 22.05.1967 stated that the land in Sahebnagar Kalan is not forming part of Jagir. Further, the letter of Deputy Collector dated 16.02.2008 shows that the land in Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar Kalan village shown as Salar Jung Sarkari in the pattedar column in the pahanies of 1974-75 to 1982-83. The Forest Settlement Officer called for report from the Deputy Collector, Hayathnagar and admitted the claim petition and requested the Divisional Forest Officer to keep the proposal to issue notification under Section 15 pending till the enquiry into the claim petition is completed. The Government did not produce any material to show that the subject land is not the private property of Salar Jung-III and that the claimants are not successors-in-interest of Salar Jung-III. The finding of the Civil Court confirmed by the appellate Court that the claimants are legal heirs/successors of Salar Jung-III has attained finality and PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 53 that question is not open to be re-agitated. No second appeal has been preferred against the orders of the appellate Court.
26. The contention of the revision petitioner/Government is that as per the judgment of the High Court in CCCA No.84 of 1982, the subject land belongs to the Government. However, no revenue record has been placed before the Court by the Government to substantiate that the land in Sy.No.201/1 of Saheb Nagar village is a Government property except relying on the findings of the High Court in CCCA No.84 of 1982. The finding of the lower authority as confirmed by the learned District Judge on this aspect is that the High Court gave finding in the said appeal basing on the report of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in File No.B3/8789/1985 to B3/855/1985 stating that the land in Sy.No.201/1 of Saheb Nagar Kalan village is a Government land. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that respondents 1 to 3/claimants, who are the successors-in-interest of late Salar Jung-III, are not parties to the aforesaid appeal and as such the findings therein are not binding PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 54 on the claimants, as rightly held by the lower authority and the learned District judge.
27. The contention of the revision petitioner/Government is that under Section 2 of the A.P. Forest Conservation Act, 1980, permission of Central Government is required before ordering exclusion of subject lands and that without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government, the State Government cannot put the forest land to non-forest purposes. In the instant case, it is not the exclusion of any forest land from the Forest Act, because it is the private patta land which is sought to be excluded from the Forest Block by the Government. As per the decision of the High Court in W.P.No.12137 of 1989, dated 24.8.1999, permission of the Government of India is not required in respect of private patta lands. The entire revenue record produced before the lower authority reveals that the subject land was recorded in the name of Salar Jung-III along with the lands in Gurramguda Forest Block.
28. The contention of the Government that the claim made by the respondents/claimants more than 50 years after the land was PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 55 taken over by the Forest Department is barred by time. The delay in filing the claim petition was properly explained by the claimants by way of documentary evidence and it was considered by the Forest Settlement Officer and the District Judge. Admittedly the notification under Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 has not been issued by the time the claim of the respondents/claimants was submitted. Therefore, the rights of the claimants in the subject land are not extinguished as per Section 15 of the Act. The claimants filed the claim petition to exclude the lands from the notification under Section 4 and proclamation under Section 6 of the Act, even before issuance of notification under Section 15 of the Act, and that the Forest Settlement Officer condoned the delay and admit the claim under Section 16 of the Act. Section 16 of the Act reads as under:
"Rights in respect of which no claim was preferred under Section 6 within the period fixed under that section shall stand extinguished on the publication of the notification under Section 15 unless, before the publication of such notification the person claiming them has convinced the Forest PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 56 Settlement Officer that he had sufficient cause for not preferring such claim within that period in which case the Forest Settlement Officer shall proceed to dispose of the claim in the manner herein before provided".
29. The Civil Revision Petition cannot be inquired into like a Civil Appeal. Unless there is an error apparent on the face of record, the High Court cannot revise the concurrent findings of the Forest Settlement Officer, which are affirmed by the District Judge. Both the orders contained reasons both on facts and law. As the Government notifications filed before the Court, the Government is well aware of the fact that the property is personal estate of Nizam and it is not governed by Jagir Abolition Act. The letter of Jagir administration to that effect is not disputed by the Government. Certified copies of public documents more than 30 years is entitled for presumption of correctness. Originally, the land belongs to personal estate of Nizam ruler Salar Jung. In the proceedings of Atiyat Court and Court of Wards, it is declared as personal property being Arazi PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 57 Maqta. Jagir Administrator in a letter dated 24.04.1954 addressed to the District Collector of Hyderabad and Mahabubnagar, directed to release the private property in favour of estate of Salar Jung. Item No.2 of the list is total area of Ac.2263.36 Guntas of land in Sahebnagar Kalan including subject land.
30. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was given on 18.06.1971 and proclamation under Section 6 was given on 15.12.1971. Proposals under Section 15 were prepared by the Forest Settlement Officer on 20.12.2004 and sent to Conservator of Forest on 02.03.2008, but the claimants herein i.e., defendants 109, 31 and 32 filed an application on 30.11.2005 after declaring them as successors-in-interest by Civil Court on 12.10.2004. They obtained as many as 26 documents from various authorities to substantiate their delay. It is argued that Section 15 notification is not issued till today, hence rights of claimants are not extinguished. The Forest Settlement Officer is authorised under Section 16 of the Act to condone the delay and to dispose of the claims. As per Section 10 (2) (ii), the Forest Settlement PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 58 Officer may direct exclusion of land from the limits of proposed forest lands. The Great grandmother of Salar Jung-III purchased the property vide sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Fasli, which is 192 years old Persian document, it was obtained from the State Achieves on 13.09.1966, it was executed by Rafit-Ul-Mulka and in the last page, it was approved with his personal stamp.
31. The subject land was transferred to Forest Department as per the letter of Secretary, Board of Revenue dated 23.07.1953. As per the sale deed dated 05.03.1243 Fasli, the land is a private land of Salar Jung-III and as per the decree and judgments of Civil Court dated 12.10.2004, the claimants are successors of Salar Jung-III. To further strengthen this view, the Forest Settlement Officer has also taken into consideration the letter of Jagir Administrator dated 24.04.1954, order of Deputy Jagir Administrator in File No.19/C dated 12.09.1955, order of Land Grabbing Tribunal in LGA No.31 of 1997 dated 23.06.1998 and pahanies for the years 1974-75 to 1982-83. The Hyderabad District Gazette dated 29.03.1956 confirms the issue of Munthakab in respect of Arazi Maktha and other properties held PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 59 by Salar Jung Estate was shown as 'puchased land' in 'D' notification. Nazim Atiyat in File No.2/56 dated 26.06.1968 held that Arazi Maqta villages including Sahebnagar Kalan were released from integration in 1954 in favour of Salar Jung Estate as they are not falling within Jagir Abolition Act.
32. In O.P.No.316 of 1988 dated 12.09.1993, it was held that the property does not belong to the Government. The Collector, Hyderbad, in his report dated 22.05.1967 stated that land in Sahebnagar Kalan is not forming part of Jagir. The letter of Deputy Collector dated 16.02.2008 shows that the land in Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar Kalan village as Salar Jung Sarkari in the pattedar column in the Pahanies of 1975-76 to 1982-83.
33. The Central Government permission is required as per Section 2 of the A.P. Forest Conservation Act, 1980 to use the forest land for non-forest purposes, but the claimants requested for exclusion of their land from forest land and thus prior approval of Central Government is not required. In fact, the provisions of Forest Conservation Act does not apply.
PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 60
34. As per the joint inspection dated 18.02.2013, the Forest Settlement Officer concluded that lands in Sy.No.201/1 of Sahebnagar Kalan are Arazi Maqta lands (Purchased lands) of Salar Jung-III and his successors have right and title in the said lands. Revision petitioner failed to prove that the property is not the private property of Salar Jung-III and claimants are not his successors.
35. As per the Gazette Notification dated 29.03.1956 issued by the then Hyderabad Government, the land in Sahebnagar Kalan village is not inam land. The said Gazette Notification is extracted hereunder:
"LIST (D): List of lands, purchased land and Balghat etc., situated in Taluqa Western Circle, District: Atraf-e-Balda.
1. Mir Sagar ... 89 purchased Inam lands etc.,
2. Budwel ... Seri lands
3. Hyderguda ... Seri lands
4. Upparapalli ... Seri lands
5. Danapur ... Seri lands
PSS,J
CRP No.417 of 2017
61
Taluqa Eastern Circle, District: Hyderabad:-
1. Lingojiguda ... Seri lands
2. Sahabnagar Khurd .... One land
3. Sahabnagar Kalan ... Three lands
4. Maqta Ismailkhan Guda ... Inam land
Taluqa Shadnagar, District: Mahabubnagar:-
Buchchiguda ... Two Inam lands
36. The Forest Settlement Officer and the District Judge were relied on the notification dated 15.02.1956 while holding that several lands are self-acquired lands. Part of land in Lingojiguda village also forms part of land of Salarjung and covered by notification dated 29.03.1956. Further, LGC No.316 of 1988 was dismissed holding that the land is a private patta land and it was confirmed in LGA No.31 of 1997.
37. The Forest Settlement Officer, after considering all the documents filed by the claimants, held that the subject lands are private patta lands of Salar Jung-III and that he construed the entry 'Arazi Maqta' in the revenue records as purchased lands PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 62 and the said finding was confirmed by the District Court and as such the question of land being construed as Arazi Maqta as defined under Section 2 (c) of the A.P Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 does not arise. Therefore, the argument of the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner that Inam includes Arazi Maqta and that the claimants have to seek remedies before the Inams Abolition Court cannot be accepted.
38. The Forest Settlement Officer has exercised his discretion on sound legal appreciation of the provisions and such finding which was confirmed by the learned District Judge in the order under revision cannot be called as material irregularity, calling for exercising of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The scope of the power of review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as per the decision of the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Aidal Singh and others vs. Karan Singh and others3 reads as under: 3
AIR 1957 All. 414 FB PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 63 "In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the Curt is moved to action by circumstances which shock the conscience of the Court. The Court finds that the position created is one of negation of law and justice. The Court finds itself faced with a situation fraught with danger to the administration of justice. It finds the administrative foundations of justice shaken or its judicial structure imperilled".
39. Article 227 of the Constitution vests the High Courts with a power of superintendence which is to be very sparingly exercised to keep Tribunals and Courts within the bounds of their authority. Under Article 227, orders of both civil and criminal Courts can be examined only in very exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. A three Judge Bench of Apex Court in Chandrasekhar Singh and others vs. Siya Ram Singh and others4, laid down the scope and ambit of supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 and prescribed the limitations as follows: 4
(1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases 118 PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 64
(i) The scope of interference by the High Court under Article 227 is restricted.
(ii) The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.
(iii) That the power of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(iv) That the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior Court can do in exercise of its statutory power as the Court of Appeal; the High Court cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, convert itself into a Court of Appeal.
40. In all, the exercise of supervisory power is not available to correct mere error of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied:
(i) The error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 65 ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and
(ii) A grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
41. For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the judgment under challenge does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, perversity or error apparent on the face of record. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Forest Settlement Officer as confirmed by the learned Principal District Judge are not liable for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any merit in this revision.
42. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 23.09.2016, passed in C.M.A.No.5 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA 20-01-2023 Gsn PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 66 PSS,J CRP No.417 of 2017 67