THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.21103 OF 2021
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring
(a) the proceedings No.B/5/1999 dt.23.04.2010 of the 7th respondent declaring the petitioners' land as surplus land and the proceedings No.B/5/1999 dt.03.06.2010 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation, as illegal and arbitrary;
(b) the inaction of the respondents in implementing the decision taken by the Government on 29.06.2011 as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India; and,
(c) consequently to direct the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings to acquire the land in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20 of Maheswaram (Maysaram) Village, Ranga Reddy District and,
(d) to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021 2 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition as stated in the writ and affidavit as contended by all the parties are as under:
Petitioners Contentions:-
The petitioners claim to be the joint Muslim Munthakab holders and owners of the land admeasuring Ac.383.00 gts., in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20 of Maheswaram Village, Ranga Reddy District through succession from their ancestors. The petitioners rely upon the entries in the Khasra Pahani prepared in 1954-55 and the entries in the Pahanis thereafter and the entries in the Dharani Portal in support of this contention.
3. In the year 1967 the Divisional Forest Officer, Hyderabad, i.e., respondent No.5 herein, vide his office Ref.No.B1/16/1357 (Part-II) dt.22.06.1967, submitted a proposal for reservation of forest and issuance of notification under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 to constitute an area of Ac.383.00 gts., of patta lands in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20 of Maheswaram Village (then Maisaram), Ranga Reddy District as Reserve Forest. The Conservator of Forests, A.P., Hyderabad, W.P.No.21103 of 2021 3 i.e., respondent No.4 herein vide his letter No.9403/73/67/M9, dt.05.08.1968, submitted proposals to the Chief Conservator of Forests, A.P. i.e., respondent No.3 herein, for approval and in turn, respondent No.3, vide Ref.No.4620/243/67/J2, dt.23.02.1968, has accorded permission to take action under Section 4 of the Forest Act. On receipt of the same, the 4th respondent, vide proposals bearing Ref.No.81/16/1352F dt.28.10.1968, submitted proposals for approval and for adequate transmission to the Board of Revenue. The District Collector under his letter No.B3/18005/68, dt.10.06.1971 submitted the said proposals to the Board of Revenue, Hyderabad and the District Collector under his letter dt.23.05.1973 requested respondent No.5 to justify the reservation proposals of such vast private land. Respondent No.5, vide his letter RC.No.81/52/F, dt.02.07.1973, addressed to the District Collector, clarified that the proposals were already referred to the Conservator of Forests and Chief Conservator of Forests and approval for reserving the forest block was given on 23.09.1968 and that the area contains copious forest growth. The District Collector returned the reservation proposals with copies of the Board of Revenue letters dt.19.07.1975 and 16.03.1975 on 26.09.1975. Subsequently, vide letter bearing RC.No.81/H6/1352F, dt.01.12.1975, respondent No.5 herein W.P.No.21103 of 2021 4 submitted the reservation proposals supplying omissions for his approval. The MRO, Maheswaram, vide his letter dt.07.09.1987, submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East, with a copy marked to respondent No.5, stating that the land in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20 comprising of Ac.348.14 gts., was in the occupation of the Forest Department for the last 20 years and that the Forest Department has planted Eucalyptus Trees in an area of 100 Acres and that the remaining area was being prepared for plantation of trees. He also pointed to the declarations filed by the certain claimants before the authorities under the Land Reforms Act in respect of the said land. Thereafter, on 26.09.1994, vide letter bearing No.81/52/H6, respondent No.5 resubmitted the reservation proposals under Section 4 of the Forest Act in respect of 383 Acres which were approved by the District Collector on 26.09.1994 and forwarded to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 03.10.1995. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, in turn, submitted notification proposals under Section 4 of the Forest Act to the Government for approval and the Government also granted approval vide G.O.Ms.No.1, EFS & T (For.I) Department, dt.04.01.1999 and the same was published in A.P. Gazette on 28.01.1999 and in R.R. District Gazette on 23.07.1999.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021 5
4. Consequently, the Forest Settlement Officer submitted proclamation notification under Section 6 of the Forest Act to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District on 16.09.1999 and the Forest Settlement Officer also in the notification dt.28.09.1999 issued in Telugu, published it as patta land while in the English Version, it was mentioned as "Poramboke". On 29.07.2000, the Forest Settlement Officer submitted preliminary valuation certificate for payment of compensation. On 19.10.2000, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District sought a clarification from the 5th respondent as to the nature of lands, whether it was Poramboke as mentioned in A.P. Gazette or it was patta land as referred to in the Valuation Certificate. After enquiry, a detailed report dated 23.11.2000 was sent to the District Collector by the MRO Maheswaram clarifying that the lands are patta lands and that the names of Khaja Mohinuddin, Kareemuddin and Habeebuddin are shown as occupiers in the revenue records as per Khasara Pahani and from the years 1962-63, the names of Sri.Khaja Mohiuddin's brothers i.e., the above persons are recorded as pattedars and that the possession was shown to be with Forest Department and also stated that they are patta lands and not poramboke lands. Respondent No.5 thereafter addressed a letter dt.28.11.2000 to the District Collector requesting to allot W.P.No.21103 of 2021 6 Ac.383.00 gts., available under land bank of Ranga Reddy District to the petitioners in order to avoid payment of compensation. Further, the Forest Settlement Officer, in his letter No.B/5/99 dt.08.01.2008 addressed to the District Collector after taking all the facts and the correspondence between the forest department and the revenue department in respect of the subject land, observed that admittedly the lands are patta lands and not forest lands and therefore, the provisions of the conservation of Forest Act are not attracted as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the decision reported in 1999 (5) ALD 566 and recommended for exclusion of the land from the proposals of forest block and requested the authorities to look into the matter immediately. However, no decision was taken in respect of allotting alternative land to the petitioners from the land available in the land bank of Ranga Reddy District or for exclusion of the same from the proposals of forest block.
5. In the meantime, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.30573 of 1997 for a direction to the respondents therein to acquire the schedule land and to pay compensation for the same. In the said Writ Petition, the petitioners specifically pleaded that the lands were occupied by the W.P.No.21103 of 2021 7 Forest Department and that no notification in this respect was issued nor was any compensation paid to the petitioners. These facts were admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.30573 of 1997 and they also admitted that the Forest Department was in possession of the land continuously and that they were initiating the process of reservation of forest under Section 4 of the Forest Act and that they will issue notification to this effect by appointing a Forest Settlement Officer, who will give finality to the process duly adjudicating the claims to be filed by the petitioners therein. The issue of land being part of the declaration under the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act was mentioned in the counter affidavit. After considering the rival contentions, this Court vide orders dated 07.08.1998 gave directions to the respondents to initiate notification proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, and also adjudicate the claim of the petitioners within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The grievance of the petitioners is that though decades have passed, no action has been taken by the respondents in this direction till date and no compensation has been paid to the petitioners so far. It is submitted that the petitioners have filed a detailed claim statement under Case No.B/5/99 on W.P.No.21103 of 2021 8 16.08.2008, but no decision has been taken thereon till date and taking advantage of the pendency of the proceedings, certain third parties have made false claims in respect of portions of this land and even filed W.P.No.21771 of 2008 and W.P.No.1980 of 2009. It is submitted that the petitioners got themselves impleaded in W.P.No.21771 of 2008 and both the Writ Petitions were ultimately dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 27.02.2009.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners are the owners and pattedars of the land, the Forest Department was in possession of the same for more than 50 years with a proposal to acquire the same, but the respondents were not initiating any further steps to issue fresh notification for acquisition of land. As the notification issued in 1999 has lapsed and no further notification was issued, the petitioners filed W.P.No.9526 of 2009 and in the counter affidavit filed by the Forest Department in W.P.No.9526 of 2009, the above position was admitted by the respondents and the Writ Petition was disposed of vide orders dt.04.12.2009 directing the respondents therein to finalize the issue relating to the acquisition of the land in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20 in Maheswaram Village, Ranga Reddy W.P.No.21103 of 2021 9 District for the purpose of conversion thereof into reserve forest, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, when no action was taken by the respondents thereafter, the petitioners filed a Contempt Case in C.C.No.1779 of 2015 and in the counter filed in the Contempt Case, the Government has taken a stand that proceedings were issued vide B/5/2/1999 on 23.04.2010 and No.B/5/2/1999 dt.03.06.2010 holding that the land of the petitioners was part of ceiling surplus land and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation and hence rejected the claim. Challenging the said finding given by the Forest Department, the present Writ Petition is filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stand taken by the respondents in the impugned orders dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010 rejecting the claim petition of the petitioners is completely in contradiction to the stand taken by them from the inception i.e., the year 1967, from the date of initiation of proposals to constitute and conserve the area of Acs.383 of patta lands in Survey No.222/1 to 222/20 of Maheswaram Village, Ranga Reddy District as a reserve forest as stated and admitted by them in the counter affidavits filed by them in the W.P.No.21103 of 2021 10 earlier writ petitions. It is submitted that the first writ petition filed by the petitioners was W.P.No.30573/1997 for a direction to the respondents therein to acquire the schedule land and to pay compensation for use and acquisition of the land and in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.30573 of 1997, it was admitted that the Forest Department has taken over the possession of land and that the proposals were initiated for notification of the same under Section 4 of the Forest Act. It was stated that these lands were shown as the patta lands for the entire area of Acs.383.00 Gts., as per the Revenue records and that the settlement as prayed for by the petitioners will take place shortly. The issue of the lands being part of the declaration under Andhra Pradesh Ceiling and Agricultural Land Holding Act was referred to and it was observed that the petitioners have submitted their declarations. It is submitted that the said counter affidavit was filed in the year 1998, i.e., much after the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 16.02.1978 in LRA No.2253 of 1997, has held that the land in question cannot be included in the holdings of the declarants as it was in the possession of the forest department and thus has to be deleted from the holding of the petitioners. It is submitted that subsequent to the Land Reforms W.P.No.21103 of 2021 11 Appellate Tribunal order, the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act was issued in the year 1999 and the same was published in the A.P.Gazette on 28.01.1999 and in Ranga Reddy District Gazette on 23.07.1999. Thereafter, the Forest Settlement Officer, also in the notification under Section 6 of the Forest Act submitted proclamations on 16.09.1999 and in the notification dated 28.09.1999 in Telugu, published as Patta Land, while in English Version as 'Poramboke', which according to the petitioners was apparently by mistake and the Telugu Version has to be considered as it was in accordance with the revenue records.
8. The next writ petition filed by the petitioners was W.P.No.9526 of 2009 as the respondents were not initiating any further steps to issue notification for acquiring their land.
9. It is submitted that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.7 in W.P.No.9526 of 2009, i.e., the Forest Settlement Officer, it was stated that compensation was quantified at Rs.1,14,84,687/- and that it was for the forest department to pay the compensation in cash or allot the alternate land and that it was pending consideration by the Forest Authorities. It is submitted that accordingly, W.P.No.21103 of 2021 12 the W.P.No.9526 of 2009 was disposed off vide orders dated 04.12.2009 directing the respondents to finalize the issue relating to the acquisition of land in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20 in Maheswaram Village, Ranga Reddy District for the purpose of conversion thereto into Reserve Forest within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and in compliance thereof, the Government had initiated action and the Chief Secretary vide letter No.76/CSN/2010, dated 07.09.2010 has sent a brief note to the Special Chief Secretary, EFS&T Department for a decision in this regard. It is submitted that the decision of the respondent No.7, Forest Settlement Officer, dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010 was not referred to therein and were never communicated to the petitioners and hence it cannot be treated as binding on the petitioners. It is submitted that the said order being contrary to facts on record and without calling for any remarks or clarifications/explanation from the petitioners is not only ex-facie, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice but are also contrary to the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. It is submitted that the respondent No.7 is also incompetent to pass such order as he became functus officio after he has already quantified the compensation. It is submitted that the respondent No.7 had earlier initiated Land Acquisition proceedings and W.P.No.21103 of 2021 13 also determined the compensation to be paid, in compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.30573 of 1997 and the said stand was confirmed in the sworn counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.9526 of 2009 and therefore, he has become functus officio and could not have arrived at a different conclusion thereafter without any proceedings being pending before him and hence could not have passed the orders dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010.
10. It is further submitted that the decision of the respondent No.7 has become invalid and ineffective after the State Government has taken a decision on 29.06.2011 to acquire the land in compliance with the directions of the High Court in W.P.No.9526 of 2009.
11. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 had moved the file which was circulated to various departments of the Government and finally, after taking the legal opinion of the Law Department, the Government has taken a decision on 29.06.2011 to issue a notification under the Land Acquisition Act by observing as under:
"As per the directions of Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.9526 of 2009 dated 14.12.2009 LA Proceedings U/s.4(1) and 6(1) have to be initiated invoking urgency clause U/s.17(i) of LA Act a fresh for acquisition of subject lands".
W.P.No.21103 of 2021 14
12. It is submitted that in spite of such a decision, no further steps were taken by the respondents and therefore, Contempt Case was filed vide C.C.No.1179 of 2015 and the same was allowed after giving several opportunities to all the respondents and all the respondents were convicted by order dated 13.07.2021. It is submitted that against the order in the Contempt Case, the respondents have filed Contempt Appeals No.14 to 19 of 2021 and the Division Bench of this Court has allowed the Contempt Appeals on 16.08.2021 only on the ground that the petitioners have invoked the contempt jurisdiction after a period of one year and liberty was given to the petitioners to take appropriate legal recourse in respect of the proceedings dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010 and subsequent orders. In view of the said liberty given by the Court, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been pursuing their legal remedies since 1997 before this Court and in spite of the directions of this Court in three successive writ petitions, the respondents are avoiding the payment of compensation to the petitioners by not resorting to acquisition of the petitioners' land under untenable and illegal grounds. He submitted that pursuant to the W.P.No.21103 of 2021 15 orders of this Court in W.P.No.30573 of 1997, the respondents have taken steps to initiate acquisition proceedings and also have issued notification under Land acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.1 EFS & T (For.I) Department, dated 04.01.1999, Gazette No.4, dated 28.01.1999, Ranga Reddy District and Gazette Nos.54 & 57, dated 23.06.1999 respectively, but the respondents did not proceed further and therefore, the acquisition proceedings got lapsed by virtue of Sec.11 (a) of Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that pursuant to the orders in W.P.No.21771 of 2009 filed by the third parties claiming interest in the said land, this Court has observed that the Forest Department is in possession of the property and that through letter dated 08.01.2008, the Forest Settlement Officer has impressed the District Collector about the urgency and that the concerned land is a patta land and therefore, claims made by the various individuals for compensation would be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and also assuming that the Government is not inclined to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, a final word must come from the concerned authority of the Government and not from the Forest Settlement Officer, who is only an adjudicatory authority. The Court also observed that the petitioners have not placed before the Court any W.P.No.21103 of 2021 16 communication which connotes the final decision of the Government not to go for acquisition of the land or for provision of alternative land. It is submitted that in W.P.No.9526 of 2009, the Forest Settlement Officer has filed counter affidavit stating that the proposals for acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act were also initiated and that action was being worked out for cash compensation to be paid to the petitioner, i.e., a total sum of Rs.1,14,84,687/-. It is submitted that instead of complying with the directions of this Court in the above writ petition, the respondents are making efforts to invent reasons to deny compensation to the petitioners, resulting in the passing of the impugned proceedings dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal order dated 06.04.1978 wherein the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No. 9526 of 2009, has observed that the appellants are not in possession of the said land and therefore the land covered by Survey No.222 to an extent of Ac.348.78 Cents in Maisarani has to be deleted while computing the holding of the appellants. It is the case of the petitioners that in the Contempt Petition, the respondents pleaded as W.P.No.21103 of 2021 17 if the impugned proceedings of Forest Settlement Officer amounts to compliance. It is submitted that this plea is false, as the respondents, while taking the said defence, deliberately suppressed the fact that the Government, in compliance with the directions of this Court, has taken a decision on 29.06.2011 to initiate land acquisition proceedings. It is submitted that in spite of continuously pursuing the issue with the respondents and pursuing the legal remedy for more than five decades, the petitioners are not paid any compensation and the respondents have not proceeded to acquire their lands, though it has long since been converted into forest area.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the order of the Division Bench in Contempt Appeal Nos.14 to 19 of 2021, wherein it was observed that the petitioners could have questioned the impugned proceedings of Forest Settlement Officer dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010 instead of filing the Contempt Case and therefore, the petitioners, having no other efficacious alternative remedy, except to seek the reddressal before this Court, have filed the present writ petition.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021 18
16. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the list of Chronological Events and also to the various documents filed along with the writ petition to demonstrate that the scheduled land is a patta land and that the writ petitioners are the pattedars, but the same is in the possession of the Forest Department for more than 50 years and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for compensation, both for the use of the land as well as acquisition of land by the Forest Department.
17. The Contentions of the Respondent No.6, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District:
In response, respondent No.6 has filed a counter affidavit on his behalf and also on behalf of respondent No.2 refuting the claims made by the petitioners. It is stated that the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, through his letter No.K3/1543/2021, dated 10.08.2021 has reported that on verification of the revenue records of Maheshwaram Village in the Record Room and also the scanned images of Nakkal Sethwar for the year 1339 Fasli i.e., 1929 A.D., the land in Survey No.222 is recorded as "Poramboke Kancha" to an extent of Ac.353.30 gts.,in which as per the scanned copy W.P.No.21103 of 2021 19 of Sethwar available for Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20, it is recorded as Mahasura Jungle, i.e., forest land. It is therefore submitted that the subject lands are Government lands and not patta lands. It is stated that in the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, the subject land has been divided into 20 sub divisions from 222/1 to 222/20 and the name of one Khaja Moinuddin has been recorded under Column No.8 as pattadar of the lands without any valid records and valid orders from the competent authority and as such, the said entries are fraudulent entries. It is also alleged that after due enquiry into the fraudulent entries in Khasra Pahani, it has come to the notice of the Government that the father of Sri Khaja Moinuddin, viz., Mohd. Sirajuddin, S/o Vazir Ali is stated to have worked as Tahsildar of Shabad and Ibrahimpatan Taluks of the then Hyderabad District during the H.E.H. Nizam's period. It is stated that there was no Maheswaram Mandal at that point of time and it existed in the erstwhile Ibrahimpatnam Taluk and taking advantage of the said position, Mr. Mohd. Sirajddin, S/o Vazir Ali, father of Sri Khaja Moinuddin appears to have got entered the names of his sons in the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 as pattadars of the above lands illegally without any valid orders and in collusion with the then Patwari of the Village. It is submitted that mere entries in the revenue records W.P.No.21103 of 2021 20 including Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 does not create any right and title over the subject lands.
18. It is further stated that without having any knowledge about the recorded evidence of the subject land being Government land classified as Poramboke Kancha and Mahasura Jangle in settlement records, the Government has initiated action for acquisition of the land as the names of Sri Khaja Moinddin, S/o Sirajuddin and others were mentioned in the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 as patta holders. It is stated that the forest and revenue officials were under the erroneous impression that the lands in question are patta lands and have erroneously initiated action under the Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that in the subsequent enquiries made through the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal about the fraudulent entries, the fact of the father of petitioners 1 to 6 working as Tahsildar of Shabad and Ibrahimpatnam Taluks has come to light. It is further submitted that on the basis of wrong entries made in the records, the legal heirs of Sri Khaja Moinuddin have filed declarations in C.C.No.2936, 3502, 3518, 3519, 2945, 2939, 2938, 2937, 2940, 2941, 2144/I/75 in respect of these lands and other lands held by them in Thumaloor, Pulmamidi and Maheshwaram Villages of erstwhile W.P.No.21103 of 2021 21 Ibrahimpatan Taluk and that the Land Reforms Tribunal and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad South processed these declarations and issued orders dt.05.05.1977 declaring the declarants as surplus holders to the extents mentioned in the proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioners and others filed an appeal in L.R.A.No.2253/77 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and requested not to compute the extent of Ac.348.87 cents in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20 of Maheswaram Village as land in their hands as the same was in the possession of the Forest Department. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal had accepted the same and allowed the LRA and had held that the land of Ac.383.78 cents which was not in the possession of the declarants cannot be considered as their surplus land. It is stated that merely on the basis of the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners cannot claim the Government land as their patta land and seek compensation for the same. It is further submitted that even if the land is to be considered as the land of the petitioners, when it forms part of their surplus land, and is in possession of the Forest Department, it is the land of the Government and therefore, the petitioners would not be eligible for compensation. Thus, the respondents No.2 & 6 prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021 22
19. The Contentions of respondent No.5, the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranga Reddy District:
The respondent No.5 also has filed a counter affidavit not only supporting the stand of respondents No.2 and 6, but in addition stating that the subject land was in possession of the forest department for the past 80 years and was conserved by the forest department by deploying all its resources. It is stated that in the year 1932, in the Sethwar, the subject land was earmarked as Kancha Poramboku (Government Land) and even later in supplementary Sethwar, it was shown as Kancha Poramboku (Government Land). It is stated that in the revenue records for the year 1954, without any verification of records, the subject land was recorded as Patta Land contrary to the established record and hence cannot be relied upon. He also referred to the correspondence between the Conservator of Forests, chief Conservator of Forests and the Divisional Forest Officer between the years 1967 to 1973 in respect of the subject land and pointed out that in his letter dated 02.07.1973, the Divisional Forest Officer Categorically stated that the classification of the subject land as Patta Land was doubtful because the alleged patta W.P.No.21103 of 2021 23 holders failed to produce any documents in support of their right in the land.
20. In respect of the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal in the year 1973 and the proceedings before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in the year 1977, it is submitted that they are unrelated and unknown to the forest department. However, he relied upon the findings therein that the subject land was admittedly in the possession of the forest department only. It is submitted that when the Divisional Forest Officer proposed to notify the subject land under Section 4 of the A.P.Forest Act, the petitioners approached the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.30573/1997 for a direction to acquire the land and pay compensation for the same. It is stated that the High Court has disposed of the writ petition without declaring or confirming the right of the petitioners over the subject land but only directing the authorities to initiate notification proceedings and adjudicate the claims of the petitioners within four months. It is submitted that in compliance with the directions of this Court, the Government has issued G.O.No.1, dated 04.01.1999 under Section 4 of the A.P.Forest Act and thereafter issued a Gazette Notification dated 28.09.1999 under Section 6 of the A.P.Forest W.P.No.21103 of 2021 24 Act and in English version, it was correctly classified as 'Poramboku' while in the Telugu version, it was incorrectly classified as 'Patta Land'.
21. It is submitted that thereafter, the preliminary Valuation Certificate of the erstwhile Forest Officer proposing to pay Rs.1 Crore as compensation to the alleged pattadars was issued and the subsequent correspondence between the District Collector, Divisional Forest Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer was in complete disregard to all the earlier proceedings and without taking into account the true facts. It is stated that in compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P.Nos.21771/2008 and 1980/2009 dated 27.02.2009 and in W.P.No.9526/2009 dated 04.12.2009, the Forest Settlement Officer considered the claims of the petitioners. However, after considering all the facts, he rightly rejected them vide orders dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010. Further, the Lr.No.B/1163/2011, dated 09.04.2021 of the Tahsildar, Maheswaram, addressed to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District is referred to in support of the above allegations.
22. It is submitted that the petitioners are making false and frivolous claims over the subject land and that the Forest Department is in the final process of issuing the final notification under Section 15 of the W.P.No.21103 of 2021 25 Forest Act declaring the subject land as Reserve Forest. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as devoid of merits.
23. The reply of the petitioners to the counters of Respondents No.5 and 6 respectively: The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5 denying the contentions and assertions made therein that the revenue records relied upon by the petitioners are incorrect and submitted that the Khasra Pahani which was prepared in the year 1954-55, following due process of law, mandates the presumption of its correctness. As regards the reliance by the respondents on the entries in Sethwar, it is stated that the document placed on record is only a Nakal/copy and hence cannot be relied upon without the original copy being available for verification. It is stated that the respondents never, at any point of time from 1967 and at any stage of the previous Writ Petitions between 1997 to 2009 have disputed the claim/title of the petitioners. Further, detailed reply is given to each of the contentions raised in the counter affidavit of respondent No.5.
24. In addition to the above, the petitioners have filed reply affidavits dated 13.12.2021 and 23.06.2022 respectively to the counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and submitted that W.P.No.21103 of 2021 26 contentions raised therein by the respondents are not only contrary to record but are raised for the first time since 1967 only to deny the petitioners their rightful compensation. It is submitted that for the first time, the allegation is made by the respondent No.6 that the father of Mr. Mohd. Sirajuddin was working in the Revenue Department and that the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 was prepared by him with the collusion of the then Patwari. It is submitted that these allegations made by the respondents are baseless and that it is not correct that the father of Khaja Moinuddin i.e., Mohd Sirajuddin, S/o.Wajeed Ali worked as Tahsildar of Shabad and Ibrahimpatnam Taluq of the then Hyderabad District during the regime of H.E.H Nizams's period. It is further stated that apparently the original record prior to the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 is not available and therefore, the respondents cannot say that the Khasra Pahani is manipulated or fraudulent. The petitioners further relied upon the letter issued by the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram dt.23.11.2000 to the effect that he had verified the revenue records with effect from 1954-55 to the latest year and found that the lands are patta lands and it is stated that the lands are called as patelgiri kancha and in the Pahanis from 1962-63 also, the names of the predecessors of the petitioners were shown as pattadars and possessors. It is further stated W.P.No.21103 of 2021 27 that the Government of Telangana, after conducting survey and on inspection of records, has issued pahanies recording the names of the petitioners as pattadars and possessors. It is further submitted that in the Writ Petition filed by a third party for allotment of land and claiming similarly situated land as Government land, the respondents have taken a plea before the Court that the land was patta land. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondents cannot take a different stand in the case of the petitioners, only to defeat the claim of the petitioners.
25. Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents have advanced their arguments in detail and have also filed written arguments along with copies of judgments on which they have placed reliance upon in support of their contentions.
26. Case Law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners:
(1) Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another Vs. D.Narsing Rao and others 1.
(2) State of Andhra Pradesh through Principal Secretary and others Vs. Pratap Karan and others 2.1
(2015) 3 SCC 695 W.P.No.21103 of 2021 28 (3) Shikharchand Jain Vs. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and others 3.
(4) Joint Collector, R.R. District, Hyderabad and others Vs. Syed Ahmed Hasan and others 4.
(5) D.B.Basnett (D) Through Lrs Vs. Collector East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and another 5.
(6) Vidya Devi Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others 6.
(7) Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. State of Haryana and others 7.
(8) Pratap Karan and others Vs. Govt. of A.P. rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others 8.
(9) Kishore Samrite Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 9.
(10) Chavalli Anilaja and others Vs. Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others 10.
(11) Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and another 11.2
(2016) 2 SCC 82 3 (1974) 1 SCC 675 4 2011 (4) ALD 262 (DB) 5 AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1389 6 Civil Appeal Nos.6061 of 2020 dt.08.01.2020 7 (2014) 14 SCC 127 8 A.S.No.274 of 2007 dt.19.12.2011 9 (2013) 2 SCC 398 10 2017 (3) ALD 491 W.P.No.21103 of 2021 29 (12) Jai Mangal Oraon Vs. Mira Nayak (Smt) and others 12.
27. The Case Law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents:
(1) Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited 13.
(2) Narender Vs. Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others 14.
(3) K.S.B. Ali Vs. The State of A.P., rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others 15.
(4) Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatra Private Trust Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 16.
(5) Vishwa Vijay Bharati Vs. Fakhrul Hassan and others 17.
(6) Partap Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Shiv Ram (Dead) through Legal Representatives 18.
(7) State of A.P. and another Vs. T.Suryachandra Rao 19.11
(1978) 1 SCC 405 12 (2000) 5 SCC 141 13 (2020) 19 SCC 681 14 2003 SCC OnLine AP 717 : (2003) 5 ALD 448 15 2006 SCC OnLine AP 1399 16 2022 SCC OnLine AP 660 17 (1976) 3 SCC 642 18 (2020) 11 SCC 242 19 (2005) 6 SCC 149 W.P.No.21103 of 2021 30 (8) Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees Association Vs. Aditya Pratap Bhanj Dev and others 20.
(9) Prahlad Pradhan and others Vs. Sonu Kumhar and others 21. (10) Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag Vs. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (Dead) Thr. LRs. And others 22.
(11) State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Kumaon Stone Crusher 23.
28. Clarifications required by the Court:- During the course of study of the file, this Court was of the opinion that clarification was required on the following questions for proper adjudication of the Case:
(1) What is Nakkal Sethwar and Supplementary Sethwar?
(2) And how did it transition into Khasra Pahani, the entries in the revenue records in respect of subject land?
(3) Whether there was any evidence in favour of the contention of the respondents that the father of the petitioners worked as Tahsildar of Shabad Taluk and Ibrahimpatnam Taluk?
29. In respect of these questions, the counsel for both the parties advanced the following arguments in support of their contentions: 20 2001 SCC OnLine AP 988 : (2001) 6 ALD 582 (FB) 21 (2019) 10 SCC 259 22 2021 SCC OnLine SC 868 23 (2018) 14 SCC 537 W.P.No.21103 of 2021 31 Petitioners' contentions: With regard to Nakal Sethwar, supplementary Sethwar and how did it transition into Khasra Pahani and the entries in the revenue records in respect of subject land it is submitted as follows:
(a) The document, Sethwar has its origin in Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. It is prepared in terms of Section 54 to 76 of the said Act dealing with Khalsa lands after following the procedure specified therein. This Hon'ble Court in G.Satyanarayana v. Government of A.P. (2014) 4 ALD 354 at pgs.28, 29, 30, 32 (COPY ENCLOSED) explained about the statutory basis and the procedure in preparation of Sethwar.
(b) The Respondent has not produced the original Sethwar or supplementary Sethwar. What is placed on record is only a Nakkal i.e., copy. The Nakkal Sethwar produced shows that it is of the year 1339 F i.e., of the year 1929 (Ref. pg. 2 para 2 of Respondent No. 6 Counter). This document even if taken to be true is of the Nizam's regime. Nothing is stated by the official Respondents as to what has transpired during the Nizam's regime or after 1929. The next material on record to show the ownership of the property is Khasra Pahani prepared in the year 1954.
(c) The Khasra Pahani clearly records the names of the ancestors of the Petitioners as the Pattadars. The Khasra Pahani is prepared nearly 25 years after the alleged Sethwar. The statutory basis of Khasra Pahani is traceable to Section 4 of Hyderabad Record of Rights in land Regulation 1358 F i.e., 1948. The said Regulation provides for detailed enquiry procedure, W.P.No.21103 of 2021 32 consideration of objections and subsequent notification of the lands before a Khasra Pahani is prepared. Under Section 13 of the Regulation there is a presumption in favour of correctness of the entries until the contrary is proved.
(d) A judgment of this Honourable Court in Vellanki Gopal Reddy and Others Vs. Chenchu Venkaiah 1967 (2) An. W.R. 233 = 1968 (1) ALT 48 (pp. 4 and 5) (COPY ENCLOSED) has explained the origin, scope and process of preparation of Khasra Pahani and its legal binding nature. The process of preparation of Khasra involves detailed enquiry, consideration of objections and notification of the lands/entries. Considering the said process involved in preparation of Khasra Pahani it is held that the KhasraPahani is document of title as referred in:
1. G. Satyanarayana Vs. Government of A.P., reported in (2014) 4 ALD 354;
2. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Vs. Narasinga Rao and Others, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 695;
3. Shikandar Chand Jain Vs. Digambar Jain, reported in (1974) 1 SCC 675;
4. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy v. Sayed Ahmed Hasan, reported in (2011) 4 ALD 262
(e) The Respondents without placing any material on record disputed the correctness of Khasra Pahani. Such a plea cannot be countenanced. The entire revenue record from the W.P.No.21103 of 2021 33 Khasra till date records the name of Petitioners or their predecessors as Pattadars. The latest entries in Dharani also show the names of Petitioners as Pattadars.
(f) In view of the above, the claim of Respondents on the basis of Nakkal Sethwar of the year 1929 cannot be a basis to claim the property. The subsequent Khasra prepared by following the due process and the revenue records ever since 1954 are conclusive evidence of title in favour of the Petitioners.
3. For the first time in this Writ Petition, in a dispute pending since last 6 decades, the respondents introduced a vague and false factual plea that grandfather of the Petitioners worked as Tahasildar of Shabad and Ibrahimpatnam Taluks during the regime of Nizams'.
(a) The falsity of this plea is apparent from the fact that the Respondents have not chosen to disclose the period when he worked in the said Taluks as Tahasildar.
(b) The Petitioners, in their reply have specifically denied this allegation and clearly stated that no member of their family worked as Tahasildar. The respondents have not chosen to place any record nor the alleged Punchnama of the Mandal Girdawar who claimed to have reported about the petitioners' grandfather being a Tahasildar during Nizams' regime. This is clearly a false story cooked for the purpose of this case.
(c) If the father of the Petitioner, Mohd.Sirajuddin worked as Tahasildar during Nizams' regime as contented by the Respondents and if he has resorted to any mischief there would W.P.No.21103 of 2021 34 have been material of the Nizams' regime to show that Mohd.Sirajuddin was the owner of the lands in question. No such material is placed on record. In fact, the respondents are relying on Nakkal of Sethwar of 1929 to claim the property.
(d) The foremost document relied by Petitioners is Khasra Pahani of the year 1954-55 i.e., after the Nizams' regime. Hence, it is apparent that the vague allegation that grandfather of the Petitioners was a Tahasildar is introduced as a false plea to mislead this Honourable Court.
30. Respondents contentions:-
The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Sethwar means Survey Records and the word Nakal denotes a copy. It is submitted that the Survey of Land in the year 1954- 55 has resulted in the passing of Record of Rights Act 1958 and subsequently, the entries are made yearly in Pahanies. He also referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G.Satyanarayana Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (cited supra) to explain the entries made in the Khasra Pahani.
31. Preliminary Objection: At the outset, the respondents have raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that there was an efficacious alternative remedy W.P.No.21103 of 2021 35 of statutory appeal provided under Section 13 of the Forest Act against the order of the Forest Settlement Officer under Section 10 of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of the order. It is submitted that a petition under Article 226 cannot be filed after a lapse of 6 years even if it is taken from the date of knowledge of the order and hence the writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention that where an alternative remedy of Statutory appeal is provided under the respective Act, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the learned counsel for the respondents had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (cited supra).
32. It is further submitted that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained if it involves complicated and disputed questions of fact, particularly where the title of the property is under dispute. He placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of this contention:
(1) Narender Vs. Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others (cited supra);
W.P.No.21103 of 2021 36 (2) K.S.B. Ali Vs. The State of A.P., rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others (cited supra); (3) Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatra Private Trust Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (cited supra).
33. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that the said objection is not sustainable for the following reasons:
Alternative Remedy:
1. It is contented on behalf of Respondents that under Section 13 of Forest Act the Petitioners have a remedy by way of Suit before the District Court against an order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer rejecting the claim.
2. It is also contended that the case involves serious disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated in the Writ Petition.
3. Both these reasons are not sustainable, the so called disputed question of facts are the invention of Respondents for the first time in the Counter Affidavits. Even the disputed questions of facts are figments of Respondents imagination and there is no material to support the same. The allegations relating to the factual disputes are introduced only for the sake of raising the plea that Writ is not maintainable. Since the factual allegation in the counter are without any basis, the same may be ignored.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021 37
4. The impugned order is questioned on the basis of admitted facts on record i.e., the order passed by Primary Authority under Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and the Appellate order passed by Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. It is well settled that existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar or act as fetter against the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It is only a self-imposed restriction when the Writ Jurisdiction can be exercised by the constitutional courts in spite of alternative remedy is elucidated in various authoritative pronouncements. One such situation is when the challenge is based on undisputed facts. Kindly consider the following Judgements;
a. Shivram Poddar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Central Centre II, Calcutta and another, AIR 1964 SC 1095 at Para 11;
b. Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, 1998 (8) SCC 1 at Paras 15 and 16;
c. Radha Raman Samanta Vs. Bank of India and others 2004 (1) SCC 605 at Paras 13 to 16;
d. Chennai Port Trust Vs. Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Works Welfare Association and others, 2018 (6) SCC 202 at Paras 15 to 21;
e. Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2021 (6) SCC 771 at Para 27.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021 38 f. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now state of Telangana) Vs. A.P State Wakf Board and others, 2022 SCC online SC 159 at Para 113.
34. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the title of the petitioners was never disputed by the respondents until the impugned orders were passed in the year 2010. As seen from the record from the year 1967 onwards, the respondent forest officials have initiated steps to notify the subject land as forest land and the revenue department also confirmed the stand of the petitioners that it was patta land. It appears that initially the petitioners could not produce the documents of their patta over the subject land. Subsequently, they have relied upon the entries in Khasra Pahani prepared in the year 1954-55 to substantiate their claim. The proceedings of the forest department are based on the entries in the revenue records and the revenue officials, in their reports, time and again have confirmed that the land is patta land and that it was in the possession of the forest department. When the Forest Settlement Officer seeks to take a different stand from the earlier position, he is duty bound to put the affected parties i.e., petitioners herein on notice. Further, in the earlier proceedings, the Forest Settlement Officer had already quantified the compensation and therefore, if any contrary decision was W.P.No.21103 of 2021 39 to be taken, it was incumbent upon the respondents to do so only after issuing notices to the respective parties. Further, it is not evident from record as to the provision of law under which the impugned proceedings have been issued. Presumably it is under Section 10 of the Telangana Forest Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Forest Settlement Officer has become functus officio after passing of the quantification order dated 29.07.2000. Therefore, the impugned order is challenged as ex-facie illegal and as not sustainable. Therefore, in view of this challenge to the legality of the order as well as the violation of the principles of natural justice, this writ petition is maintainable. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for both the parties are dealt with as under:
In the case of Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (cited supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the question as to whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought to entertain a challenge to the assessment order on the sole ground that the statutory remedy of appeal against that order stood forceclosed by the law of limitation?
It was held that:
W.P.No.21103 of 2021 40 Where a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute must only be availed of. Though an Act cannot bar and curtail remedy under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution, the constitutional court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise its jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. To put it differently, the fact that the High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not mean that it can disregard the substantive provisions of a statute and pass orders which can be settled only through a mechanism prescribed by the statute.
Therefore it can be seen that this judgment is not applicable to the case before this Court as the facts are distinguishable and the decision is based on the peculiar facts of the said case.
In the case of Narender Vs. Secretary, Municipal Administration (cited supra) the single judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was dealing with a title dispute between an individual and Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and it was in these circumstances that it was held that it cannot be resolved in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similar is the case in the cases of K.S.B. Ali & Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatra Private Trust (cited supra). Therefore, these decisions are not applicable to the case on hand.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021 41
35. On the other hand, in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it was held as under:
a. Shivram Poddar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Central Centre II, Calcutta and another (cited supra):
Para 11: We may observe that we have proceeded to decide this case on the footing that the business of the firm was discontinued on the dissolution of the firm. It is however necessary once more to observe, as we did in C. A. Abraham's case, (1961) 2 SCR 765: (AIR 1961 SC 609) that the Income-tax provides a complete machinery for assessment of tax, and for relief in respect of improper or erroneous orders made by the revenue authorities. It is for the revenue authorities to ascertain the facts applicable to a particular situation, and to grant appropriate relief in the matter of assessment of tax. Resort to the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on recognised by the Constitution in matters relating to assessment, levy and collection of income-tax may be permitted only when questions of infringement of fundamental rights arise, or where on undisputed facts the taxing authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess. In attempting to by pass the provisions of the Income-tax by inviting the High Court to decide questions which are primarily within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities, the party approaching the Court has often to ask the Court to make assumptions of W.P.No.21103 of 2021 42 facts which remain to be investigated by the Revenue Authorities.
b. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now state of Telangana) Vs. A.P State Wakf Board and others (cited supra):
Para 113. This Court in a judgment reported as Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. 62 examined the question of maintainability of a writ petition before the High Court even when there was an alternative remedy available under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This Court held as under:
*25. In this background, it becomes necessary for this Court, to dwell on the "rule of alternate remedy" and its judicial exposition. In Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks. (1998) 8 SCC 1], a two-judge Bench of this Court after reviewing the case law on this point, noted: (SCC pp. 9-10, paras 14-15) "............"
27. The principles of law which emerge are that: 27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well.
27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution: (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice: (c) the order or proceedings W.P.No.21103 of 2021 43 are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.
27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law.
27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability. resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.
27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. such a view would not readily be interfered with."
c. Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others (cited supra):
Para 15: Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition.
But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not W.P.No.21103 of 2021 44 normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case- law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.
Para 20: Much water has since flown under the bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which, though old, continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation.
Para 21: That being so, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition at the initial stage without examining the contention that the show-cause notice issued to the appellant was wholly without jurisdiction and that the Registrar, in the circumstances of the case, was not justified in acting as the "Tribunal".
W.P.No.21103 of 2021 45 d. Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (cited supra):
Para 26: Following the dictum of this Court in Whirlpoof, in Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.1, this Court noted that: (Harbanstal Sahnia case'?, SCC p. 110, para 7) "7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed is concerned, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of on Act is challenged.
(See Whiripool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marist.) The present case attracts applicability of the first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the appellants dealership, which is their bread and butter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of W.P.No.21103 of 2021 46 driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings."(emphasis supplied) Para 27: The principles of law which emerge are that:
27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well.
27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person.
27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where : (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part Ill of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (a) the vires of a legislation is challenged.
27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law.
27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of W.P.No.21103 of 2021 47 statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.
27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.
e. Chennai Port Trust Vs. Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Works Welfare Association and others (cited supra):
Para 20: We are, however, not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (Chennai Port Trust) when he contended that the writ court should not have entertained the writ petition and instead the respondent (writ petitioner Association) should have been granted liberty to approach the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute raised by them in the writ petition.
Para 21: In the first place, the writ court having entertained the writ petition and granted relief on merits, this objection has lost its significance now; second, the appellate court also having gone into the merits of the case and affirmed the order of the writ court on merits, it is too late to entertain such submission, which is technical in nature; and third, the findings on merits have been recorded by the two courts on the basis of undisputed facts/documents requiring no trial on facts.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021 48
36. In view of the above decisions, it is clear that the availability of alternative remedy will not bar the High Courts from entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and hence it is held that this writ petition is maintainable.
37. As regards the other contentions of the respondents that fraud vitiates all, this Court finds that the respondents have relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of vishwa Vijay Bharathi (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
Para 14: It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.
38. This decision was referred to in the judgment of Pratap Singh (cited supra) to hold as under:
Para 25: The presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted if such entry was made fraudulently or surreptitiously (Vishwa Vijay Bharati case) or where such entry W.P.No.21103 of 2021 49 has not been made by following the prescribed procedure (Bhimappa Channappa Kapali v. Bhimappa Satyappa Kamagouda). Even in Guru Amarjit Singh, where thirty years' old lease deed was produced, this Court had not accepted the proof of the relationship between landowner and tenant in absence of receipt of payment of rent.
Para 26: Therefore, we find that the presumption of truth attached to the record- of-rights can be rebutted only if there is a fraud in the entry or the entry was surreptitiously made or that prescribed procedure was not followed. It will not be proper to rely on the oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption as the credibility of oral evidence vis-à-vis documentary evidence is at a much weaker level.
39. The learned counsel for the respondent had further relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of T.Suryachandra Rao (cited supra) for the proposition that fraud vitiates everything. However, in the present case, except for an allegation of fraudulent entries in the Khasra Pahani in the year 1954-55, made by the father of the petitioner Moinuddin, who was alleged to be the Tahsildar of Ibrahimpatnam Taluk, no evidence is brought on record to substantiate the allegation particularly in the light of the assertion of the petitioners that none of their ancestors worked as Tahsildar of Ibrahimpatham Taluk leave alone the father of the petitioner. It is settled law that the burden is on the party making the allegation of fraud to prove it and in this case, the Government has failed to do so. Therefore, the allegation is baseless and W.P.No.21103 of 2021 50 reliance on these judgments about the maintainability of the writ petition is misplaced.
40. Further it is to be noticed that the allegation of fraud is not made in the impugned order but is made in the counter affidavits of respondents No.5 & 6 but not in the impugned orders. It is settled law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (cited supra) that an order has to stand on the strength of what is stated therein and it can be supplemented or supplanted by the contentions in the counter affidavits. Therefore, the allegations have no legs to stand in the present writ petition.
41. Another objection raised by the respondents is with regard to delay in challenging the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said orders were never communicated to the petitioners and even though they were brought on record during the contempt proceedings, since the issue was before the Hon'ble Court, the petitioners were pursuing the matter and only when the petitioners were granted liberty to challenge the same vide orders dated 16.08.2021 in contempt Appeal Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19 of 2021, the Writ petition was filed immediately on September, 2021 and therefore, there is no W.P.No.21103 of 2021 51 delay in challenging the orders. In view of these submissions, this Court is satisfied that there is no delay in challenging the impugned orders before this Court in this writ petition. The further objection of the respondents that there are disputed questions of fact is also not sustainable due to the above cited decisions.
42. As regards the merits of the case, the following questions arise for consideration:
(1) Whether the stand of the respondents in the impugned order has any basis?
(2) Whether the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 and the subsequent revenue records decide the title of the land? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief?
43. On the above issues, the stand of the respondents in the impugned order dated 23.04.2010 is that the evidence produced by the petitioners for claiming the land in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20, total admeasuring 383 Acs., of Maheswaram Mandal and Village of Patelgiri Reserve Forest Block which has been notified under Sections 4 & 6 of A.P.Forest Act-1967, has been enquired and verified in context with revenue records and found that the said land is covered under the Land Ceiling Act and further it is declared as Surplus Land and hence, claim W.P.No.21103 of 2021 52 is rejected. In the reference to the said order, there are no other documents referred to except the claim petition of Sri.Mohd Sirajuddin, S/o.Late Khaja Moinuddin and others dated 01.01.2010 addressed to Secretary to Government received by Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad. Therefore, there are no reports which have been considered by the Officer to have come to conclusion that the said land is covered under Land Ceiling Act and that it is declared as surplus land. Further, from the impugned order dated 03.10.2010 which is subsequent to the order 23.04.2010, there is reference only to the application of Sri.Mohd Sirajuddin and the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.9526 of 2009, dated 04.12.2009 and the proceedings dated 23.04.2010 of the Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad. In the subject matter of the order, the Forest Settlement Officer has referred to the proclamations under Section 6 of A.P.Forest Act, 1967 for the proposed forest block of Patelgiri forest block, which was published in Ranga Reddy District Gazette dated 28.09.1999, in the notification the nature of the land was recorded as 'Patta' in the English version and as 'Poramboke' in the Telugu Version. However, this Court finds that this observation of the Forest Settlement Officer is in total contradiction to the entries in the revenue records. In the papers filed along with the writ W.P.No.21103 of 2021 53 petition as well as the counter affidavit, there is a reference to correspondence between the Forest Department with the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide Letter No.E5/2408/94, dated 19.10.2000 requesting to clarify whether the lands under notification are Poramboke or Patta Lands and there is also reference to the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram, vide letter dated 23.11.2000 submitted to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, stating that as per the Kasara Pahani, Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20, admeasuring 383 Acs., of Maheshwaram (M) & (V), included in the forest block of Patelgiri Forest block is recorded as 'Patta Lands' and Sri.Khaja Mohinuddin is recorded as Pattedar and Sri.Khaja Mohinuddin, Moinuddin, Kareemuddin and Habeebuddin are shown as occupants. Therefore, this Court finds that the matter was verified in the context to revenue records and it was found that the subject land is covered under the proceedings of the Land Ceiling Act and declared as not forming the holding of the pattedars vide proceedings of Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad, South Division vide C.C.No.2936, 3502, 3518, 3519, 2945, 2939, 2938, 2937, 2940, 2941, 2144/I/75, dated 06.04.1978. It is after these observations, that the Forest Settlement Officer has concluded that the claim of the petitioners has been rejected. Though there is no W.P.No.21103 of 2021 54 direction in a proceedings dated 23.04.2010 advising the petitioners to approach Civil Court for readdressal of their claim if any, in the order dated 03.06.2010 it is mentioned that the proceedings dated 23.04.2010 were issued duly rejecting the claim and further, advising the petitioners to approach Civil Court for readdressal of the claim. There is no reference to any other documents considered before passing the impugned orders. It is further noticed that on 07.09.2010 the Chief Secretary has addressed a letter to the Special Chief Secretary to Government, EFS&T Department, referring to the land dispute between the Forest Department and Pattadars in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20 of Maheswaram Village for examination and necessary action and in the said note also, there is no reference to the proceedings dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010. Further in the U.O.Note No.8375/LA(A2)/2011-1, dated 05.03.2011 the original file bearing C.No.252/For.I/2010 was called for and in the notes annexed thereto also there is no reference to the proceedings dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010.
44. The Special Chief Secretary to Government, EFS&T Department, in her letter dated 15.06.2010 has taken note of the contrary stand of the Forest Settlement Officer by stating as under:
W.P.No.21103 of 2021 55 The petitioners also stated that the FSO in her letter dated 08.01.2008 addressed to the District Collector, has rightly indicated the procedure to be followed in finalizing the process of acquisition, whereas, the same FSO in her letter dated 06.06.2009 addressed to the Conservator of Forests, requested the C.F. to give consent either for payment of cash compensation or land to land because it is a patta land. The petitioners further stated that the FSO has taken a 'U' turn and totally changed her stand in her proceedings dated 23.04.2010 and issued orders that the same lands are ceiling surplus lands and on the same grounds she rejected the claim of the petitioners. Thus, the FSO is taking different stands before different authorities. This is totally amblgoos and contradictory to each other. The FSO cannot take two different stands on the same issue. The basis for taking such contradictory stand is not known. Taking this type of dual and contradictory stand tantamount to misleading the fats to the higher authorities which is more serious.
45. The learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of Prahlad Pradhan (cited supra) and in the case of Prabhagiya (cited supra) in support of his contention that mere entries in revenue records do not confer a title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. In the case before this Court, the petitioners are relying upon the entries in the Khasra Pahani prepared in the year 1954-55 and the entries in the W.P.No.21103 of 2021 56 revenue records till date to claim their ownership and title over the subject land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.Narsing Rao & Others (cited supra), while considering the case of suomoto revision power exercised by the authorities to correct khasra entries after long lapse of time of 50 years, on the ground of fraud, has held that a specific statement as to when the fraud was discovered by the State was essential for it was a jurisdictional fact. It was observed that:
Para 13: Consequent to the merger of Hyderabad State with India in 1948 the Jagirs were abolished by the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 Fasli. "Khasra Pahani" is the basic record-of-rights prepared by the Board of Revenue Andhra Pradesh in the year 1954-1955.It was gazetted under Regulation 4 of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Record- of-Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 F. As per regulation 13 any entry in the said record-of-rights shal be presumed to be true until the contraryis proved. The said regulation of 1358 F was in vogue till it was repealed by the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, which came into force on 15.08.1978. In the 2nd Education (1997) of The Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Aiyar (at p.1053) "Khasra" is described as follows:
"Khasra, - Khasra is a register recording the incidents of a tenure and is a historical record. Khasra would serve the purpose of a deed of title, when there is no other title deed."
46. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered that the Khasra Pahani is the basic record of rights and the entries therein shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. This aspect has further been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Pratap Karan & W.P.No.21103 of 2021 57 Others (cited supra) and it was observed that Khasra Pahani is a document of title proved beyond doubt (because as per Regulation 13 of 1358 F, entries therein are presumed to be true). The presumption of correctness of entries in Khasra Pahani has been upheld by the Apex Court in the cases of Shikarchand Jain (cited supra) and by the A.P.High Court in the case of Syed Ahmad Hasan and Others (cited supra).
47. Further, this Court (A.P.High Court as it then was) in the case of G. Satyanarayana (cited supra) has brought out in detail the procedure adopted for preparation of Revenue Records in the then combined state of Andhra Pradesh and with regard to preparation of Khasra Pahani in the Telangana area, it has observed as under:
The Telangana Area Land Census Rules, 1954: These rules were made under Section 97 of the Tenancy Act. Under these Rules, land census, as defined by Rule 2(f) of the Rules, was taken up by the Government. The important record i.e., Khasra Pahani is a document prepared under these Rules. Rules 8 to 13 speak of provisional Khasra Pahani and Rule 14 speaks of fair copy of Khasra Pahani. The said record is an important record and entry as pattadar in the same would confer absolute title over the land occupied.
Para 5: In the absence of patta, revenue records form basis for determining title. A-Register/Diglot, Ledger/Chitta in Andhra Area and Sethwar, Supplementary Sethwar and WasoolBaqui in Telangana Area are the basic settlement record which provide basis for subsequent entries in the Village Accounts. Before integration of revenue record, No. 1 and No. 2 Accounts (old), No. W.P.No.21103 of 2021 58 3 Account, No. 10 Account and Register of Holdings in Andhra Area and Pahanipatrika, Chowfasla, Faisal Patti and KhasraPahani in Telangana Area are relevant Village Accounts for determination of title. After integration of the Village Accounts under the 1971 Act, (i) Printed Diglot or A-Register, (ii) Village Account No. 1, (iii) Village Account No. 2, (iv) No. 3 Register and
(v) Village Account No. 4 Register of Holdings constitute relevant record.
48. The decision on the validity of entries in the Khasra Pahani was in the case of Vellanaki Gopal Reddy (cited supra) wherein the revenue entries in the khasra Pahani in reference to Ibrahimpatnam Taluk are referred to. The relevant paras are as under:
Para 4: The contention of the learned Advocate in respect of the setwar and shunwai patraks has also no force, for shunwai patrak is one that follows the entries in the bandobust viz., setwar. When a settlement of a village or area takes place setwar is prepared and thereafter a preliminary settlement record it announced or notified with the object of calling for objections, if any, from persons interested. That is in fact amounts to on the issue of shunwai patrak. It is, after a particular time, namely, the time fixed for considering the various objections of the persons interested that setwar is finalised and it is considered to be the settlement record for the area or village. Keeping this in view, the lower Courts concluded that since the shunwai patrak contains more particulars than setwar, shunwai patrak mutt have been brought into being by interested persons. This reasoning, in my view, cannot be assailed not only because it is reasonable to presume that shunwai patrak would contain only those details which are in the setwar and nothing more, but when it was suggested to D.W.1 that this was brought into existence subsequently, he denied it but admitted that except for this patrak all other shunwai patraks had been destroyed by the communists.
Significance of such an admission cannot be lost and the inference is that this document has been brought into existence. The last point that has been urged with some force relates to the extracts of W.P.No.21103 of 2021 59 the Record of Rights, Exhibits D-3 and D-4 produced by the defendant. At this stage it may be stated that there was a Record of Rights Act in force in the erstwhile Hyderabad State is 1346 Fasli. Under that Act, the Record of Rights proceedings were only taken in four Marathwada districts of the then Hyderabad State and the records prepared for over a period of 18 years in those areas were most discouraging. It is apparent from that that no Record of Rights proceedings under that Act were in fact taken in the Telangana Districts. The procedure adopted under that Act as well as under the subsequent Act was to notify the application of the Act to a particular village or area, then call for information, compile it, prepare it and announce it by a notification after which objections were to be filed at a particular time and the same was to become final. When the work of preparing the Record of Rights was not progressing well after the police action, another Regulation known as "the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulation" (No. LVIII of 1358 Fasli) was promulgated. Section 1 read with section 19 however saves proceedings which were in progress under the old Act, which proceedings whether in progress or completed were deemed under section 19 to have been taken under the present Act and old Act was repealed, Under this Act also, a notification has to be published and under section 4 as soon as may be after the issue of a notification under subsection (4) of section 1 directing the provisions of this Regulation to apply to a village or local area it is incumbent to prepare and thereafter maintain for that village, or, as the case may be, for every village included in that local area, a record of rights in all lands belonging thereto and the said Record of Rights should include the following particulars, viz.:
"(a) names of all persons who are holders, occupants, owners or mortgagees of land or assignees of rent or revenue thereof:
(b) the nature and extent of the respective interests of such persons and the conditions or liabilities (if any) attaching thereto;
(c) the rent or revenue (if any) payable by or to any of such persons;
(d) such other particulars as my be prescribed:
Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in clause
(a) the names of tenants shall not be included in the Record of Rights unless their tenancies are perptual tenancies or tenancies of W.P.No.21103 of 2021 60 any such other description as Government may by notification specify in this behalf either generally or for the purposes of any specified village or of villages included in any specified area."
Para 5: After the Record of Rights is prepared and completed in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 4, it is required to be notified and published in the Jareeda under sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) confers a right on any person affected by an entry in such record to apply for rectification of such entry to such officer as the Government may empower in that behalf within two years from the date of the notification. The other provisions need not concern me except for section 13, which states that an entry in the Record of Rights and a certified entry in the register of mutations shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefore. Pursuant to this Regulation, there have been several notifications. The first notification No. 54 is dated 7th October, 1953 under which several talukas have been notified. This included Hyderabad East, Ibrahimpatnam, Medchal etc. Nalgonda including Ramannapeth and 15 other districts. After applying the Record of Rights Regulation to these areas, under sub-section (4) of section 1, another notification No. 54/A2/389/54, dated 24th August, 1955 was issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 intimating that the Record of Rights has been prepared for the areas specified in the schedule annexed thereto and it was that preparation of Record of Rights of the said area was completed. Similarly, under sub-section (4) of section 1 another notification No. 55/A2/389/54, dated 24th August, 1955 was issued for other parts which included Hyderabad West and Shahabad. Hyderabad East and villages in 17 other districts. Similarly, notification. No. 109/A2/389/54-55, dated 16th December 1955 was published under sub-section (1) of section 4 sub-section (2) of section 4.
49. Further, it is noticed that while issuing the proclamations under Sections 4 & 6 of Forest Act, the respondents have mentioned the land to be 'Patta Land' in Telugu Version and as 'Poramboke' in English Version. Even in the notification issued in Ranga Reddy District W.P.No.21103 of 2021 61 Gazette, it is mentioned as Patta Land. The respondents have not given any reason for classifying the land as Poramboke land, contrary to the entries in revenue records. Thus, there is no justification for the stand of the respondents that the subject land is Government land.
50. As seen from the provisions of the Forest Act, the jurisdiction of the Forest Settlement Officer is, to be satisfied about the claim of the petitioners to be the pattadars on the basis of the revenue records and also thereafter quantify the compensation. All along, the stand of the revenue department has been that subject land was patta land. For the first time in the impugned order, they have taken the stand that the petitioners are not the owners of the land. Therefore, this Court finds that the Forest Settlement Officer has travelled beyond his powers under Sections 9 & 10 of the Forest Act.
51. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Madhan Lal Vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1975 SC 2085, has held that a Forest Settlement Officer adjudicating a claim under Indian Forest Act is not a Court and that a party whose rights are affected must be given notice and an opportunity of hearing. Section 8(ii) of Forest Act also provides that the evidence under Sub-section (i) shall be recorded in the manner W.P.No.21103 of 2021 62 required in the Code of Civil Procedure-1908 in appealable cases and the Rules of procedure must be so construed so as to advance the Courts of justice and bring on record all such evidence which the party intends to place before it and if an order is passed by following the due procedure under Section 10(i), only in such cases, orders are appealable under Section 13 of the Forest Act. As seen from the proceedings of Land Reforms Tribunal, dated 05.05.1997, the petitioners and others have submitted their declarations under the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling and Agricultural Land Holding Act, 1973 and on 11.04.1975, the declarations were referred to the Tahsildar, under whose jurisdiction the lands are situated, for local inspection and verification as required under Rules 4 & 5 and a report was received from the Tahsildar which was furnished to declarants and also to the authorities of the Government. The Tribunal has taken note of the brief history of the case and as to how the declarants have become the owners of the subject land and also that 384.75 Acs., of land in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20 is under the possession of the Forest Department and that the case is pending before the Tahsildar for deletion of said area from the declarants holding. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, in its order dated 16.02.1978, has also considered that the said land is in the possession of the Forest W.P.No.21103 of 2021 63 Department and in order to compute the surplus land in the hands of the declarants, the said land was deleted while computing the holdings of the appellants and the same has been given effect to by the Land Reforms Tribunal by order 16.02.1978. In none of the proceedings is it mentioned that the said land is Government land. Therefore, the findings of the Forest Settlement Officer, in the impugned order that the land under the possession of the Forest Department is surplus land or the Government land is not sustainable. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the findings of the Forest Settlement Officer are not based on any evidence, leave alone revenue records, in favour of the department. Therefore, the inference drawn by the Forest Settlement Officer is clearly erroneous and therefore, cannot be sustained.
52. In view of all the above, it is clear that the entries in Khasra Pahani prepared in the year 1954-55 are conclusive proof of title of the respective lands and the respondents have not been able to bring on record any evidence to prove otherwise except for the copy of the Sethwar where the subject land is claimed to be recorded as Forest land. The documents relied upon by the petitioners i.e., the correspondence between the Revenue Officials as well as the Forest Officials over the W.P.No.21103 of 2021 64 decades clearly establish the title of the petitioners over the subject land till date i.e., the entries in the Dharani Portal as well. Therefore, the ground/reason adopted by the respondents in the impugned orders dated 24.03.2010 and 03.06.2010 are devoid of merits and are accordingly set aside. The respondents No.5 & 6 are thus directed to follow and comply with the directions of this Court dated 04.12.2009 in W.P.No.9536/2021 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are directed to recompute the compensation to be paid to the petitioners/pattedars either in cash or in the form of alternate land and pass such orders within the above period of four weeks.
53. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
54. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 20.11.2023 Svv/Bak