M.Radha Krishnaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3047 AP

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                            Writ Petition No.8277 of 2021

ORDER

M. Radha Krishnaiah and three others filed this writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of respondent

No.3 in issuing the impugned proceedings No.D.Dis(E4)/REV-

ESECOLAS(APL)/48/2020 dated 02.01.2021 canceling the DKT pattas issued in

favour of the petitioners vide its file No.260/4/91 dated 05.09.1983, 263/4/91

dated 17.05.1982, 260/4/91 dated 17.05.1982 and 259/4/1991 dated

17.05.1982 without any authority and on flimsy grounds while exercising power

under Board Standing Order No.15 (paragraph 18) and declare the same as

illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14,

15, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the

respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their land situated in Survey

Nos.387/2, 387/1, 385/3 and 385/1 to an extent of Ac.3.62 cents, Ac.3.62

cents, Ac.2.90 cents and Ac.2.90 cents of land at Kannavaram village of

Satyavedu Mandal of Chittoor District except in accordance with law and

subject to payment of compensation under Fight to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The petitioners are poor people belonging to the weaker sections.

Having considered their poverty, the 5th respondent had allotted the subject

land to the petitioners and granted DKT pattas in their favour since the year

1981 onwards. Since the date of assignment of land by issuing DKT pattas, the

petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land

cultivating the same by raising different crops. The 5th respondent issued

pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioners and their names were also

mutated in the revenue records. Form 1B register, adangal pahani also

disclosed the names of the petitioners being the owners and that the

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property

cultivating the land since the date of assignment. As such, their possession

cannot be disturbed.

The petitioners mortgaged their respective land with the bank and

obtained loans for the purpose of raising commercial crops like Cashew nut,

Eucalyptus plantation in the year 1985-86. Later, the petitioners and others

formed into a society known as 'Kannavaram Co-operative Joint Farming

Society Limited' bearing registration No.812 and was registered under Section 7

of the Co-operative Societies Act. The said society was formed with an

objective of undertaking joint farming of the land and allied programmes such

as dairy, poultry, animal husbandry etcetera, on planning basis for increase of

agricultural production.

Respondent Nos.6 to 8, having no manner of right to dispossess the

petitioners, are unauthorisedly interfering with the possession and enjoyment

of the land by these petitioners. Thereupon, the petitioners approached this

Court and filed WP.No.7556 of 2020. This Court, upon hearing arguments of

both the counsel, directed the respondents therein not to interfere with the

possession and enjoyment of the property of these petitioners except in

accordance with law. At the time of hearing of the writ petition referred

above, neither the revenue department nor the forest department raised any

specific issue regarding validity of the pattas. Thereafter, respondent Nos.6 to

8 started interfering again with the possession and enjoyment of these

petitioners and issued notice under Section 20(3) of A.P Forest Act, 1967 [for

short, 'the Forest Act'] calling upon the petitioners to vacate the land as the

land belong to forest department.

Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioners again

approached this Court and filed W.P.No.18493 of 2020 and upon hearing

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

argument, this Court had set aside the notices on the ground that the land

belong to the revenue department and the forest department has no authority

to issue notice under Section 20(3) of the Forest Act.

It is further contended that the revenue authorities are not competent

to issue any notice to these petitioners for cancellation of DKT pattas on the

ground that the land belongs to the forest department. When the notice was

issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioners have contested before the 3rd

respondent and an enquiry was conducted. Upon hearing both the parties i.e.,

the petitioners and the forest department, the 3rd respondent had cancelled

the DKT pattas issued in favour of the petitioners and directed the 5th

respondent to make appropriate changes in the revenue records. The

impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent cancelling the DKT Pattas which

were issued since the year 1981 onwards is highly arbitrary and not sustainable

under law. The ground on which the DKT pattas were cancelled is that due to

oversight the land was assigned to the petitioners. The said ground is not

sustainable. The petitioners are cultivating the land since the date of

assignment of the land and after lapse of 40 years, the respondents came up

with the plea that the petitioners are not cultivating the land and the land was

assigned to them by mistake of fact. Respondent No.3 exercised power under

paragraph 18 of Standing Order No.15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue

Standing Orders [for short, 'BSO 15(18)'] and such exercise of power after 40

years without raising any ground of fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining DKT

patta is unsustainable. The revenue authorities have assigned the land to these

petitioners way back in the year 1981 and thereupon respondents cannot

invoke BSO 15(18) in view of the law laid down by the common High Court in N.

Nagamani Parvathi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh1 and the erstwhile High

Order dated 31.12.2018 in W.P.No.26046 of 2018

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

Court of A.P in Mandlappa @ Mandla Giriappa v. Mandal Revenue Officer2 so

also in the decision in B. Adinarayana Murthy v. Collector, Ananthapur

District3.

The revenue authorities cannot resume the land of the petitioners at

their whims and fancies on flimsy ground that by oversight the land was

assigned to them. The power under BSO 15(18) shall not be exercised after

lapse of 40 years. Yet another contention of petitioners is that the 3rd

respondent - Joint Collector who passed the impugned order is not competent

and only Collector is competent to resume the property cancelling the pattas

by exercising power under BSO 15(18). Therefore, the order passed by the 3rd

respondent is without jurisdiction. On this ground also the order impugned in

the writ petition is liable to be set aside.

Even if the respondents intend to resume the property for public purpose

the respondents has to pay compensation to the petitioners in terms of the

provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for short, ['Act 30 of 2013'] as held

by the Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in LAO-cum-

Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division v. Mekala Pandu4. But the 3rd

respondent did not pay any compensation and resumed the land without any

authority of law and requested to declare the impugned proceedings as illegal

and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same.

The 7th respondent filed counter denying material allegations in the

affidavit filed along with the writ petition inter alia contending that the land in

different survey numbers i.e., Sy.Nos.387/1, 387/2, 385/1 & 385/3 of

Kannavaram village of Satyavedu Mandal formed out of old Sy.No.248 was

1996 Law Suit (AP) 506

1999 Law Suit (AP) 940

2004 Law Suit (AP) 235

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

already included in the notified Rajugunta reserve forest and this old Sy.no.248

was classified as 'forest/adavi' as per revenue records and it is not out of place

to mention that as per Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 [for short,

'the Act of 1980'] the term "Forest land" occurring in Section 2 will not only

include 'forest' as understood in the dictionary sense but also any area

recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of ownership. All

ongoing activities within any forest in any State throughout the Country without

the prior approval of the central Government must cease forthwith. Thus, the

land in question attracts Section 2 of the Act of 1980 and as such assignment is

violative of the orders of the Supreme Court in W.P.No.202 of 1995 dated

12.12.1996.

It is further contended that one M. Radha Krishnaiah, the 1st petitioner

herein, filed OS.No.186 of 1998 before the Junior Civil Judge's Court,

Satyavedu, for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their

men and agents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the

plaintiff over the subject property. The learned Junior Civil Judge, by

judgment dated 07.02.2003, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the Junior Civil Judge,

Satyavedu, the 7th respondent herein preferred an appeal on the file of Senior

Civil Judge's Court, Srikalahasti, vide A.S.No.4 of 2003. The Senior Civil Judge,

Srikalhasti by decree and judgment dated 01.04.2004 in AS.No.4 of 2003 had

set aside the decree and judgment in OS.No.186 of 1998 dated 07.02.2003

while dismissing the suit.

When the petitioners made similar attempts in 2011 to encroach the

land, a case was registered vide DOR.No.83/2011-12/Satyavedu Range and they

were not allowed to enter into the reserve forest. Thus, the possession of the

subject lands is only with the forest department since the date of notification.

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

On 24.01.2008 the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Chittoor,

the Forest Settlement Officer, Chittoor, the Tahsildar, Satyavedu and the

Forest Range Officer, Satyavedu, have conducted a joint inspection of these

lands and concluded that "before issue of Section - 15 notification, no claims

were received in connection with the disputed land either from revenue

department or from public. Hence the area was notified as 'Reserved Forest'

u/s.15, and the notification was published on 11.09.1969. This was not

entered or changed in revenue records as this area was notified u/s.15 and

handed over to the Forest department by the Tahsildar. Further no

individuals/pattadars had claimed the area even though DKT pattas were

issued." The Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor East (WL) division, Chittoor,

also submitted the fact to the District Collector, Chittoor, along with joint

inspection report dated 24.01.2008 with a request to cancel the DKT pattas.

Thereupon the Joint Collector, Chittoor, conducted review meeting on

05.05.2008 with Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor East (WL) division, Chittoor,

Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Chittoor, the Tahsildar, Satyavedu

and with the Surveyor, Sathyavedu. In the said review meeting held by the

Joint Collector on 05.05.2008 it was resolved that 'issuing of pattas is a mistake

of the Revenue department, due to such mistakes boundary disputes are arising

and finally the Joint collector instructed to start a Vana Samrakshana Samithi

with DKT pattadars for their livelihood.'

On 06.06.2008, the forest officials conducted Kannavaram Vana

Samrakshana Samithi meeting and 2/3rd majority of Vana Samrakshana Samithi

members have resolved that the DKT pattadars of Kannavaram disputed area

did not belong to the Kannavaram revenue village and also that the pattadars

have no lands in neighboring villages and requested to take action to cancel the

pattas in Kannavaram village. The Forest Settlement Officer, Chittoor, in

Rc.No.A/21/2008, dated 09.02.2009, has reported the fact to the District

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

Collector, Chittoor, recommending for cancellation of DKT pattas issued in

Rajugunta Reserve forest area.

The petitioners filed W.P.No.7556 of 2020 questioning the alleged

unauthorized interference with their possession and enjoyment over different

extents stated above in different survey numbers of Satyavedu Mandal as illegal

and arbitrary. This court passed orders directing the respondents not to

interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners except by

following due process of law.

This Court permitted the respondents to follow due process of law and

evict the petitioners. Therefore, notice was given vide Rc.No.49/2016/STVD,

dated 23.09.2020 under Section 20(3) of the Forest Act to show cause within 15

days of receipt of the notice as to why they should not be evicted from the said

lands. As such, the petitioners herein are trying to encroach the reserved

forest land at Compartment No.313, Rajugunta reserved forest which is notified

under Section 15 of the Forest Act vide G.O.Ms.No.1668, Food and Agriculture

(Forest III) dated 11.09.1969.

The petitioners again questioned the notice issued under Section 20(3) of

the Forest Act in W.P.No.18493 of 2020 and this Court, upon hearing arguments

of both the counsel, directed the Joint Collector/revenue authorities to dispose

of the matter said to be pending in a strict time bound manner and both the

parties were directed not to delay the process. In view of the fact that this

Court, relying on the submissions of the Government Pleader for Revenue, has

noted that due process of law is being followed the impugned notices dated

23.09.2020 issued by the forest department are set aside leaving it open to the

State to take appropriate action after decision has been taken by the revenue

authority on the possession etc., of the petitioners and their pattas. This Court

has not entered into any merits of the matter. The respondents are at liberty

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

to decide all the issues as per law. According to the orders in the above writ

petition, the respondents are entitled to follow due process of law and

therefore proceedings were initiated against the petitioners by the 3rd

respondent and the 3rd respondent after affording an opportunity to the

petitioners herein passed impugned order cancelling the pattas. It is further

contended that the judgments relied on by the petitioners have no application

to the present facts of the case and finally requested to dismiss the writ

petition.

The other respondents 1 to 6 & 8 did not file their counters.

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jada Sravan

Kumar, mainly contended that the Joint Collector/3rd respondent is not

competent to exercise power under BSO 15(18) and the Collector alone is

competent to pass such an order exercising suo moto power of revision. But

here the 3rd respondent being the Joint Collector passed the order impugned in

the writ petition without any authority of law and thereby the order is liable to

be set aside on this ground alone.

It is further contended that when the land was assigned to these

petitioners by the then Tahsildar, at best in case of resumption of the land, the

State has to pay compensation in terms of Act 30 of 2013 but without paying

any compensation in terms of the said Act by applying the principle laid down

in Mekala Pandu (4 supra) and resumption of the land under the impugned

proceedings is illegal and arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside.

The third contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that when

the earlier writ petitions were disposed of directing the respondents not to

interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject

property and the notice under Section 20(3) of the Forest Act, was set aside,

again initiating proceedings for cancellation of the pattas granted in favour of

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

these petitioners by the Joint Collector exercising suo moto power of revision is

a serious illegality and prayed to allow the writ petition setting aside the

impugned proceedings while declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, though no counter is filed,

contended that as the pattas were granted by the Tahsildar in favour of the

petitioners, certainly the Joint Collector can exercise suo moto power of

revision under BSO 15(18) at any time and no time limit is fixed to exercise

such power when the pattas were issued on misrepresentation, fraud or

mistake. Therefore, the principle laid down in the order in N. Nagamani

Parvathi (1 supra) has no application to the present facts of the case and a

similar case came up before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

Munganda Venkataratnam v. Joint Collector5. In view of the principle laid

down therein, the contention of the petitioners based on Mekala Pandu's case

cannot be accepted.

Finally, it is contended that the question of payment of compensation

does not arise when the pattas are cancelled and if the land is acquired or

resumed for public purpose in terms of G.O.Ms.1307, Revenue (Assg.I) dated

23.12.1993, the Government is under obligation to pay exgratia. But this

position is not accepted by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

Mekala Pandu's case and consequently held that the pattadars are entitled to

compensation in terms of provisions of Act 30 of 2013 when the patta land is

resumed for public purpose but here the land is not resumed for public purpose

but pattas were cancelled as the pattas were issued by oversight or mistake. In

such a case, the question of payment of compensation in terms of Act 30 of

2013 does not arise and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

2006 (1) ALD 547

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

Considering the rival contentions and on perusal of the material

available on record, the points which need to be answered are as follows:

(1) Whether the Joint Collector/3rd respondent is competent to exercise suo moto power of revision under BSO 15(18)? If not whether the order passed by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition is liable to be set aside on the ground of lacking authority?

(2) Whether cancellation of patta approximately after 40 years invoking the power under BSO 15(18) is permissible?

(3) Whether the State is liable to pay compensation as per the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 in terms of Mekala Pandu's case and consequently the order of cancellation of pattas without payment of compensation be declared as illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside?

POINTS 1 & 2:

Points 1 & 2 are interconnected. Therefore, both the points are taken

up.

The first and foremost contention of learned counsel for the petitioners,

Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, is that the Joint Collector/3rd respondent is not

invested with any authority to exercise power under BSO 15(18) thereby the

order impugned is unsustainable under law. It is an undisputed fact that the

order impugned in this writ petition was passed by the Joint Collector/3rd

respondent cancelling the pattas by exercising suo moto power of revision. At

this stage, it is relevant to refer to, infra, BSO 15(18) for better appreciation of

facts and law.

"(18) Revision: - (1) The order of the authority making the assignment, if no appeal is presented, or of the appellate authority, if an appeal is disposed of, is final and no second appeal shall be admitted. But if, at any time after the passing of the original or appellate decision, the collector is satisfied that there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or that the decision was grossly inequitable or that it exceeded the powers of the officer, who passed it or that it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

misrepresentation he may set aside, cancel or in any way modify the decision passed by an officer subordinate to him. No order should be reversed or modified adversely to the respondent without giving the respondent a notice to show-cause against the action proposed to be taken adversely to him.

(2) The State Government, may, at any time, either suo moto or on application made to them, call for and examine the records relating to any decision or order passed or proceeding taken by any authority or office subordinate to them under the preceding sub-paragraph for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or property of such decision or order or as to the regularity of such proceeding and pass such order in reference thereto as they think fit. The Government may stay the execution of any such decision order or proceeding pending the exercise of their powers under this sub-paragraph in respect thereof."

The language employed in BSO 15(18) indicates that the Collector is

entitled to exercise power of either suo moto revision or on the application

made to him but merely because the word 'Collector' is employed in BSO

15(18) it cannot be held that passing of an order by the Joint Collector is said

to be without authorization. A similar contention was raised before the

learned single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of A.P in Munganda

Venkataratnam (5 supra) and the learned single Judge recorded the contention

and answered the contention in paragraph 12 of the order as follows:

"12. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that inasmuch as the BSO 15(18) empowers the Collector only, but not the Joint Collector, to cancel the patta for the grounds mentioned therein, first respondent had no jurisdiction to order a discreet enquiry into the validity of the assignments is, in a way, a self harming contention for two reasons (i) it amounts blowing hot and cold in the same breath. If first respondent really has no power or authority to deal with the appeal preferred by the petitioners to him the entire order passed by him, but not merely the observation with directions to the second respondent towards the end of the order, will have to be set aside. So petitioners cannot be heard to say that that portion in the order which is in their favour, though passed without jurisdiction, can stand and the other portion of the order which is unfavourable to them has to be set aside, (ii) Government of Andhra Pradesh through G.O. Ms. No. 77 Revenue, dated 22-1-1968 (published in part-I of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated 10-2- 1968 at pages 223 to 226) issued orders distributing the work subject wise among the District Collectors, Joint Collectors and Personal Assistants to the District Collectors, as per which, all the correspondence in the Collector's Office has to be carried out in the name of the District Collector, and the subject relating to 'assignment and transfer of land' is to be dealt with by the Joint Collector. So, first respondent by virtue of the said G.O., has the authority to deal with all the

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

subjects relating to assignment of land, which includes cancellation of assignment also."

In view of the principle laid down in the above decision, the Joint

Collector is competent to exercise power and deal with the issues regarding

assignment of land. However, in G.Munilakshmamma v. The District

Collector, Chittoor6 wherein Mandal Revenue Officer passed order of

cancellation this Court held that the MRO has no power to cancel the patta on

the ground of suppression or misrepresentation of material facts and since

Collector only has such power, order of cancellation of assignment passed by

the MRO was set aside.

In K. Rattamma v. G. Kotaiah7 the Court held that the Board Standing

Orders are only executive instructions for guidance of the revenue officials and

nothing more, prima facie BSO 15(18) was relied on by the petitioners does not

confer any right on them to cling on to the assignments made because it is well

known that fraud vitiates everything. Recently, the Apex Court in State of

Andhra Pradesh v. T. Suryachandra Rao, after discussing the entire case law on

the subject of fraud, held that no order obtained by fraud can be sustained. It

is also well known that in case of fraud, period of limitation would commence

from the date of discovery of fraud. Therefore, merely because a person could

successfully shield the fraud played by him in obtaining assignment of

Government land for several years, he cannot be heard to say that in view of

the lapse of time the assignment in his favour cannot be cancelled. Thus, the

Joint Collector is vested with the power to exercise power under BSO 15(18)

and the power can be exercised at any time in view of the language employed

in BSO 15(18). Earlier, the period was only three years for exercise of such

power under BSO 15(18) but the period of limitation of three years to exercise

order dated 05.02.1991 in W.P.No.14464 of 1990

1975(2) An.W.R 122

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

such powers was deleted by G.O.Ms.No.192, Revenue (B)1, dated 02.08.1985.

Therefore, there is no limitation to exercise power of suo moto revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on an unreported

decision of the combined High Court of the State of Telangana and the State of

Andhra Pradesh in N. Nagamani Parvathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1 supra)

wherein in paragraphs 62, 63 and 64, it was held as follows:

"62. In view of the above settled legal position, I hold on point (c) that the suo motu revisional powers, having been exercised in May,2018 through show cause notice by the Joint Collector, more than 4 years from the grant of assignment to the petitioner, cannot be MSR,J ::21:: wp_26046_2018 said to have been exercised within a reasonable time, since it is not the case of the State that it was precluded from verifying the revenue records and the number of khatas in each survey number before issuing assignment/DKT pattas to the petitioner or at any time thereafter within a reasonable time.

63. Also when the power under BSO 15 (18) is conferred on the Collector, the Joint Collector cannot exercise the said power. So, the exercise of such a power by the Joint Collector is wholly without jurisdiction.

64. When such exercise of power by the Joint Collector is without jurisdiction, there is no need for the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Vijayawada, within 40 days in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks."

In the above decision, the learned single Judge did not advert to

G.O.Ms.No.192 dated 02.08.1985, by virtue of which BSO 15(18) was amended

and the words - 'three years period of limitation to exercise power of suo moto

revision' is deleted. The learned single Judge also did not advert to the law

laid down by the erstwhile High Court of A.P in the earlier decision in

Munganda Venkataratnam (5 supra) where identical question was considered

by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the view expressed by the learned

single Judge in N. Nagamani Parvati's case is contrary to the view expressed by

another learned single Judge in M. Venkataratnam case. However, in the

latter decision i.e., N. Nagamani Parvati's case, amended provision is not

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

considered but in the earlier order the amended provision was considered.

Therefore, with great respect, I am not able to agree with the principle laid

down in N. Nagamani Parvati's case while agreeing with the law declared in M.

Venkataratnams's case.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that by exercising power

under BSO 15(18) a patta cannot be cancelled after advent of Andhra Pradesh

Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 [for short, 'Act 9 of 1977'].

In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision in Mandlappa @

Mandla Giriappa (2 supra) wherein the Court held as follows:

"When once the petitioner is in possession of the land for more than 30 years prior to commencement of the Act, he has perfected his title by adverse possession against the Government. This view of ours is supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka. In that case the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act (2 of 1979) and Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act were challenged as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act. In Para 24 of the judgment the Supreme Court held:

"Transferees of granted lands having a perfected and not a viodable title at the commencement of the Act must be held to be outside the pale of the provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Act must be so construed as not to have the effect of rendering void the title of any transferee which was not viodable at the date of the commencement of the Act."

7. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Further in a later case, Sunkara Rajyalakshmi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka 1985 (1) SCALE 445, it was clarified that the period of limitation which has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the title has been perfected by prescription is that which runs against the State Government and therefore it would be 30 years and not 12 years. In view of the principle laid down in the above Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner has perfected title by the date of commencement of the Act by being in continuous possession for over 34 years. Therefore, the transferee of assigned lands, who has perfected title by the date of commencement of the Act, has to be held to be outside the purview of the A.P. Act 9 of 1977. The Board Standing Orders also will not apply because they are also earlier to the commencement of the A.P. Act 9 of 1977 and therefore the Joint Collector or the authorities have no jurisdiction to resume the land of the Transferee of

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

assigned land, who has perfected his title by adverse possession by the date of commencement of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed."

In B. Adinarayana Murthy v. Collector, Ananthapur [3 supra], it was

held as follows:

"On this ground alone, I must say, the power of resumption of assigned lands cannot be extended beyond a reasonable period, in any event, not later than five to six years. Even within five to six years when the power has to be exercised, there must be necessary inspection by the authorities on the basis of which a decision to resume the lands be taken preceding a notice to the parties concerned. Section 4(1)(b) of the Act envisages that even if there is violation of certain terms and conditions by the assignee the land shall be restored to the assignee or his legal heirs as the case may be and if there is a violation of the terms of assignment for the second time, it would be open to the authorities to resume the lands. I have, therefore, no hesitation to say that the respondents have no authority to resume the lands after long lapse of more than 34 years on some flimsy grounds. The first question is answered accordingly."

In view of the principle laid down in the above decisions, after advent of

Act 9 of 1977, the revenue authorities are competent to resume the land as per

the provisions of the said Act and prior to advent of AP Act 9 of 1977 the revenue

authorities can exercise power under BSO 15(18) but Act 9 of 1977 is applicable

only where the land is alienated in contravention of Section 3 of the Act or

when there is violation of any other condition of the patta granted in favour of

the assignee. But here it is not the question of violation of any terms and

conditions of the patta granted in favour of the assignee and it is purely a case

of issue of patta inadvertently/oversight. In such a case, the revenue

authorities cannot resume the land by invoking any of the provisions of Act 9 of

1977. The only provision available against order of grant of patta/assignment

is to exercise suo moto power of revision under BSO 15(18) which enables the

District Collector to exercise suo moto power of revision to cancel patta when

it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or issue of patta by oversight

etcetera. Therefore, I am not able to agree with the principles laid down in

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

the above judgments for the reason that the cancellation of the patta is not

because of violation of any of the terms and conditions of the patta but on the

ground that the patta was issued by oversight. Further, on 24.01.2008 a joint

inspection was done by a team of officers consisting the Assistant Director,

Survey & Land Records, Chittoor, the Forest Settlement Officer, Chittoor, the

Tahsildar, Satyavedu and the Forest Range officer, Sathyavedu. In view of the

minutes recorded by the inspecting team, the land is a part of reserve forest.

Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the pattas cannot be

cancelled by exercising suo moto power of revision under BSO 15(18) after

lapse of approximately 40 years is without any substance. Hence, the same is

hereby rejected, while holding that such power can be exercised at any time in

view of law laid down in Munganda Venkataratnam case (5 supra).

POINT No.3:

One of the major contentions raised before this Court is that the State

has to pay compensation as per Act 30 of 2013 in case the land is required for

public purpose and placed reliance on Mekala Pandu's case (supra) in support

of his contention.

No doubt, if the land is resumed for public purpose, in terms of

G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993, ex gratia is required to be paid but as per

the decision in Mekala Pandu (supra) the assignee is entitled to claim

compensation on par with private patta holders. But, here it is not a case of

resuming land for public purpose but it is only cancellation of patta as the

patta was issued by oversight. As per the material, the land was notified under

Section 15 of the Forest Act as a reserved forest vide G.O.Ms.No.1668 Food and

Agriculture (Forest-III) dated 11.09.1969. A notice was issued under Section

20(3) of the Forest Act, which was challenged before this Court in the earlier

writ petition. In any view of the matter, pattas were issued in favour of the

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

petitioners by the Tahsildar without identifying the land on ground and without

verifying whether it forms part of reserve forest or not. When a notification

was issued under Section 15 of the Forest Act, the subject land would form part

of forest area, and even if it is not notified, when the patta was issued by

oversight or by mistake etcetera, the Collector can exercise power under BSO

15(18) and cancel the patta. No doubt there is lot of litigation before filing

this writ petition including civil suit which ended in favour of the respondent

No.7. In none of the writ petitions, the validity of the pattas was decided and

the earlier two writ petitions were decided at the stage of admission without

touching the merits of the case. Therefore, the orders in the earlier writ

petitions are of no assistance to these petitioners to claim any relief more so,

the order passed in the writ petition filed challenging the Section 20(3) notice

i.e., W.P.No.18493 of 2020. On the other hand, the right of the petitioners to

claim an injunction based on the possession was rejected by the decree and

judgment in A.S.No.4 of 2003 on the file Senior Civil Judge's Court,

Srikalahasti. The cumulative effect of all these orders including judgment in

AS.No.4 of 2003 establish that the land in dispute form part of 'forest' as

defined under Section 2 of the Act of 1980 thereby the petitioners herein, who

are claiming to be the assignees, are disentitled to claim any right or title over

the land based on the pattas issued by the revenue department by oversight.

When once the subject land was notified as reserved forest, the revenue has no

power to assign the same. Even after notification none of the villagers

including the petitioners raised any objections thereby the order of

cancellation cannot be said to be on flimsy grounds and the writ petition is

liable to be dismissed while holding that the State is not liable to pay

compensation as per the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 in terms of Mekala

Pandu's case (supra).

MSM,J WP_8277_2021

In view of my foregoing discussion, I hold that the petitioners are not

entitled to claim any relief in the present writ petition and that pattas can be

cancelled at any time after amendment of BSO 15(18) by way of G.O.Ms.192,

dated 02.08.1985 and that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 11.01.1968

distributing the work between Collector and Joint Collector, the Joint Collector

is competent to exercise the power under BSO 15(18) and finally the orders

passed in earlier writ petitions are of no assistance to these petitioners to

claim any relief in this writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed.

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as

to costs.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 16.08.2021

Vjl