Tummala Annayya Choudhary, ... vs Dist. Collector, Nellore ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4792 AP

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETTION NO.7988 OF 2007

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, questioning the proceedings

D.Dis.NO.4842/06 dated 22.02.2007 issued by the second

respondent under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land

and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short „the Act‟), deleting the

entries in the pattadar pass book and title deed and further,

directing the fourth respondent to take possession of the land of

this petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

The facts of the case as pleaded in the writ petition are that,

the petitioner purchased land admeasuring an extent of Ac.12-73

cents under various registered sale deeds in Nekunampeta,

Kondapuram Mandal, Nellore District and he has been in

possession of the property. The third respondent issued pattadar

passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner. At the time of

purchase of the property, the petitioner verified the records and

after fully satisfied about the authenticity of the title of the vendor

and entries reflected in the revenue records, he purchased the

same.

After lapse of more than eight years, on a complaint made by

one Dama Chanchaiah, the third respondent/Revenue Divisional

Officer sent a report vide RCF 1339/2005 dated 08.08.2006 stating

that the lands which the petitioner has purchased is Government MSM,J WP_7988_2007

Lands and the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in

favour of the petitioner without following procedure, as the

petitioner played fraud deliberately.

      It   is   also   averred   in     the   report     by    the   third

respondent/Revenue      Divisional      Officer   that   the    land     in

Nekunampeta Village was grabbed by affluent outsiders and

therefore, the first and foremost step to be taken is to get the

registered documents cancelled and requested to cancel the

pattadar pass book as well as title deed issued in favour of the

petitioner. The third respondent also stated that, on verification of

original records and Diglot, it is evident that the lands are

Government Lands/Assessed Waste Lands. Pursuant to the said

report submitted by the third respondent on 08.08.2006, the first

respondent/District Collector vide Enquiry Notice Rc.7/1148/06

dated 18.08.2006 informed the petitioner and other land owners

that the third respondent in his letter dated 08.08.2006 informed

that the petitioner purchased government land, obtained pattadar

passbook and title deed, requested for cancellation of the same. It

is also alleged that, the third respondent is vested with power

under Section 9 of the Act to initiate suo motu action, therefore,

called upon the petitioner to attend enquiry on 26.08.2006 before

the Joint Collector, Nellore, the second respondent herein.

A notice dated 18.08.2006 was issued by the first respondent

directing the petitioner to appear before the second respondent for

enquiry. A perusal of the definition of „Collector‟ contained in

Section 2(2) of the Act means, Collector of a District and includes a MSM,J WP_7988_2007

Joint Collector. Obviously, it shows that District Collector and

Joint Collector are two different authorities. A perusal of Section 9

shows that the Collector either suo-motu or on application, call for

record and enquire about any order passed by any Recording

Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer

under Sections 3,5,5A or 5B in respect of any record of rights

prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity,

correctness, legality or propriety of the order.

The petitioner further contended that, a conjoint reading of

the definition Collector and Section 9 show that, either the District

Collector or the Joint Collector can exercise suo-motu power

independently, but the District Collector cannot invoke Section 9

and direct the parties to appear before the Joint Collector. In case,

if the District Collector invokes Section 9, he himself has to

conduct an enquiry or the Joint Collector for the purpose of

conducting enquiry himself can invoke Section 9, but the District

Collector cannot invoke Section 9 and enquiry be conducted by the

Joint Collector.

The contents of the Notice dated 18.08.2006 issued by the

first respondent shows that the main allegation is that the property

covered under the sale deeds standing in the name of the petitioner

is a Government Land. If it is the allegation of the first respondent

that it is a Government Land, he cannot invoke Section 9 and

conduct an enquiry for two reasons:

(i) Section 9 itself states that it can be invoked only in case of

Section 3,5,5A or 5B, in the present case, the first MSM,J WP_7988_2007

respondent intends to cancel the pattadar passbooks

issued under Section 6-A. The first respondent cannot

invoke Section 9 and exercise suo motu power for

cancellation of pattadar passbook issued under

Section 6-A. Moreover, Section 3,5,5-A and 5-B pertains

to inter se rights between private parties and entries made

in the record of rights. The issuance of pattadar pass

books is under Section 6-A and unless the record of

rights prepared under Sections 3,5,5-A & 5B are rectified,

the question of cancellation of pass books does not arise.

Therefore, Section 9 pertains only with regard to

correction of record of right, but not cancellation of

passbooks.

(ii) Section 12 of the Act stipulates that the Act shall not

apply to a Government land. The notice dated 18.08.2006

issued by the first respondent shows that the land is

„Government land‟. Therefore, as per the case of the first

respondent, the Act would not be applicable and he

cannot exercise power under Section 9 of the Act to

adjudicate as to whether it is a Government land or not.

Unless and until the respondents admit that it is not a

government land, the first respondent does not have

jurisdiction under Section 9 and conduct an enquiry for

cancellation of patadar pass books and title deeds. The

action of the first respondent is beyond the scope of

Section 9 of the Act.

MSM,J WP_7988_2007

It is alleged that, the land is a Government land and the only

recourse for the first respondent would be under the Land

Encroachment Act, 1905, but not under Section 9 of the Act. In

case, if the provisions of Land Encroachment Act are invoked, the

respondents have ample power to adjudicate with regard to the

objections under Sections 6 & 7 of the Land Encroachment Act.

Even the documents relied upon by the third respondent/

Revenue Divisional Officer is Resurvey and Resettlement Register

of Nekunampeta No.2, Kavali Taluk, Nellore District. The said

record is prepared under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey

and Boundaries Act, 1923. There are 14 columns in the Register.

1st column pertains to Resurvey Number, 2nd column relates to

Sub-division, 3rd column is old survey number, 4th column is

Government or Inam, 5th column is Dry/Wet, 6th column pertains

to source of irrigation, 7th column pertains to single or double crop,

8th column pertains to class, 9th column is Taram, 10th column is

rate, 11th column is extent, 12th column is Assessment, 13th

column is name of the pattadar and 14th column is remarks. A

perusal of the Register shows that Column No.14 reflects as "G"

and Column No.12 pertaining to Assessment shows that

assessment has been made in respect of Survey Numbers

mentioned in the Sale Deeds i.e. Sy.Nos.602,69 to 737 including

sub-survey numbers.

A perusal of the definition of „Government Land‟ contained in

Section 3(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act,

1923, shows that, „Government Land‟ means any land not forming MSM,J WP_7988_2007

an estate or any portion thereof. Obviously all lands which do not

form a part of the estate for the purpose of survey under the Act,

1923 are being termed as „Government Land‟ and this includes the

other private lands which do not form a part of the Estate.

Obviously, the Resurvey and Resettlement Register does not make

any distinction includes both and Column No.4 only differentiates

between „Government land‟ and „Inam Land‟. Therefore, the

proceedings impugned in the writ petition are illegal, arbitrary,

without jurisdiction and requested to set-aside the same.

It is further contended that, aggrieved by the notice issued

by the first respondent dated 18.08.2006, the petitioner and others

filed W.P.No.25419 of 2006 raising aforesaid objections and vide

order dated 06.12.2006, the Court disposed of W.P.No.25419 of

2006 directing the petitioners therein to submit an additional

explanation pursuant to the said notice and further directed the

second respondent before whom the petitioners therein were

directed to appear by the first respondent to consider their

additional explanation/representation. In pursuance of the

direction of the Court dated 06.12.2006, the petitioner appeared

before the second respondent and submitted a detailed additional

explanation/representation. The second respondent without taking

into consideration the grounds which the petitioners have raised,

passed the impugned order dated 22.02.2007.

Respondent No.4 - Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapuram

filed counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondent No.2 - Joint

Collector, Nellore, denying material allegations, inter alia MSM,J WP_7988_2007

contending that the Joint Collector can exercise Revisional

jurisdiction which enables him to call for and examine any record

of rights prepared or maintained under Section 3 of the Act and

pass any order under Section 9 of the Act, which would result in

amending, modifying or annulling such record of rights in case he

is of the view that there has been irregularity in amending such

record of rights. The lands held by the petitioner are government

lands and Section 12 of the Act says that the Act is not applicable

to the land belonging to the State or Central Government. The

proceedings of the second respondent is unlawful and without

jurisdiction. The fourth respondent is competent to take

possession of the government lands under A.P. Land

Encroachment Act, 1905.

The Diglot Register of the village i.e. Settlement Register and

other records would also disclose that this land is government land

and that the petitioner is disentitled to claim pattadar pass book

and title deed for the land in dispute. As per the practice in vogue,

the government land is being verified periodically as and when

verification of government land is ordered by the Government and

there is no time limit for verification of the government land with

reference to the records and it is a regular feature in the district,

thereby, through verification it is found that the land is

government land as per the records.

It is contended that, the District Collector and Joint Collector

are not two different authorities and they are one and the same.

The definition of „Collector‟ as stated in the affidavit means MSM,J WP_7988_2007

Collector of a District and includes a Joint Collector. It is further

contended that, the word includes and clearly leaves the

impression that the District Collector and Joint Collector are one

and the same in discharging the duties of the department. It is also

stated that, as per G.O.Ms.No.77 Revenue dated 22.01.1968, the

Government issued orders relating to distribution of work among

District Collector, Joint Collector and Personal Assistants to

District Collector. Under these orders, the Joint Collector is vested

with power to deal with matters relating to pattadar pass books.

Further, Rule 13(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and

Pattdar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short „the Rules‟) states that

the Collector of the District and any officer designated by the

Collector for this purpose. Therefore, the Joint Collector is the

competent authority to pass an order under Section 9 of the Act, as

such there is no error or irregularity in the impugned proceedings

and the proceedings cannot be set-aside on this ground.

The contention of the petitioner that the pattdar pass book

and title deed can never be issued under Section 6-A of the Act is

not correct. The land held by the petitioner belongs to the

Government and pattdar pass books and title deeds were issued

irregularly and a decision over the property is to be arrived at

about the land held by the petitioner. Thus, there is material

irregularity. The Joint Collector vide D.Dis.4842/06 dated

22.02.2007 initiated proceedings and passed order under Section 9

of the Act. Section 6-A of the Act is only intended to correct entries

in title deeds and pattdar passbooks only by the Mandal Revenue MSM,J WP_7988_2007

Officer and it is a fit case to invoke provisions under Section 9 of

the Act and therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that, no

revision is maintainable against the orders, as it is without any

disobedience and requested to reject this contention.

Respondent No.2 also refuted the contention of the petitioner

that the government has initiated proceedings only under Land

Encroachment Act, 1905, but not under Section 9 of the Act, while

contending that, in the absence of issue of pattadar pass book and

title deed, it would be a direct recourse to invoke the Land

Encroachment Act, 1905. Unless the impediment that the

passbooks which have been issued erroneously is removed, it is

not possible to initiate action under Land Encroachment Act. In

the absence of cancellation of pass books exercising power under

Section 9 of the Act, the petitioner would prefer to produce

pattadar pass books and title deeds claiming right over the land.

Hence, it is necessary to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 9 of

the Act and thereby, cancellation of pattadar pass books and title

deeds under Section 9 of the Act is proper and in accordance with

the power conferred on the second respondent.

It is specifically contended that, cancellation of pattadar pass

books and title deeds is an initial step in aid to initiate proceedings

under the Land Encroachment Act and therefore, the order cannot

be set-aside on that ground.

The respondents also specifically explained the relevancy of

entries in Diglot Register prepared under Section 11-A of the MSM,J WP_7988_2007

Estate Abolition Act and in the absence of any claim under the Act,

the land should be treated as Government Land for all practical

purposes. Therefore, the entries are sufficient to conclude that the

land is „Government Land‟. Finally, it is contended that the

Collector and Joint Collector are vested with the powers under the

Act and therefore, the order cannot be said to be without

jurisdiction and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

During hearing, Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the

petitioner would contend that the Joint Collector is not vested with

the power when a notice under Section 9 of the Act is issued by the

District Collector. Apart from that, exercise of power under

Section 9 of the Act after long lapse of time is a serious illegality

and on the ground that the petitioner obtained pattadar pass book

and title deed by playing fraud on the authorities, the Revisional

jurisdiction cannot be exercised suo motu, based on the revision of

the third respondent by the District Collector under the provisions

of the Act. Therefore, the order itself is illegal and without

jurisdiction.

Apart from the above grounds, learned counsel for the

petitioner further submitted that, when a direction was issued by

the High Court in W.P.No.25419 of 2006 on 22.02.2007, permitting

the petitioner to appear before the second respondent to submit

additional explanation/representation and when the petitioner

submitted the same in obedience of the orders of the Court, the

second respondent ought to have considered those contentions in

detail, but the contentions urged in the additional MSM,J WP_7988_2007

representation/explanation was not considered. This itself is

sufficient to set-aside the order impugned in the writ petition and

requested to set-aside the same.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

contended that, the second respondent/Joint Collector is vested

with the power under Section 9 of the Act, as the order was issued

by exercising power under Section 3 of the Act; and that, Section

6-A of the Act has no application and it applies to rectify the

mistake in the pattadar pass book and title deed. But, it was not

the case of the petitioner that the entries in the pattadar pass book

and title deed were rectified by exercising power under Section 6-A

of the Act. It is the consistent case that the pattadar pass book and

title deed was issued under Section 3 of the Act. Even according to

the allegations made in the counter affidavit, the respondents

intended to initiate proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act,

1905, which will enable the petitioner to putforth his objections

with regard to the title by submitting explanations to the show

cause notice under Sections 6 or 7 of the Land Encroachment Act,

1905. But, at this stage, this Court cannot undertake such

disputed question of title, while exercising power under Article 226

of the Constitution of India.

It is also further contended that, in view of G.O.Ms.No.77

Revenue dated 22.01.1968, relating to distribution of work among

District Collector and Joint Collector, the Joint Collector is vested

with the power to deal with matters relating to pattadar pass MSM,J WP_7988_2007

books; consequently, there is absolutely no merit in the writ

petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

Considering rival contentions, perusing the material

available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as

follows:

1. Whether the Joint Collector is competent to pass the impugned order when a notice was issued by the District Collector?. If not, whether the order impugned in the writ petition is vitiated by any irregularity and liable to be set- aside?

2. Whether exercise of power under Section 9 of the Act by the second respondent cancelling the pattadar pass book and title deed of the petitioner and issue of direction to the fourth respondent to take possession of the property is in accordance with law? If not, whether the order passed by the second respondent impugned in this writ petition is liable to be set-aside?

3. Whether the second respondent considered the additional explanation/representation submitted by this petitioner and answered those grounds. If not, whether the order is liable to be set-aside?

P O I N T No.1

The first and foremost contention raised before this Court is

that, notice was issued by the District Collector directing the

petitioner to submit an explanation to the Joint Collector and the

Joint Collector issued the impugned orders. Such practice is not

permitted under law and therefore, the order is liable to be set-

aside. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

would contend that, Collector includes Join Collector and in view

of G.O.Ms.No.77 Revenue dated 22.01.1968, work is distributed MSM,J WP_7988_2007

among the District Collector and Joint Collector, the Joint

Collector is vested with the power to deal with matters relating to

pattadar pass books; thereby, Joint Collector is competent to

conduct an enquiry and pass impugned order.

The word „Collector‟ is defined under Section 2(2) of the Act

and according to it, „Collector‟ means the Collector of a district and

includes „Joint Collector‟. Therefore, the Joint Collector is

competent to review the orders either on the application of either of

the parties or by suo motu to decide the legality, regularity of the

order passed by the recording authorities or appellate authority

under Section 3,4,5-A or 5-B of the Act.

When G.O.Ms.No.77 Revenue dated 22.01.1968 was passed

distributing the work between Collector and Joint Collector; powers

under the Act were allotted to the Joint Collector in distribution of

work as per the G.O. referred above, the entire proceedings have to

be taken up by the Joint Collector himself by issuing notice, taking

up suo motu revision. But here, the District Collector issued notice

to the petitioner as if he has taken up suo motu revision under

Section 9 of the Act. In the absence of distribution of work among

the Collector and Joint Collectors in terms of G.O. referred above

and allotment of the work i.e. to deal with the matters under the

Act, work was allotted to the Joint Collector and the Collector is

not entitled to issue notice taking up suo motu revision under

Section 9 of the Act, when it is in exclusive domain of the Joint

Collector in view of distribution of the work. Issue of notice by the

first respondent calling upon this petitioner to appear before the MSM,J WP_7988_2007

Joint Collector to pass order, such notice is a procedural

irregularity and therefore, the order is irregular. Hence, the point is

answered against the respondents and in favour of this petitioner.

P O I N T No.2:

The second respondent, based on the notice issued by the

first respondent under Section 9 of the Act took up suo motu

revision, calling for an explanation from the petitioner to examine

the record of recording authority i.e. Mandal Revenue Officer or

Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3,5,5-A or 5-B in respect

of record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to

the regularity, correctness and legality or propriety of the decision

taken. But, preparation and updating of record of rights for all

lands is dealt under Section 3 of the Act and therefore, the Joint

Collector is vested with the power to examine the issue of validity

of orders passed by the recording authority under Section 3 from

the date of Act came into force. Therefore, the Joint Collector is

competent to examine the legality, propriety and regularity of the

order passed under Section 3 in issuing pattadar pass books and

title deeds, subject to following the procedure prescribed under the

Act.

The second contention of the petitioner is that, the Joint

Collector is incompetent to issue a direction to the fourth

respondent to take possession of the property, while exercising

powers under the Act. Indirectly, the respondents admitted that

they intended to initiate proceedings under the provisions of Land

Encroachment Act, 1905 and cancellation of pattadar pass books MSM,J WP_7988_2007

and title deeds are only a step in aid i.e a preliminary step to

prevent the petitioner from raising a plea of prima facie title to the

property based on presumption under Section 6 of the Act. The

operative portion of the order reads as follows:

"....The sellers of the land has not mentioned from whom the land acquired except saying that as "Pitrarjitham" and obtained without having the title over the land. In view of the fact that no documentary evidence how the title transcended on to the vendors of the respondent was filed, the nature of the land being Government land and as per Section 12 of A.P. Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, the rights of records shall not be conferred the land classified as Government Land, I do hereby order under the Authority conferred under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 that the entries related to the following scheduled land be deleted from the Pattadar Pass Book No.238744 and title deed issued in favour of the respondent.

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapujram is requested to take possession of the schedule mentioned lands and implement in the village and Mandal Accounts suitably and report compliance."

The schedule is annexed to the order consisting of different

extents in different survey numbers. Issue of the direction at the

last paragraph of the order is questioned while exercising power

under the Act that the Joint Collector is incompetent to issue such

direction, since the person in unauthorized occupation is to be

removed from possession by following the procedure prescribed

under the Land Encroachment Act. Even the respondents also

admitted in Paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit and the same is

extracted hereunder for better appreciation of the case:

"In reply to Para „10‟ it is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the only recourse for the respondent would be under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, but not under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 is not correct. It is submitted that in the absence of issue of passbooks. It would be a direct recourse to invoke provisions under Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Unless the impediment that the MSM,J WP_7988_2007

passbooks which have been issued erroneously is removed, it is not possible to initiate the action under Land Encroachment Act. In the absence of cancellation of passbooks under Section 9 before proceeding under the Encroachment Act, the petitioner would prefer to produce pattadar passbooks and title deeds claiming right over the land. Hence it is dire necessity to proceed under Section 9 of the Act at the 1st instance and pass appropriate orders. The cancellation of the passbooks under Section 9 of the Act is appropriate one and this is supposed to be the first step and invoking provisions under Land Encroachment Act is subsequent one. It is step by step procedure. The invoke of provisions under Section 9 of the Act is intended to deal with the irregularity in issuing passbooks and to arrive at a decision over the propriety of the land. The invoke of provisions under Land Encroachment Act is intended to adopt a procedure under the Act in taking possession of the Government lands by evicting the encroacher over the Government Land."

It is evident from the statement made in Paragraph No.8 of

the counter affidavit that, the respondents intended to initiate

proceedings under Land Encroachment Act and cancellation of

pattadar pass books and title deeds are the preliminary steps to

prevent the petitioners to raise such plea that they are having title

to the property, based on the notice in the revenue records. Even a

bare look at the order impugned in the writ petition, the petitioner

is an encroacher of the government land. In such case, Mandal

Revenue Officer is competent to issue notice under Section 7 (a) &

(b) of the Act, calling upon this petitioner for explanation to the

show cause notice within the specified time and after conducting

necessary enquiry, Mandal Revenue Officer has to pass an order.

Later, a notice under Section 6 is required to be issued, fixing the

date calling upon this petitioner to vacate the land, which is in the

unauthorized occupation of the encroacher and pass appropriate

orders. But, in the present case, the Joint Collector while

exercising powers under the Act directed the Tahsildar to take MSM,J WP_7988_2007

possession of the property for such power is not vested on the

Joint Collector under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, issuing a

direction to Mandal Revenue Officer/fourth respondent to take

possession of the property is illegal, arbitrary and without

authority of law and the direction issued to Mandal Revenue

Officer to take possession of the property is hereby set-aside.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

P O I N T No.3:

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was permitted to

file additional explanation/representation by this Court vide order

in W.P.25419 of 2006 dated 06.12.2006. In obedience of the

direction issued by this Court, the petitioner approached the

second respondent and submitted additional explanation/

representation, but it was not considered. A perusal of the entire

order impugned in the writ petition, there is absolutely no

reference about additional explanation/representation and

contentions therein. But, there is a vague reference about the

additional explanation/representation filed by the petitioner in

Paragraph No.4 of Page No.3 of the order. But, various contentions

raised by the petitioner were not dealt with by the second

respondent in detail. However, in the last paragraph of the same

page, the Joint Collector/second respondent herein referred the

order passed in W.P.No.25419 of 2006 dated 06.12.2006,

whereunder, the petitioner was permitted to file additional

explanation/representation and the orders were received on

20.12.2006. In the first paragraph of Page No.4 of the impugned MSM,J WP_7988_2007

order, the second respondent admitted about submission of

additional explanation/representations pursuant to the directions

issued by the High Court in W.P.No.25419 of 2006 with a request

to order the Revenue Divisional Officer and his subordinates to

produce all revenue records pertaining to the land in Nekunampeta

Revenue Village pertaining to the land of Nekunampeta Revenue

Village from 1904 July, 2006 as follows:

1. No.3 Adangal (Previously No.2 Adangal) showing the cultivation particulars of the Sy.Nos. as detailed in the explanations.

2. No.13 and 14 accounts showing the payment of all taxes over the land (corresponding new accounts for the relevant Sy.No.)

3. And other Revenue Records as submitted at the time of bearing to substantiate the contentions of the respondents and to decide all relevant issues includes lack of jurisdiction as contended by the respondent.

In Special Deputy Collector, Land Eviction, Hyderabad v.

Konda Lakshman Bapuji1 the Court observed that, if really the

Government was keen on summarily evicting the writ petitioners,

they should have taken proceedings within a reasonable time after

the writ petitioners or their lesser had encroached upon the land.

The occupation of the property by the writ petitioners, being open

and for an appreciable length of time, can be taken, prima facie to

have a bonafide claim to the property requiring an impartial

adjudication according to the established procedure of law. Since

there is a bonafide dispute of title between the Government and the

W.A.Nos.61 & 62 of 1976 dated 14.11.1983 MSM,J WP_7988_2007

writ petitioners, it must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary

Courts of Law. The Government cannot decide such questions

unilaterally in its own favour and evict them summarily on the

basis of such decision.

The second respondent/Joint Collector distinguished the

judgment in Special Deputy Collector, Land Eviction,

Hyderabad v. Konda Lakshman Bapuji (referred supra), but did

not issue any direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to produce

the documents for perusal and decide the issue based on various

contentious issues. The finding of the second respondent is only

ten lines and thus, did not consider the various contentions urged

in the additional explanation/representation, as directed by the

Court in W.P.No.25419 of 2006 dated 06.12.2006. Therefore, the

order of the second respondent/Joint Collector impugned in the

writ petition is cryptic, not supported by any reasoning and

contrary to law.

What an order shall contain normally is not specified

anywhere but the order must be reasoned one since the judgment

or order in its final shape usually contains in addition to formal

parts:- (i) A preliminary or introductory part, showing the form of

the application upon which it was made, the manner in which and

the place at which, the writ or other originating process was

served, the parties appearing any consent, waivers, undertakings

or admissions given or made, so placed as to indicate whether they

relate to the whole judgment or order or only part of it, and a

reference to the evidence upon which the judgment or order, is MSM,J WP_7988_2007

based and (ii) A substantive or mandatory part, containing the

order made by the Court" as has been said in Halsbury's Laws of

England (4th Edition, Volume 26 P. 260). Thus, in view of the

requirements of an order or judgment referred above, an order

pronounced on the bench shall contain the reasoning since the

judge speaks with authority by his judgment. The strength of a

judgment lies in its reasoning and it should therefore be

convincing. Clarity of exposition is always essential. Dignity,

convincingness and clarity are exacting requirements but they are

subservient to what, after all, is the main object of a judgment,

which is not only to do but to seem to do justice. In addition to

these cardinal qualities of a good order, there are the attributes of

style, elegance and happy phrasing which are its embellishments.

In the words of Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Sabyasachi Mukharji, the requirement of a good order is reason.

Judgment/order is of value on the strength of its reasons. The

weight of an order/judgment, its binding character or its

persuasive character depends on the presentation and articulation

of reasons. Reason, therefore, is the soul and spirit of a good

judgment. Equity, justice and good conscience are the hallmarks of

judging. One who seeks to rely only on principles of law, and looks

only for the decided cases to support the reasons to be given in a

case or acts with bias or emotions, loses rationality in deciding the

cases. The blind or strict adherence to the principles of law

sometimes carries away a judge and deviates from the objectivity of

judging issues brought before him. Justice M.M. Corbett, Former MSM,J WP_7988_2007

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Africa, recommended

a basic structural form for judgment writing, which is as follows:

"(i) Introduction section;

(ii) Setting out of the facts;

(iii) The law and the issues;

(iv) Applying the law to the facts;

(v) Determining the relief; including costs; and

(vi) Finally, the order of the Court."

Keeping in view various principles and observations

including the definition of order and judgment, the Apex Court laid

down certain guidelines for writing judgments and orders in Joint

Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat, v. Saheli Leasing and

Industries Limited (Civil Appeal No. 4278 of 2010) in para No. 7 of

the judgment and they are extracted hereunder:

"7. These guidelines are only illustrative in nature, not exhaustive and can further be elaborated looking to the need and requirement of a given case:-

(a) It should always be kept in mind that nothing should be written in the judgment/order, which may not be germane to the facts of the case; It should have a co-relation with the applicable law and facts. The ratio decidendi should be clearly spelt out from the judgment/order.

(b) After preparing the draft, it is necessary to go through the same to find out, if anything, essential to be mentioned, has escaped discussion."

(c) The ultimate finished judgment/order should have sustained chronology, regard being had to the concept that it has readable, continued interest and one does not feel like parting or leaving it in the midway. To elaborate, it should have flow and perfect sequence of events, which would continue to generate interest in the reader.

(d) Appropriate care should be taken not to load it with all legal knowledge on the subject as citation of too many judgments creates more confusion rather than clarity. The foremost requirement is that leading judgments should be mentioned and the evolution that has taken place ever since the same were pronounced and thereafter, latest judgment, in which all previous judgments have been considered, should be mentioned. While writing judgment, psychology of the reader has also to be borne in mind, for the perception on that score is imperative.

(e) Language should not be rhetoric and should not reflect a contrived effort on the part of the author.

(f) After arguments are concluded, an endeavour should be made to pronounce the judgment at the earliest and in any case not beyond a MSM,J WP_7988_2007

period of three months. Keeping it pending for long time, sends a wrong signal to the litigants and the society.

(g) It should be avoided to give instances, which are likely to cause public agitation or to a particular society. Nothing should be reflected in the same which may hurt the feelings or emotions of any individual or society."

Hence, a judgment or an order shall contain the above seven

minimum requirements i.e., (a) to (g).

In the case of "Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan

Tewari2" the Supreme Court has held as under:-

"7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions at the Bar. It is true that a writ court is very slow in interfering with the findings of facts recorded by a departmental authority on the basis of evidence available on record. But it is equally true that in a case where the disciplinary authority records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which no reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ court would be justified if not duty-bound to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. The writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case. Non-application of mind by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority, non-recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. The High Court has, in the case at hand, found all these infirmities in the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The respondent's case that the enquiry was conducted without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity for leading evidence in defence has not been effectively rebutted by the appellant. More importantly the disciplinary authority does not appear to have properly appreciated the evidence nor recorded reasons in support of his conclusion. To add insult to injury the appellate authority instead of recording its own reasons and independently appreciating the material on record, simply reproduced the findings of the disciplinary authority. All told, the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have faltered in the discharge of their duties resulting in miscarriage of justice. The High Court was in that view right in interfering with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority."

The recording of reasons is necessary. It is well known that

"conclusions" and "reasons" are two different things and reasons

must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular

conclusion.

(2017) 2 SCC 308 MSM,J WP_7988_2007

In "Breen v Amalgamated Engg. Union3", it was held that

the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good

administration. In "Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v.

Crabtress4" it was observed that "failure to give reasons amounts

to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the

decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or

conclusion arrived at".

In "Union of India v. Mohan Lal Kapoor5", the Apex Court

held as under:

"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached."

The Apex Court in the case of "Uma Charan v. State of

Madhya Pradesh6" said:

"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable"

The Apex Court of India in the case of "Raj Kishore Jha v.

State of Bihar7", has held that reasons are the heartbeat of every

conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless.

The Apex Court also in "Competition Commission of India

v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.8" said:

1971(1) AIIER 1148

1974(4) IRC 120 (NIRC)

(1973) 2 SCC 836

AIR 1981 SC 1915

(2003) 11 SCC 519 MSM,J WP_7988_2007

"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge- made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision

By applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in

the judgments (referred supra) the order impugned in the writ

petition is cryptic, without considering various contentions and not

supported by sound reasoning to arrive at such conclusion by the

second respondent. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-

aside, since it is not in consonance with the law referred above,

though the order is passed by a quasi judicial authority in

discharging his public duty, being a public officer. Hence, the order

is liable to be set-aside.

In view of my finding on Point No.1, conduct of enquiry in

the earlier revision taken up by the first respondent by issuing

notice, though he is incompetent, in view of G.O.Ms.No.77 Revenue

dated 22.01.1968, as the powers under the Act were allotted to the

Joint Collectors, as admitted by the respondents in the counter

affidavit. Therefore, issue of notice by the first respondent under

Section 9 of the Act is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.77 Revenue dated

22.01.1968, thereby, further proceedings taken up by the Joint

Collector is vitiated by irregularity. At the same time, the direction

issued by the second respondent to the fourth respondent to take

possession is without any authority of law, as the provisions of the

Act does not authorize the second respondent to issue such

JT 2010 (10) SC 26 MSM,J WP_7988_2007

direction, except to issue or cancel pattadar pass book and title

deed under Section 3 and rectify the mistakes under Section 6-B,

so also making entries in the revenue records, issuing title deed on

receipt of intimation under Section 4(1) of the Act by conducting

necessary enquiry under Section 5(3) of the Act and entertain an

appeal under those orders, as such, the direction is liable to be set-

aside, as discussed above. Similarly, the order is cryptic. Hence,

the order impugned in the writ petition deserves to be set-aside, as

the second respondent committed an irregularity in conducting

enquiry based on the notice issued by the first respondent and

issued a direction without any authority of law by passing the

impugned cryptic order.

In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the

proceedings D.Dis.NO.4842/06 dated 22.02.2007 issued by the

second respondent as illegal and arbitrary; while setting-aside the

same. However, this order will not preclude the respondents to

initiate appropriate proceedings against this petitioner strictly

adhering to the procedure under the Act, based on G.O.Ms.No.77

Revenue dated 22.01.1968.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any,

shall stand dismissed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:23.11.2021 SP