Smt. Yathapu Manoharamma, vs The Chief Commissioner Of Land ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9400 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU


                    W.P.No.24169 of 2008
O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed to call for the entire records

pertaining to the order of the 1st respondent dated 24.09.2008

confirming the earlier order dated 17.12.2007 of the 2nd

respondent.

2. This Court has heard Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy,

learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government

Pleader for Revenue.

3. At the request of this Court, the original file bearing

No.DD-E2-1834-2007 has also been produced.

4. The petitioner is seeking a certiorari to call for the

records pertaining to the order of the 1st respondent dated

24.09.2008 and the order of the 2nd respondent dated

17.12.2007 vide proceedings in DD-E2-1834-2007.

5. The petitioner claims to have succeeded to the property

and states that she is in possession and enjoyment of the

same. She had also approached the respondents for

correction of revenue records. It is stated that the petitioner‟s

father-in-law Y.Bayanna was assigned the land measuring

Ac.2.28 cents in 1982 and he has been in enjoyment of the

land. In 1997, a show cause notice was issued to him asking

him to show cause why the assignment should not be

cancelled. Actually the petitioner‟s father-in-law died in 1993

itself. Therefore, the petitioner‟s mother-in-law gave a reply

which was considered and the proceedings were dropped.

Later, the petitioner‟s mother-in-law died in 2003. The

petitioner and her brother-in-law Buchi Reddy succeeded to

the property and later partitioned the estate. The present

land Ac.2.28 cents is got by the petitioner in the family

partition. In October, 2006, a show cause notice was issued

to the petitioner to which she gave an objection and gave her

documents. Basing upon a representation of the 3rd

respondent, the current round of proceedings were initiated.

The petitioner had no access to a report based on which the

orders were passed, but she did contest the matter and

written arguments and case law etc., submitted. It is

submitted that the proceedings dated 17.12.2007 were

passed cancelling the patta holding that the property was

allotted to benami in the name of P.Balaiah a business man

and in the name of Y.Bayanna, the father-in-law of the

present petitioner. Learned counsel submits that written

arguments were submitted along with case law, but the same

was overlooked. This was also confirmed in the proceedings

dated 24.09.2018 which was contested both by P.Balaiah and

by the present writ petitioner. It is these two orders dated

24.09.2008 and 17.12.2007 which are challenged. Learned

counsel submits that there is an absolute non-application of

mind in this case, evidence was not considered and the law

on the subject was totally ignored. The very important issue

of limitation is not at all considered. The counsel for the

petitioner also submits that against the very same

proceedings; P.Balaiah filed W.P.No.220 of 2009 which was

allowed basing on the judgment of P.Anasuyamma and

another v. the Commissioner of Land Revenue1. Learned

counsel therefore submits that for the very same reasons, this

writ petition should be allowed.

6. In reply to this, learned Government Pleader submits

that the orders passed are absolutely correct and valid and

that after giving due notice, the impugned orders were

1 1994 (2) ALT 329

passed. It is submitted that at every stage, the petitioner has

been given an opportunity to contest the matter and that

thereafter only the impugned order is passed. It is also

submitted that in a case of this nature, this Court should

lightly interfere and should not exercise appellate jurisdiction.

7. Learned Government Pleader also submits that when

the respondents found that the original assignment itself is

contrary to law, they gave a show cause notice to the

petitioner, who contested the matter all through and only

thereafter after going through the records and the explanation

submitted, the original impugned order was passed as was

the confirmatory order. It is also submitted that the essential

points raised in the impugned order about the benami nature

of the transaction are not questioned and that this Court

should not interfere. The orders passed are reasoned orders

and as the initial allotment is fraudulent, the impugned

orders are correct.

8. This Court after considering the submissions notices

that in the written arguments filed, a specific issue is also

raised about limitation which is not well answered. The

original patta was given in 1982, the impugned action in this

case initially commenced in 1997; it was dropped and

thereafter in 2007, the current round of litigation started. 25

years after the original allotment, the present round of

litigation has commenced. Learned counsel for the petitioner

during the course of the submissions relied upon the

judgment reported in the case of P.Anasuyamma (1 supra).

This judgment is also referred to and filed when the matter

was heard before the authority. Learned counsel also relies

upon the judgment of the Division Bench reported in Director

of Settlements, Hyderabad and others v. Lingareddy

Ramakrishna Reddy and others2, wherein it was held that

the power should be exercised within a reasonable period.

9. In the case of P.Anasuyamma (1 supra), it is clearly

held that to initiate proceedings long after the land allotted

would be unreasonable and unequitable. It was also held

that even if the Board Standing Orders were relied on in case

of misrepresentation of fraud, the power should be exercised

within three years.

2008 (6) ALD 566

10. Similarly, in the case of Lingareddy Ramakrishna

Reddy (2 supra), which is a Division Bench judgment, the

following was held in para 18:

"18. No doubt as contended by the learned Government Pleader for the appellants, no limitation is prescribed for initiating suo motu enquiry and the show cause notice cannot be defeated on account of any bar of limitation. It is well settled that in the absence of any period of limitation prescribed under the statute, action proposed has to be taken within reasonable period in exercise of the statutory power and it shall not smack of oppressiveness or arbitrariness. The impugned show cause notice seeks to suo motu reopen the issue of grant of pattas more than 37 years after their issuance, that too without any valid or justifiable grounds. Such a course of action certainly amounts to exercise of power in unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive manner. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, a perusal of the record would show that the whole exercise was started with extraneous motive and under political pressure and without application of mind."

11. The petitioner‟s counsel also relied upon the judgment

reported in Madamaneni Chinnaswamy (died) per lRs v.

Joint Collector, Chittoor and others3 with regard to the

2009 (1) ALT 424

plea of alleged fraud etc. The following was held in para 24 of

the said judgment:

24. On the basis of the abundance of authority, I am of the considered opinion that even while exercising power under a statute such as the Act in the instant case, the authorities cannot act mechanically ignoring the long delay in either the aggrieved party approaching the authorities or initiating suo motu proceedings. In either case, unless there are proper and sufficient reasons such as blatant fraud played by the purchaser of the assigned land and the same which despite due diligence did not come to light, the authorities cannot initiate proceedings beyond reasonable period after the assigned land is sold. Lest the remedy will become worse than the disease.

12. These judgments are still standing the test of law and

are good law. Therefore, it is clear that the exercise of power

in this case 25 years after the original allotment is per se bad

and deserves to be set aside.

13. Even if the case is viewed against the backdrop of the

judgment of the single Judge in Madamaneni

Chinnaswamy's case (3 supra), it is clear that the pleading

or proof with regard to the original benami allotment is

absolutely poor. The alleged actions of fraud, mis-

representation etc., which are pleaded in the counter are not

enough to grant any relief. How the fraud was played, who

was the parties to the fraud and what was the action taken

after discovery of fraud, mis-representation etc., are not at all

spelt out in the counter filed. A bald statement of „fraud,

misrepresentation‟ etc., will not suffice. There should be

blatant and clear fraud which needs to be pleaded with

sufficient clarity and also proved. Therefore, on this ground

also, this Court holds that the action is vitiated.

14. Lastly, this Court notices that a very same order

namely, the proceeding dated 17.12.2007 in D.Dis.(E2)

1834/2007 and the subsequent proceedings dated

24.09.2008 were the subject matter of the writ petition filed

by P.Baliah (W.P.No.220 of 2009). A learned single Judge

relying upon this case clearly came to the conclusion that

both the orders namely dated 24.09.2008 and the earlier

order dated 17.02.2007 are bad in law and set aside the

same. In that view of the matter, this Court also is of the

opinion that the impugned orders should be set aside.

15. There is an error of law apparent on the face of the

record. Despite the case law of P.Anasuyamma (1 supra)

being cited, the same was overlooked resulting in a failure of

justice. Issue of limitation/failure to exercise power within a

reasonable period etc., are totally overlooked. Alleged fraud

etc., is also unclear. This is visible from a reading of the

record and his manifest. Therefore, this Court is of the

opinion that it is a fit case in which a certiorari should be

issued. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as

to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall

stand dismissed.

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date: 07.12.2022 KLP