The District Collector, ... vs V. Rangappa Died,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2288 AP

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                         &
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

                    WRIT APPEAL No.1036 of 2012

                   (Taken up through video conferencing

 The District Collector, Chittoor,
 Chittoor District & another
                                                          .. Appellants.

      Versus

 V.Rangappa (died),
 S/o late Venkataswamy & another
                                                          .. Respondents


 Counsel for the Appellants          :       Mr.Syed Khader Mastan, G.P.
                                             attached to the office of the
                                             learned Addl. Advocate
                                             General


 Counsel for Respondents             :       Mr. K.Satyanarayana Murthy

 Date of hearing                     :       08.04.2021

 Date of pronouncement               :       07.07.2021


                              JUDGMENT

(per C. Praveen Kumar, J)

1) Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.19087 of 2005, dated 27.01.2011, the District Collector,

Chittoor, preferred the present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of

Letters Patent Act.

2) The facts, which lead to filing of the Writ Appeal, are as

under :

i) The Tiruchanur Village in Tirupati Rural Mandal was declared

as a minor inam village under the provisions of Andhra

Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into

Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as, 'Inams Abolition

Act, 1956'). Pursuant thereto, the lands in the inam village

stand vested with the Government, free from encumbrances,

except in respect of lands in which the inamdars are entitled

for a patta. The Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Srikalahasthi, took

up suo motu enquiry of regularization of inam lands in

Tiruchanur Village, covered under title deed No.464 under the

Inams Abolition Act, 1956 and accordingly issued notice under

Section 3(1) of the said Act, to find out as to (1) whether the

lands are inam lands or ryotwari lands; (2) whether the said

lands are located in inam village or ryotwari village and also as

to (3) whether the said lands are held by any institution.

After due enquiry, an order came to be passed under Sub-

Section (3) of Section 3 of the Andhra Inams (Abolition and

Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, declaring the lands as

(i)inam lands, (ii) are in an Inam Village, and (iii) are held by

an institution. The said decision was published in Chittoor

District gazette extraordinary, dated 24.03.1963. In the

gazette, the ryoti lands covered under paimoish numbers were

not notified as the rights on covered land vest with the

government. Further, in pre-abolition records, such as No.2

Adangal, for the Fasli 1361, 1362, 1372, Fair Land Register,

Rough Fair Adangal, Correlation Register, the said Paimash

No.1115, which was described as poramboke land was noted

as 'Kotramangalam Kalva'.

ii) After the amendment to A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion

into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, Section 2A came to be introduced

notifying the communal porambokes. After completion of

Survey and Settlement Operations by the Survey Department,

the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor suo motu conducted

enquiry under Section 3(1) of the said Act and passed an

order under Section 3(3) declaring lands as imams lands

located in Tiruchanur Inam Village and that the lands not held

by institution and the communal lands was brought under

Section 2A of the Act. This decision of Inams Deputy

Tahsildar was got published in Chittoor District Gazette

Extraordinary No.09, dated 03.09.1984, in which the subject

land was notified as 'Kalava Poramboke'. It appears that the

gazette notification, wherein the subject lands were notified

as "Kalava Poramboke', was never challenged and the same

has attained finality.

iii) During verification of the records and the inspections

conducted by the Task Force it has come to light that the

lands which were classified as 'Kalava Poramboke' in

Sy.No.378/2, ryotwari pattas were granted by the Inams

Deputy Tahsildar under Section 7 (1) of Inams Abolition Act,

treating the lands as inam lands. The enquiry by the task

force revealed that the very same Inams Deputy Tahsildar,

who rendered decision declaring the land in Sy.No.378/2, an

extent of Ac.4.50 cents of land in Tiruchanur Village as 'Kalava

Poramboke', took up an enquiry under Section 3(1) of the

Inams Abolition Act and declared the land as Inam Dry and

the decision under Section 3(3) of the Act was published in

Chittoor District Gazette Extraordinary, dated 09.08.1985.

iv) The dispute now relates to land in Sy.No.378/2 of Tiruchanur

Village admeasuring Ac.6.47 cents which correlates to

paimash No.1115. Being satisfied with the documentary

evidence filed by the applicants, Inam Deputy Tahsildar,

Chittoor issued ryotwari patta in respect of land admeasuring

Ac.4.50 cents in Sy.No.378/2 part, west of Tiruchanur Village

under Section 4 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956. The order

of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar came to be passed on

26.10.1985.

v) On coming to know that the very same Inams Deputy

Tahsildar granted patta to one Rangappa, after due enquiry,

vide proceedings dated 26.10.1995, the State, represented by

the District Collector, preferred an appeal before the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Tirupati. By an order dated 29.08.1998, the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, set aside the order of the

Inam Deputy Tahsildar holding the suit land as kalava

poramboke. It was held that the land in Sy.No.378/2 of

Tiruchanur Village, measuring Ac.6.47 cents, is classified as

kalava poramboke and the same is also reflected in SLR

(Survey & Land Records). Since the land is a kalava, the same

would be a communal land falling under Section 2-A of Inams

Abolition Act, 1956. As the possession of land published in the

District Gazette on 03.09.1984 attained finality, it was held

that the Inam Deputy Tahsildar has not followed the

procedure contemplated under the Inams Abolition Act while

declaring the said land as an inam land. It was also held that

he has no jurisdiction to declare a communal Government

land as inam land. For the aforesaid findings, the order of the

Inams Deputy Tahsildar was set aside.

3) Assailing the order of the R.D.O., a revision came to be filed

before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration by the

applicant. After hearing all concerned and taking into consideration

the material available on record, the Commissioner of Appeals vide

his order dated 19.01.2000, remanded the matter back to the

R.D.O. for obtaining details listed in his own file No.319/94 at page

No.115 and dispose of the same as per law. It would be appropriate

to extract the finding, which is as under:

"Perused the records and considered the arguments of the Learned Counsel carefully. Records reveal that the same points were raised by the R.P. before the R.D.O. The R.D.O's file indicates that R.D.O. gave instructions to the M.R.O. to inspect the land and report whether any 'kalva' is existing on the ground, and if so its starting and ending points and whether the 'kalva' is being used as a supply channel, and its source. He also wanted a report on the physical features of the land and wanted a report with copies of Field Measurement Book and extract of the village Accounts. However the file does not contain any follow up action in obtaining these details before the impugned orders were passed on 29.8.1988. On a careful consideration I feel that it is necessary to examine the points mentioned by the R.D.O. to examine the case and accordingly the case is remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer for obtaining details listed in his own file No.319/94 at page No.115 and dispose of this case as per law."

4) The matter was again dealt with by R.D.O. vide proceedings

number D.Dis.No.615 of 2000. After narrating the facts in issue, the

arguments advanced and taking into consideration the observations

made by the Commissioner of Appeals, while remanding the matter,

allowed the appeal filed by the Collector.

5) It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the

order of Revenue Divisional Officer, which is as under :

"In the above scenario I am of the opinion that if the land is ryothi in nature it would not have been classified as kalva Poramboke by the Survey and

Settlement authorities. Further the classification has not been contested any point of time. Hence the nomenclature of the suit land cannot be changed and therefore the decision of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar treating the land as inam dry is quite against law and out of his jurisdiction. Therefore the earlier decision rendered by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor declaring the suit land as Kalva and notifying in the District Gazette No.9, Dt,.3-9-84 is confirmed.

With the above findings the orders of Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chitoor passed in S.R.No.142/85, Dt.26-10- 1985 is set aside and the appeal filed by the Collector is allowed."

6) The order of the R.D.O. dated 20.10.2003 was challenged

before the Commissioner of Appeals on the ground that in spite of

earlier direction to consider the report submitted by M.R.O. or the

report of inspection of the years 1967-1968, the R.D.O. failed to do

so. The Commissioner of Appeals, Office of Chief Commissioner of

Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, dealt the

matter exhaustively and ultimately vide order dated 18.10.2004

allowed the appeal of the applicant, setting aside the decisions of

Inam Deputy Tahsildar published in the gazette dated 03.09.1984;

orders of the R.D.O., Tirupati dated 20.10.2003 and accordingly

confirmed the order dated 26.10.1985 passed by the Inam Deputy

Tahsildar, wherein he ordered grant of ryotwari patta to the

applicant. The operative portion of the order is as under :

"In the above circumstances, I set aside the decision of the Inams Dy. Tahsildar, Chittoor published in District Gazette No.9, Dt.03.09.1984 and the impugned orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi in D.Dis.No.615/2000, Dt.20.10.2003 and confirm the orders passed by the Inams Dy.Tahsildar in S.R.No.142/85, Dt.26-10-1985 wherein he had granted Ryotwari Patta to the petitioner herein in respect of the scheduled land."

7) A perusal of the order of the Commissioner go to show that as

against the decision of Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, published

in gazette dated 03.09.1984, wherein the subject land was

described as kalva poramboke, there is another decision of Inam

Deputy Tahsildar under Section 3(3) of the Inams Abolition Act,

1956 declaring the said land as inam land, in inam village and not

held by an institution, which came to be published in the District

gazette dated 09.08.1985, wherein, it was held that Village map

does not show existence of "kalava" (canal) in Sy.No.378; the Field

Measurement Sketch of Sy.No.378 does not show existence of any

kalava and that the land is a barren land without any cultivation,

having one round well and two small sheds existing on ground.

8) Challenging the order of the Commissioner of Appeals,

W.P.No.19087 of 2005 came to be filed by the District Collector,

Chittoor. After hearing all concerned, the High Court found that the

issues raised are all pure questions of fact which cannot be gone

into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so, when

the litigation has been toiling in the courts for more than 25 years.

In the absence of any legal issue being raised, the Court confirmed

the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals. Challenging the

order passed by the learned Single Judge on 27.01.2011, the

present Writ Appeal is filed.

9) Sri Syed Khader Masthan, learned Government Pleader,

attached to the office of the Additional Advocate General, mainly

submits that a perusal of the record, more particularly, the decision

of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, and the District Gazette

dated 03.09.1984 clearly indicate that land admeasuring Ac.6.47

cents in Sy.No.378/2 of the Tiruchanur Village is declared as kalava

poramboke and the same stands vested with the Government in

view of Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act. He placed on record

the original record in support of his plea. He further submits that

since earlier decision of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar published in the

District Gazette on 03.09.1984 was not challenged, any decision

taken by any authority subsequent thereto, without questioning the

District Gazette dated 03.09.1984 would be illegal, improper and

incorrect.

10) On the other hand, Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that as the

respondents are in possession of the land since 1937 and the order

passed by the Commissioner of Appeals, reflects consideration of the

matter in detail, the order under challenge requires no interference.

He further pleads that since the dispute is only on the factual

aspects, which has been dealt with in detail by the appellate

authority, it would not be appropriate for this Court to have a re-

look into the factual position based on record, which, as observed by

the appellate authority, contain number of corrections without any

attestation of the same by the person who made such corrections.

11) The point that arises for consideration is, whether the land in

dispute is an inam land or a kalava poramboke?

12) The original record of Rough Fair Adangal relating to

Tiruchanur Village, Tirupati Rural, Chittoor District, is placed before

us. A perusal of the same would show that as against land in

Sy.No.378/2, the Paimash number is shown as 1115P describing it

as kalava and the extent of land is shown as Ac.6.47 cents. In the

remarks column it was stated as Kotramangalam Kalava -

Swarnamukhi Nadi.

13) In Adangal No.2 of the year 1951 of Tiruchanur Village, in

column No.17, which refers to the remarks of the Village Karanam,

land in Sy.No.1114 is shown as Swarnamukhi Nadi and Sy.No.1115

as Kotramangalam Kalava. But it is to be noted here that the extent

of land, as shown in Paimash No.1114 is Ac.150.00 cents and as

against Paimash No.1115, the extent is shown as Ac.5.00. The

Adangal No.2 of Fasli 1361, which is of the year 1951, also shows

existence of kalava in Paimash No.1117 in an extent of Ac.4.00

cents.

14) A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals

dated 18.10.2004 would show that the Revenue Divisional Officer

instructed Mandal Revenue Officer to inspect the land and report

whether any 'kalva' is existing on the ground, and if so its starting

and ending points and whether the 'kalva' is being used as supply

channel and its source. The Revenue Divisional Officer also wanted a

report on the physical features of the land, copies of Field

Measurement Book and extract of Village Accounts. It was held that

the file does not contain any follow up action in obtaining these

details before the impugned order was passed by the Revenue

Divisional Officer on 29.08.1998. In spite of the same, the Revenue

Divisional Officer proceeded with the mater and declared the land as

inam lands. Therefore, it appears that without collecting the

material, as instructed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the

Mandal Revenue Officer, an order came to be passed setting aside

the order of Inams Deputy Tahsildar, treating the suit land as inam

land, as void.

15) One other aspect which requires to be noted in the order of

the Appellate Authority is that the gazette notification dated

03.09.1984 declaring the suit land as 'Kalva Poramboke' was not

challenged at any point of time, but another decision came to be

rendered by the very same Inams Deputy Tahsildar, contrary to the

earlier gazette notification, declaring the subject land as inam land

in Inam Village, which came to be published in District Gazette

dated 09.08.1985.

16) The order of the Commissioner of Appeals, at page 95 of the

paper book filed along with the Writ Appeal, relate to a correlation

statement in D. Dis. 319/94 and lands in Survey No. 114 and 115. It

was held that there were some corrections in the correlation but the

same were not authenticated by any official. It was further held that

original correlation in full is not on record. Hence, the Appellate

Authority doubted the decisions taken showing the land as 'Kalva

Poramboke" as well as "Inam Land". It would be appropriate to

extract the said finding, which is at page 96 of the paper book, as

under:

"obviously, these corrections led to the issuance of inconsistent and incorrect decisions under Section 3(3) with respect to same S. No. showing it as "Kalva Poramboke" as well as "Inam Land"."

17) The Commissioner of Appeals also refers to a memo dated

17.03.2001 issued by the Deputy Director, Central Survey Office,

Hyderabad, referring to a village map published in 1992 by the

Central Survey Office, wherein there are no details of "kalva" in

Survey No. 378. Taking into consideration the contents and

proceedings issued in the year 2001, it was held that the land in

Survey No. 378/2 of Tiruchanur Village is a barren land without

cultivation and that there is one round well and two small sheds

existing on ground with two electric lines passing through land. In

view of the above, it was held that the land in Survey No. 378/2 is

not "Kalva Poramboke" but "Inam Land" and accordingly the

Commissioner of Appeals set-aside the notification dated 03.09.1984

and consequent proceedings treating the said land as 'Inam Land',

though, the validity of the gazette notification dated 03.09.1984 was

never challenged in any of the proceedings impugned either before

the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Commissioner of Appeals or

before the High Court. It can also be said that the Commissioner of

Appeals referred to certain documents, which were never looked

into by the primary authority and the same was made the basis to

comment on the over writings in the correlation statement, which

was signed by the S.D.T. Chittoor. The change in the physical

features of the land could be due to lapse of time and illegal

occupation. Therefore, it appears that the appellate authority

referred to certain documents which were not before the Revenue

Divisional Officer, when the said land was declared as "Kalva

Poramboke".

18) As stated earlier, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ

petition on the ground that the issue involves many factual aspects

and that the matter is pending since last 25 years. It is no doubt

true that some of the issues involved are factual in nature, but it is

to be noticed that when the gazette notification issued in the year

1984 was in force, another notification came to be issued in the year

1985 which is totally contrary to the notification issued in the year

1984 and without reference to 1984 gazette notification. Though the

gazette notification of the year 1984 was not under challenge before

any authority at any point of time, the Appellate Authority in its

order dated 18.10.2004 has set-aside the same. Therefore, we are

of the view that having regard to the nature of dispute in existence

which not only involves disputed factual aspects but also contains

issuance of two inconsistent gazette notifications based on factual

aspects, the same requires reconsideration. Hence, we feel that it is

a case where the matter requires consideration at length by the

Revenue Divisional Office, Tirupathi, afresh by taking into

consideration all the material relied upon by the appellate authority;

the report of Mandal Revenue Officer and the inspection reports of

1967 - 1968.

19) Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed, setting aside the

order of the learned Single Judge and the matter is remanded back

to the Revenue Divisional Office, Tirupathi, for fresh consideration,

keeping in view the documents relied upon by the appellate

authority and the legal issues involved, after hearing all concerned,

in accordance with the law. Till such time status quo as on today to

be maintained in all respects with regard to the property in dispute.

No order as to costs.

20) All the pending miscellaneous applications; if any, are closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                          C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J


Dt. 07/07/2021
Skmr/SM.



       HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

W.A. No. 1036 of 2012 (Per C. Praveen Kumar, J)

Dt. 07.07.2021

SM..