T.C. Rajarathnam (Died) vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2398 AP

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

               WRIT PETITION No.44992 OF 2018


% Dated 06.05.2022

#
T.C. Rajarathnam (died)
Resident of Chandragiri Village,
Chandragiri Mandal,
Chittoor District and two others              ..... Petitioners

Vs.

$
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by Principal Secretary,
Revenue, Amaravati and five others            ..Respondents



JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 06.05.2022




      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY


   1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
      may be allowed to see the Judgments?

   2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
      marked to Law Reporters/Journals

   3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see
      the fair copy of the Judgment?
                                                                    MSM,J
                                                            wp_44992_2018
                                    2


      * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY


              + WRIT PETITION No.44992 OF 2018

% Dated 06.05.2022

#
T.C. Rajarathnam (died)
Resident of Chandragiri Village,
Chandragiri Mandal,
Chittoor District and two others                  ..... Petitioners

Vs.

$
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by Principal Secretary,
Revenue, Amaravati and five others                ..Respondents


! Counsel for the petitioner       : Sri K. Rama Mohan

^ Counsel for the respondent       : Government Pleader for Revenue

<GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred


   1. AIR 1971 SC 2355
   2. 1973 (1) An.W.R. 322
   3. (2013) 3 SCC 182
   4. (1956) 1 All E.R 855
   5. (2007) 5 SCC 211
   6. 1961 (2) An.W.R. 329
   7. 2005 (2) ALT 62
   8. 1999 (4) ALD 55
   9. (1979) 4 SCC 642
   10.      2008 (5) SCC 281
   11.      (1974) 3 SCC 318
   12.      (2010) 6 SCC 384
   13.      (2006) 3 SCC 224
   14.      AIR 1999 SC 3381
   15.      1990 Crl.L.J 2149
   16.      (2010) 4 SCC 785
   17.      2012 (10) SCC 734
                                                                      MSM,J
                                                              wp_44992_2018
                                    3




   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETITION No.44992 of 2018

ORDER:

The long standing harassment of the mighty Government

meted out to the original petitioner - T.C. Rajarathnam, who is a

poor ryoth, depriving him from enjoying land of an extent of Ac.5-00

cents in S.No.78/2 (P) of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal,

Chittoor District, though the litigation attained finality in the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court lead to filing of this writ petition by the original

petitioner - T.C. Rajarathnam, claiming writ of mandamus, declaring

the action of the third respondent in including land of an extent of

Ac.5-00 cents in S.No.78/2 (P) of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Urban

Mandal, Chittoor District from the list of properties prohibited from

registration under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, by

treating the same as Government land, despite granting patta under

Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition

and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, (for short „the Act‟) in

favour of the original petitioner by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement

Officer, Nellore, which is confirmed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in

S.L.P.Nos.12594-12595 of 2016, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and

contrary to the law, so also to declare the rejection order of the

fourth respondent dated Nil/09/2018 as illegal, arbitrary and

contrary to law, consequently, direct the sixth respondent to delete

the subject land from the list of properties prohibited from

registration under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908.

MSM,J wp_44992_2018

The case of the petitioners in brief is that Petitioner No.1/late

T.C. Rajarathnam purchased land of an extent of Ac.5-00 cents in

S.No.78/2 (P) of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal,

Chittoor District (hereinafter referred as „subject land) from one

P. Padmanabhaiah through a registered sale deed in the year 1968

for valid consideration. The Estate of Mangalam Village was taken

over by the Government under the provisions of the Act. Petitioner

No.1 submitted a claim under Section 11(a) of the Act before the then

Settlement Officer, Nellore claiming ryotwari patta forr the land

purchased by him. After conducting enquiry, examining the

witnesses and verifying the records, the Settlement Officer, Nellore,

granted ryotwari patta over the subject land in SR.No.13/11(a)81

CGR dated 19.09.1981.

The Director of Settlement, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has

taken up suo-moto revision against grant of ryotwari patta under

Section 5(2) of the Act, passed orders setting-aside the orders of the

Settlement Officer, Nellore vide order in R.P.No.187/83 dated

20.08.1985.

Aggrieved by the order, Petitioner No.1 preferred a revision

before the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, A.P.

Hyderabad, wherein the Commissioner set-aside the orders of

Director of Survey and Settlements vide proceedings

No.P3/2439/1985 dated 11.08.1985 and remanded the case to the

Director of Settlements for fresh enquiry and disposal.

The Director of Settlements has again set-aside the orders of

Settlement Officer, Nellore vide order dated 30.11.1991. The

Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, before

whom revision was filed, has passed order vide Proc.No.P3/2104/92 MSM,J wp_44992_2018

dated 25.07.1994 duly allowing the revision and confirmed the

orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981.

Since the orders of Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land

Records, Hyderabad, were not implemented by the District Collector,

Chittoor, Petitioner No.1 filed W.P.No.25640 of 1995 before the High

Court, the writ petition was disposed of on 17.11.1995 directing the

Joint Collector, Chittoor to pass appropriate orders within two

months.

Instead of implementing the orders passed by the

Commissioner, the District Collector preferred W.P.No.5718 of 1997,

which was allowed on 18.07.2000, setting-aside the orders of C.S.S.

& L.R vide order dated 18.07.2000 and remanded the case to the

Commissioner. The Commissioner of Appeals has taken up the

remanded case for enquiry and confirmed the orders of Settlement

Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981 vide order dated 30.05.2001.

In pursuance of the orders passed by the High Court in

W.P.No.25640 of 1995 dated 17.11.1995, the District Collector,

Chittoor issued instructions to the Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban in

Ref.No.E1/2404/1992 dated 05.12.1996 to implement the orders of

the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981, but the Tahsildar

did not implement the orders. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner No.1 filed

W.P.No.22970 of 2001 before the High Court to implement the orders

of the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981. Parallel thereto,

the District Collector, Chittoor also filed W.P.No.10566 of 2001 to

quash the proceedings of Commissioner of Appeals in

Proc.No.P3/1003/2000 dated 30.05.2001. The High Court at

Hyderabad passed a common order in W.P.No.22970 of 2001 and

W.P.No.10566 of 2001 dated 13.05.2003, whereby, W.P.No.10566 of MSM,J wp_44992_2018

2001 filed by the District Collector was dismissed and W.P.No.22970

of 2001 filed by Petitioner No.1 was allowed, confirming the orders of

the Commissioner of Appeals, C.C.L.A, Hyderabad.

Thereupon, the District Collector filed W.A.No.1582 of 2003

against the orders in W.P.No.22970 of 2001 dated 13.05.2003

against Petitioner No.1, apart from filing another W.A.No.1644 of

2003 against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals. The

Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals on

18.09.2015, confirming the orders passed by the learned single

Judge, holding that the grant of settlement patta dated 19.09.1981

has been accepted by the Court and the appellants are under legal

obligation to effect necessary changes in the revenue records

concerning the subject matter.

Instead of abiding by the judgment delivered by the Division

Bench of the High Court, the District Collector, Chittoor preferred

S.L.P.Nos.12594-12595/2016 before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

against W.A.Nos.1582 of 2003 and 1644 of 2003 dated 18.09.2005.

The Division Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dismissed the

Special Leave Petitions. As the respondents did not stop harassing

Petitioner No.1 and did not implement the orders of this Court,

Petitioner No.1 filed C.C.No.378 of 2016 and finally, the

Tahsildar/Respondent No.6 implemented the orders passed by the

Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981 in the village accounts

by acknowledged Petitioner No.1 as pattadar of the subject land.

Though the orders of the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated

19.09.1981 was implemented in all the village accounts in respect of

the subject property in favour of Petitioner No.1, vide Khata No.642,

the subject property was included in the list of properties prohibited MSM,J wp_44992_2018

from registration under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act,

1908, still presuming that the same is government land and vested

with the Government, thereby virtually disabled Petitioner No.1 to

deal with the subject property as per his wish.

It is contended that, Petitioner No.1 submitted a

representation to the District Collector through Mee-Seva vide

application No.TTA011800009702 dated 19.05.2018 with a request

to the authority to delete the subject property from the list of

properties prohibited from registration. The request of Petitioner No.1

was rejected on Ni./09/2019. It is contended that the rejection order

of the Joint Collector/Respondent No.4 is perverse and without

assigning any reasons. Therefore, the petitioner approached this

Court by filing the present writ petition on various grounds.

During pendency of the writ petition, Petitioner No.1 - T.C.

Rajarathnam died and his legal representatives are brought on

record as Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 as per the orders of this Court in

I.A.No.1 of 2021 dated 28.12.2021, as they are entitled to prosecute

the proceedings, having succeeded the subject property.

The main grounds urged by Petitioner No.1 in the writ petition

are that, when once the Hon‟ble Apex Court dismissed

S.L.P.Nos.12594-12595/2016, confirming the judgment passed by

the Division Bench of the High Court in W.A.Nos.1582 of 2003 and

1644 of 2003 dated 18.09.2005, wherein the order passed by

Sri A.D.V.Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore in

S.A.No.13/11(a)/81/CGR dated 19.09.1981 was upheld, inclusion of

the land again in the list of properties prohibited from registration

under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, is illegal,

arbitrary and the respondents appears to have acted prejudicial to MSM,J wp_44992_2018

the interest of Petitioner No.1, even to implement the direction issued

by various authorities. Though the respondents lost their long

standing litigation in different Courts and authorities, including the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court, subjecting Petitioner No.1 to harassment

inventing a different story and inclusion of the subject land in the

list of properties prohibited from registration under Section 22-A(1)

of the Registration Act, 1908 is without any basis. When once the

patta was granted under Section 11(a) of the Act, Petitioner No.1

became the absolute owner of the property and the question of

vesting the subject property on the government on the presumption

that it is „Assessed Waste Dry‟ land in the pre-abolition record is

nothing but flouting the orders of the Hon‟ble Apex Court and such

conduct of the respondents is depreciable and thereby, the

Endorsement of the Joint Collector/fourth respondent dated

Nil/09/2018 in rejecting the request of Petitioner No.1 to delete the

subject land from the list of properties prohibited from registration

under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, is ex-facie illegal

and arbitrary and requested to set-aside the same, while issuing a

direction as claimed by Petitioner No.1.

Respondent No.3/Sri Hari Narayanan, District Collector,

Chittoor, a senior I.A.S officer heading the entire district

administration filed counter affidavit narrating the chequered history

of the litigation regarding grant of patta in favour of Petitioner No.1

by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore under Section 11(a)

of the Act. It is also contended that, for grant of ryotwari patta under

Section 11(a) of the Act, the following conditions have to be fulfilled:

a. The land applied for, should be a ryoti land. b. The claimant should be a ryot.

MSM,J wp_44992_2018

c. The claimants should have been admitted into possession of the land prior to 01.07.1945 for agricultural purpose.

It is contended that, in the present case, Petitioner No.1 has

not satisfied the above three ingredients, but was granted ryotwari

patta on belated claim petition against G.O.Ms.No.50 Revenue

Department dated 16.01.1974. It is further contended that, grant of

patta under Section 11(a) of the Act in favour of Petitioner No.1 is a

grave error, as Petitioner No.1 is not a landholder and the landholder

was not identified by the Settlement authorities. Post abolition

documents are not valid documents for grant of ryotwari patta. There

are many irregular orders issued by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement

Officer, Nellore and the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued

order on 25.04.1984 vide Memo No.486/J2/84-6, directing all the

Collectors not to implement the orders of Sri A.D.V. Reddy,

Settlement Officer, Nellore, as the orders were issued by the

Settlement Officer basing on post abolition agreement of sale.

Therefore, the respondents are not under obligation to implement the

order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore. The third respondent further

went on explaining the orders passed by various authorities and

Courts, so also result of said litigations.

A strange contention is raised before this Court in second

paragraph of Page No.4 of the counter affidavit of the third

respondent that, connected S.R. file is already cancelled and the land

was resumed to the Government on 30.12.1992 and at present,

ryotwari patta granted in favour of T.C. Rajarathanam is not in force

as the land was taken under Section 3(d) of the Estates Abolition Act,

remains as AWD in the revenue records, technically.

MSM,J wp_44992_2018

The third respondent also admitted about implementation of

the order mutating the name of Petitioner No.1 in the revenue

records by the Tahsildar only to avoid punishment in C.C.No.378 of

2016. Therefore, mere mutation of the name of Petitioner No.1 in the

revenue records would not confer any title to Petitioner No.1.

In obedience of the order of this Court in W.A.Nos.343 of 2015,

232 of 2012 and 353 of 2012 dated 23.12.2015, all the Government

lands were categorized and notified in Annexure in Section 22-

A(1)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e) of the Registration Act, the present survey number

is „Assessed Waste Dry‟ and included in the list of properties

prohibited from registration, under Section 22-A(1) of the

Registration Act, 1908. The specific contentions urged in the

counter affidavit are specifically extracted hereunder for better

appreciation of the case:

a. The then Settlement Officer, Nellore has granted ryotwari patta vide S.R.No.13/11(a)/1981, dt: 19.09.1981 basing agreement. This Settlement Officer has issued many irregular ryotwari pattas for communal lands. Hence Government has issued Memo No.486/J2/84-6, dt: 25.04.1984 and directed all the Collectors not to implement the orders of the Settlement Officer Sri A.D.V.Reddy.

b. The Government Memo is as follows "it has been brought to the notice of the Government by the some of the Collector and also a number of legislatures that Sri ADV Reddy retired Settlement officer has issued bogus settlement pattas both before and after his retirement. This has also been specially brought to the notice of the Government by the Collector's, Chittoor and Prakasam. There is thus the danger of valuable land going into the hands of unauthorized persons. The Director of Settlements has also cancelled such bogus pattas which were brought to notice in Prakasam District".

The Commissioner Survey Settlement and Land records is requested to bring to the notice of all the collectors about the issue of bogus pattas by Sri A.D.V.Reddy and issue instructions to them not to implement the settlement pattas in village accounts. He may also issue necessary instructions to the Director of Settlements in this regard to get all bogus pattas cancelled at once and ensure that holders of such bogus pattas do not derive illegal benefit out of it.

MSM,J wp_44992_2018

c. In the present case, the then Settlement Officer relied on registered sale deed agreement and post abolition documents which are not valid for grant of ryotwari patta as per the provisions of E.A.Act, 1948."

The third respondent further submitted that, though the issue

of Memo No.486/J2/84-6 dated 25.04.1984 was brought to the

notice the authorities, for the first time in W.A.No.802 of 2002,

W.A.No.1817 of 2005, W.A.No.731 of 2006 and W.P.No.8346 of 2002

dated 30.04.2011, the issue was submitted to the High Court and

orders were passed in favour of the Government in Sy.No.46 to an

extent of Ac.22-26 cents which is known as „Poolavanigunta‟ of

Tirupati Urban Mandal. Therefore, believing that Sri A.D.V. Reddy,

Settlement Officer, Nellore mischievously granted patta under

Section 11(a) of the Act in favour of the alleged allottees and those

pattas were disbelieved and passed orders in favour of the

Government. A disciplinary case was also pending against Sri A.D.V.

Reddy. The Government issued memo directing the Collectors not to

implement the orders passed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer,

Nellore dated 19.09.1981. Later, vide G.O.Ms.No.1407 Revenue (F)

Department dated 29.10.1986, a penalty of stoppage of pension @

15% per month was imposed against Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement

Officer, Nellore, for his misconduct and entertaining

applications/claim petitions and their disposal without following the

rules and instructions while working as Settlement Officer, Nellore.

Therefore, based on such order of an officer who is found guilty for

misconduct i.e Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore, this

Court cannot issue a direction to delete the property from the list of

prohibited properties and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

MSM,J wp_44992_2018

During hearing, Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned senior

counsel reiterated the contentions urged in the affidavit, while

submitting that the chequered history regarding issue of patta under

Section 11(a) of the Act, which ended in favour of Petitioner No.1 is

sufficient to conclude that Petitioner No.1 became owner of the

property, in view of the patta granted in his favour under

Section 11(a) of the Act. Even the order passed by various

authorities, learned single Judge and confirmed by the Division

Bench of the High Court and finally due to dismissal of Special Leave

Petition by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, the order dated 19.09.1981

passed by Sri A.D.V Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore attained

finality. But, the revenue authorities with adamancy did not

implement the order dated 19.09.1981 and made Petitioner No.1 to

roam around the courts to file one petition after the other. Even,

after issue of direction by the High Court, the respondents did not

implement the order, but only when contempt case was filed, the

respondent/Tahsildar implemented the order mutating the name of

Petitioner No.1 in all revenue records. The revenue authorities

abused their power, at the instance of political bigwigs and again

started another round of litigation by including the land in the list of

prohibited properties from registration under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act. Though, Petitioner No.1 filed an application in an

authorized mode by paying requisite fee, the fourth respondent/Joint

Collector passed the rejection order dated Nil/09/2018 impugned in

the writ petition, without any basis and without recording any

reasons. Therefore, the inaction of the respondents is ex-facie illegal,

arbitrary and motivated to harass Petitioner No.1 to deprive him from

enjoying the property.

MSM,J wp_44992_2018

It is further contended that the respondents raised a specific

plea with regard to the legality of the order dated 19.09.1981. Hence,

the legality of the order dated 19.09.1981 passed by Sri A.D.V.

Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore, is germane for deciding the real

issue, since the patta granted by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer

was confirmed even in the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while dismissing

S.L.P.Nos.12594-12595/2016. Therefore, various pleas raised by the

third respondent/District Collector regarding validity of the patta

issued under Section 11(a) of the Act by the Settlement Officer,

Nellore is irrelevant for deciding the real controversy in this petition

and appears to have made an allegation with an intent to prejudice

the Court and requested to set-aside the impugned endorsement i.e.

rejection order of the fourth respondent/Joint Collector dated

Nil/09/2018, while declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary.

Sri G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for

Revenue vehemently contended that, Sri A.D.V Reddy, Settlement

Officer, Nellore committed various irregularities and suffered from

penalty in departmental enquiry initiated against him for the

irregularities committed by him, while entertaining claims/petitions

under Estates Abolition Act and issue of pattas in their favour, which

attained finality, the government also issued Memo No.486/J2/84-6

dated 25.04.1984 not to implement the orders issued by Sri A.D.V.

Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore under Section 11(a) of the Estates

Abolition Act, which remained unchallenged. Apart from that, the

proceedings issued granting ryotwari patta in favour of Petitioner

No.1 were cancelled and the land was resumed to the government,

since it is classified as „Assessed Waste Dry‟. Hence, the subject land

is a government land and therefore, inclusion of the same in the MSM,J wp_44992_2018

prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act

is in accordance with law and no irregularity is committed, thereby,

the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and requested to dismiss

the writ petition.

Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available

on record, the point that need be answered by this Court is as

follows:

"Whether inclusion of Ac.5-00 cents in Sy.No.78/2 (P) of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Mandal, Chittoor District in the list of properties prohibited from registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, treating the same as government land, where patta granted in favour of this petitioner under Section 11-A of the Estates Abolition Act, as confirmed by the Apex Court is illegal. If not, whether the rejection order of the fourth respondent/Joint Collector dated Nil/09/2018 rejecting the request of this petitioner be declared as illegal, arbitrary and whether a direction be given to the respondents delete the property from the list of prohibited properties?"

P O I N T:

The chequered history narrated above regarding the litigation

for issue of patta under Section 11(a) of the Act in favour of

Petitioner No.1 by sriA.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore and

finally confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in

W.A.Nos.1582 & 1644 of 2003 and affirmed by the Hon‟ble Apex

Court, while dismissing S.L.P Nos.12594-12595 of 2016 is not in

quarrel.

Filing of writ petition challenging the inaction of the

respondents in implementation of the patta issued in favour of MSM,J wp_44992_2018

Petitioner No.1 under Section 11(a) of the Act and orders passed

thereon, including the contempt case filed by Petitioner No.1 in

C.C.No.378 of 2018, implementation of the same, mutating the name

of petitioner No.1 in the revenue records is also equally not in

dispute.

The only dispute is with regard to validity of the patta issued

by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore; impact of the

Government Memo No.486/J2/84-6 dated 25.04.1984, directing the

District Collectors not to implement the orders of the Settlement

Officer, Nellore and imposition of punishment on the Settlement

Officer in the departmental enquiry finding him guilty for the

misconduct are to be examined by this Court while deciding the

legality of the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned

endorsement.

Patta granted in faovur of Petitioner No.1 under Section 11(a)

of the Act is admitted by the third respondent in his counter

affidavit. The allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the

writ petition are even not disputed specifically in the counter

affidavit. Granting of patta in favour of Petitioner No.1 by the

Settlement Officer, Nellore, its confirmation by the Division Bench of

the High Court in W.A.Nos.1582 of 2003 and 1644 of 2003 dated

18.09.2005 and affirmation by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in

S.L.P.Nos.12594-12595/2016 is sufficient to confer title on Petitioner

No.1 for the subject property admeasuring Ac.5-00 in S.No.78/2 (P)

of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District,

thereby, Petitioner No.1 became the owner of the property. For the

first time, the respondents raised a contention that the patta granted

in favour of Petitioner No.1 by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, MSM,J wp_44992_2018

Nellore and in favour of other claimants cannot be implemented, as

the said Settlement Officer played fraud. If really, Sri A.D.V. Reddy,

Settlement Officer, Nellore granted any patta contrary to the law or

without following rules and provisions of the Andhra Pradesh

(Andhra Area) Estates Abolition Act, 1948 and the Rules framed

thereunder, nothing prevented the third respondent or any of the

other respondents to raise such plea before the learned single Judge

or the Division Bench of the High Court or before the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court. It is not known whether the respondents raised

such plea or not. Even assuming for a moment that, without

conceding that such plea was raised before the authorities under the

Estates Abolition Act and in the writ petitions filed before the learned

single Judge and Writ Appeals filed before the Division Bench of the

High Court, so also Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court,

such plea was negated and the order passed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy,

Settlement Officer, Nellore was confirmed. When once the

respondents raised such plea and got rejected, it is not open to the

respondents to raise the same contention in the present writ petition

about the legality of the patta granted in favour of Petitioner No.1 by

Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore in the third or fourth

round of litigation, since the issue was already decided.

Assuming for a moment that, no such plea was raised before

the authorities under the Estates Abolition Act or before the High

Court or Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the respondents are debarred from

raising such issue for the first time in the present petition, by

applying the principle of Constructive Res judicata i.e. to Explanation

IV to Section 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code.

MSM,J wp_44992_2018

Therefore, examining the issue with reference to the plea of

irregularities committed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer,

Nellore in issuing pattas in any angle, more particularly, raising such

plea before the authorities and turned down by the authorities and

the Court or if failed to raise such contention before the authorities

and High Court and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the respondents are

debarred from raising such contention for the first time in the writ

petition, in view of the bar under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code.

One of contention of the parties before this Court is that, the

language employed under Section 9 or Section 11 of the Estates

Abolition Act, indicates that the authorities are required to pass an

order, but not a judgment, but whereas, under Section 11 of Civil

Procedure Code, only in case of previous judgment, the principle of

res judicata is applicable. It is true that the word "decision" is used

in the said sub-section and not "judgment". The definition of

"judgment" given in Section 2 of Civil Procedure Code means the

statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order.

The word "decision" is not defined in the Act at one time, a

distinction was sought to be made between the word "decision"

appearing in Section 64-A of the Estates Abolition Act and the word

"judgment" as is used in the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that

while the word "judgment" includes the reasons or grounds therefor,

the "decision" may not include the reasons or grounds given therefor.

Even in the case of judgment, it is now settled that "the previous

decision on a matter in issue also operates as res judicata; the

reasons for the decision are not res judicata.(vide Mathura Prasad

vs. Dossibai1). In view of the decision, therefore, any distinction

AIR 1971 SC 2355 MSM,J wp_44992_2018

sought to be made between the two terms "decision" and "judgment"

on the ground of reasons would not now be correct. The Legislature

had never intended that the reasons or grounds on which a decision

proceeds should be binding. It is the issues decided that would be

binding upon the parties. The same meaning to the word "decision"

is attributed as given to the term "judgment". Section 9 does not

contain any provision on the lines of Explanation 4 to Section II, Civil

Procedure Code. Even a decision of the Tribunal before whom a

ground of attack or defence might and ought to have been raised in

an enquiry under Section 9 of the Act is not raised, even then it

would be deemed that it was a matter which would be directly and

substantially in issue and the decision would operate even in regard

to such matters as constructive res judicata and it will be open to

the Tribunal to consider such matter again in a separate enquiry

under Section 9.

In W.P.No.656 of 1966 dated 02.07.1968, the High Court had

an occasion to consider this very question and held that, "There is no

warrant for the arguments that under Section 9(6) it is only the

decision which is expressly given that is binding. Any judgment given

under Section 9(1) read with Section 9(4) is binding upon the parties

will not be permitted to dispute its correctness before a Court of law

and in the other case, it is binding upon the parties even in a

subsequent proceeding before the Tribunal or the Assistant

Settlement Officer". The said decision was carried in appeal and the

judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide

order in W.A.No.48 of 1970 dated 30.08.1971. Thus, the principles

of constructive res judicata can be invoked under Section 9(6) in so

far as this Court is concerned is now well settled.

MSM,J wp_44992_2018

In the instant case also, the order was passed by Sri A.D.V.

Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore under Section 11 of the Estates

Abolition Act, but not a judgment. Even then, the principle of res

judicata and constructive res judicata are applicable, in view of the

law laid down by the Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs.

Sri A. Padmanabha Swamy Varu2. Hence, by applying the

principle laid down in the above judgment, it is not open to the

respondents/Government to raise any pleas which were already

considered and decided in different rounds of litigation. Even

assuming for a moment that, if any such plea was raised, still the

respondents are debarred from raising such plea by applying the

principle of constructive res judicata, in view of Explanation IV to

Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the contentions

whatever raised regarding the validity of the order dated 19.09.1981

passed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore needs no

further consideration for adjudication of the issue before this Court.

No order bears a label of its being valid or invalid on its forehead.

Any one affected by any such order ought to seek redressal against

the same within the period permissible for doing so (vide Board of

Trustees of Port of Kandla vs. Hargovind Jasraj and another3)

In Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council4. The following

are the observations regarding the necessity of recourse to the Court

for getting the invalidity of an order established:

"An order, even if not made in good faith is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders.

2 1973 (1) An.W.R 322 3 (2013) 3 SCC 182 4 (1956) 1 All ER 855 MSM,J wp_44992_2018

This must be equally true even where the brand of invalidity is plainly visible : for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the court. The necessity of recourse to the court has been pointed put repeatedly in the House of Lords and Privy Council without distinction between patent and latent defects."

In Pune Municipal Corporation v. State of Maharashtra

and Ors5 , the Hon‟ble Apex Court discussed the need for

determination of invalidity of an order for public purposes:

"36. It is well settled that no order can be ignored altogether unless a finding is recorded that it was illegal, void or not in consonance with law. As Prof. Wade states: "The principle must be equally true even where the 'brand of invalidity' is plainly visible: for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the Court".

"The truth of the matter is that the court will invalidate an order only if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and circumstances. The order may be hypothetically a nullity, but the Court may refuse to quash it because of the plaintiff's lack of standing, because he does not deserve a discretionary remedy, because he has waived his rights, or for some other legal reason. In any such case the 'void' order remains effective and is, in reality, valid. It follows that an order may be void for one purpose and valid for another, and that it may be void against one person but valid against another."

In view of the principles laid down in the judgments referred

supra, it is settled law that, no invalidity be attached on the face of

the order. Merely because the order was passed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy,

Settlement Officer, Nellore, a casual invalidity cannot be attached to

such an order. Apart from that, the Government issued Memo

No.486/J2/84-6 dated 25.04.1984 invalidating the orders of

Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore, directing the District

Collectors not to implement the orders passed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy,

Settlement Officer, Nellore, who was punished for his misconduct in

the departmental enquiry. But, such memo is without notice to

Petitioner No.1 and such instructions are not binding on Petitioner

No.1. Therefore, Memo No.486/J2/84-6 dated 25.04.1984 whatever

5 (2007) 5 SCC 211 MSM,J wp_44992_2018

issued by the Government without notice to Petitioner No.1 directing

the Collectors not to implement the orders of the Settlement Officer,

Nellore is illegal, arbitrary and on such basis, the respondents

cannot deny the relief to Petitioner No.1.

The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and

Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 is a welfare legislation, intended

to acquire the rights of landholders in estates and other settlements,

to divest them with all rights and vest all rights in cultivable lands in

ryots in accordance with the principles laid down in the Act. Any

violation of the provisions of the Act in granting of patta in violation

of the provisions of the Act would amount to fraud on the statutes.

So as to dispel any such criticism that in the case of implementation

of the Act, unscrupulous persons were given patta, the legislature

has reserved the power to revise any orders, acts or proceedings of

the Assistant Settlement Officer or Settlement Officer in the

Directorate. Such exercise of Revisional power under

Section 5(2) of the Act is not subject to law of limitation and

therefore, it is well settled that, in the absence of any provision

prescribing limitation, the authorities have to exercise power within a

reasonable time. Therefore, the main reason for vesting of power on

the Settlement Officer is only to see that, no fraud be perpetuated.

But, in the present facts of the case, the attempts were made by the

Government to revise the order of Director of Settlement, ultimately

the decision of Director of Settlements was turned down by the High

Court and finally the matter was decided by the Supreme Court, now

the issue cannot be re-opened by this Court to unsettle the settled

decision and rights of the landholder.

MSM,J wp_44992_2018

When a patta was granted by the Settlement Officer in favour

of the ryoth for the ryothi land, it is nothing but conferring title on

the ryoth. Therefore, passing an order under Section 11(a) of the Act

is only confirmation of the title to the ryothi, thereby he became the

owner of the land and entitled to deal with the property as per his

wish and will.

Section 11 of the Act is intended only for conversion of title to

the ryoth, as defined in the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act. It

does not allow the Government to acquire ryothi land and then allot

it to grant the same or assign the land thus acquired to anyone, the

government chooses. The Settlement Officer is not under obligation

to consider the nature or character of the land under Section 15 og

the Act when an application under Section 11 of the Act is filed for

issue of ryotwari patta. In Venkata Subba Rao vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh6, this Court held that, Section 11 envisages the issue of a

ryotwari patta to a ryot in regard to lands which were included in his

holding or ought to have been included. But the section does not

mention as to who should grant the patta. It is well settled law that

enquiry under Section 11 of the Act is only a summary enquiry and

the authorities discharging the duties under the Act have no

jurisdiction to declare the title to the property. In other words, no

finality can be attached to any order passed by the authorities

concerned under the Act and at best the said order has to be

confined for the purposes of the Act and it cannot be stated that the

judgment is in Rem. When a dispute arises between the contesting

parties, the civil Court alone is competent to adjudicate the dispute

irrespective of the decision of the authorities under Section 11 of the

6 1961 (2) An.W.R 329 MSM,J wp_44992_2018

Act. When once ryotwari patta is granted under Section 11(a) of the

Act by the Settlement Officer after conducting enquiry, the right of

the government to assign the land would automatically cease. (vide

Duvvur Raja Gopala Reddy vs. District Collector7. Thus, from

the law settled by this Court, when once patta is granted, the land

will vest on the ryoth, but not on the government and it is final,

subject to the revisions.

An identical issue came up for consideration before the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in Neerupaka Rama Krishna vs.

Director of Settlements8, wherein the Court decided the issue

relating to the validity of the patta granted under Section 11 of the

Act and obligation of the State Government to implement the same.

The facts in the above case before the High Court were that, writ

petition questioning the show cause notice dated 28.02.1998 issued

by the Director of Settlements in purported exercise of suo motu

powers of revision proposing to cancel the order dated 27.05.1962

passed by the Additional Settlement Officer granting ryotwari patta

under Section 11 of the Act on the ground that the said order is

irregular, held as under:

"2. On an earlier occasion when the revenue authorities refused to implement the said order dated 27-5-1962, the petitioner herein filed WP No.10773 of 1996 for a direction to implement the said order. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on merits by an order dated 16-8-1996 upholding the validity of the order dated 27-5-1962 and the District Collector was directed to implement the same. Pursuant to the said directions of this Court on instructions from the District Collector, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Venkatagiri implemented the order dated 27-5-1962 on 26-9-1996 by making the necessary changes in the revenue records. The order passed in \VP No. 10773 of 1996 had become final as no writ appeal was filed against the same. Despite the said order passed by this Court, the first respondent has issued the impugned show-cause notice dated 28-2-1998.

3. In the face of the categorical findings recorded by this Court in \VP No.10773 of 1996 upholding the validity of the order dated 27-5-

7 2005 (2) ALT 62 8 1999 (4) ALD 55 MSM,J wp_44992_2018

1962, it docs not admit of any doubt that the first respondent has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in issuing the impugned show- cause notice dated 28-2-1998. The order passed in WP No. 10773 of 1996 clearly operates as res judicata. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue however contends that WP No. 10773 of 1996 was concerned with the issue of Pattadar Pass Book to the petitioner and the same has no bearing on the validity of the order dated 27-5- 1962. I am unable to agree with this submission. In the order dated 16-8-1996 passed in WP No.10773 of 1996 this Court has elaborately considered the self-same objections with regard to the truth and validity of the order dated 27-5-1962 and negatived the same and upheld the validity of the order dated 27-5-1962. It was therefore not open to the first respondent to reagitate the same question once again. That apart, there is absolutely no justification for the exercise of suo motu powers of revision by the first respondent after the lapse of more than 36 years. The writ petition is therefore allowed and the impugned show-cause notice is quashed. No costs."

The principle laid down in the above judgment has a direct

application to the present facts of the case, since the orders passed

by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore attained finality

consequent upon dismissal of Special Leave Petitions filed by the

Government before the hon‟ble Apex Court, against the orders

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Even after attaining finality, the petitioner filed another W.P.

No.22970 of 2001 seeking a direction to implement the order of the

Settlement Officer. This Court passed an order directing the revenue

authorities to implement the order passed by the Settlement Officer,

Nellore in favour of Petitioner No.1. Despite the order passed by this

Court in W.P.No. No.22970 of 2001 the respondents did not

implement the order. Thereupon, C.C.No. 378 of 2016 was filed and

the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Nellore was implemented

by the Tahsildar. But the explanation now offered by the respondents

is that, in view of the threat of contempt, the order of the Settlement

Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981 is implemented, but not intended

to implement the order. The contention of the respondents is nothing

but browbeating the orders passed by this Court, including the Apex

Court. This attitude of the revenue officials may lead to anarchy in MSM,J wp_44992_2018

its administration which leads to unsettle the settled rights of the

parties and such practice is depreciable.

One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the

respondents is that, the patta was granted in favour of Petitioner

No.1 by the Settlement Officer, Nellore, but as the connected S.R file

was already cancelled, the land was resumed to the Government on

30.12.1992. Thus, the land is vested on the government, since it is

classified as „Assessed Waste Dry‟ in the adangals and other revenue

records. This contention directly amounts to disagreeing with the

orders passed by the learned single Judge, Division Bench of the

High Court and the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Such attitude of the revenue

authorities is nothing but harassment of a citizen in all possible

ways to deprive Petitioner No.1 from enjoying his property and it is in

violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and

fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India. Such plea is not open and such contemptuous conduct of the

revenue authorities is to be taken note by the courts to punish them

appropriately by initiating contempt proceedings for flouting the

orders passed by the learned single Judge, Division Bench of the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‟ble Apex Court.

Fortunately, though the proceedings have attained finality in

favour of Petitioner No.1 in various round of litigation, he underwent

lot of turmoil, since the respondents made him roam around the

Courts by filing different petitions. The respondents harassed

Petitioner No.1 by abuse of their official position at the instance of

third parties who are interested in the land, since the land is forming

part of Tirupati Urban Mandal, which is in prime area. As Petitioner

No.1 is no more, unless such harassment to Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 is MSM,J wp_44992_2018

put to an end by passing appropriate order, it would be difficult for

the petitioners to enjoy the property as per their wish and will.

Inclusion of the property in the adagnal and R.S.R as „Assessed

Waste Dry‟ without issuing any notice and without passing any order

is another administrative illegality committed by the respondents

with an intent to deprive Petitioner No.1 from enjoying his rights over

the property, as per the order dated Nil/09/2018 passed by Sri

A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore under Section 11(a) of the

Act.

Though the respondents lost all their cases at all levels up to

Supreme Court, the respondents invented a different story that the

land is government land and amended the entries in the revenue

records and classified the same as „Assessed Waste Dry‟. But the

District Collector is dare enough to make an allegation in the second

paragraph of Point No.5 of Page No.4 in the counter affidavit that the

connected S.R file is already cancelled and land was resumed to the

Government on 30.12.1992. The cancellation of patta by the

Government without notice to Petitioner No.1 and resumption of land

by the government is a serious illegality. In fact, such plea was not

raised before any of the courts, including the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

in S.L.P. Nos.12594-12595 of 2016 so also before the Division Bench

of the High Court in W.A.Nos.1582 and 1644 of 2003. Therefore, it is

not open to the respondents to raise such contention by applying the

Doctrine of Res Judicata, as discussed in earlier paragraphs.

Curiously, in Paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit filed by

the District Collector, an allegation is made that, in obedience of the

orders passed by this Court in W.A.Nos.343 of 2015, 232 of 2012

and 353 of 2012 dated 23.12.2015, all the Government lands were MSM,J wp_44992_2018

categorized and notified in Annexure under Section 22-A(1)(a), (b),

(c), (d), (e). Since the subject land is Assessed Dry Waste, the same is

included in the Annexure in terms of the directions issued by the

Full Bench of the High Court in the judgments referred above. This

strange contention is to be rejected prima facie, as the direction of

this Court is only to notify the lands belonging to the government in

the annexure under Section 22-(1)(A) of the Registration Act and

communicate to the Registrars having jurisdiction over the area, but

not directed to notify other land under Section 22-A in the list of

prohibited properties from registration. When once a patta was

granted in favour of Petitioner No.1 under Section 11(a) of the Act,

the government is not entitled to resume the land, since the finding

regarding the ryothi land and the person in possession of

agricultural land was a ryoth has attained finality in various orders

referred above. In Duvvur Raja Gopala Reddy vs. District

Collector (referred supra), the Court clarified that, when once

ryotwari patta is granted under Section 11(a) of the Act by the

Settlement Officer after conducting enquiry, the right of the

government to assign the land would automatically cease. Thus, it

means that the government has no right over such land and

treatment of such land covered by an order under Section 11-A of

the Estates Abolition Act cannot be resumed and claimed by the

Government to include the property in the list of prohibited

properties. Therefore, the atrocious action of the State and it‟s

subordinates is depreciable and unless such conduct of the officials

of the State is scuttled at the threshold, the Courts will become

prairies to encourage such unscrupulous officials to perpetuate MSM,J wp_44992_2018

unnecessary litigation and responsible for burdening the judiciary

unnecessarily by their illegal acts.

Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, deals with

prohibition of registration of certain documents. A bare reading at

the section makes it clear that, the prohibition contemplated by

clause (c) of sub-section (1) of the section relates to the status of the

executants of the document relating to the properties owned by

Religious/ Charitable/ Endowment/ Wakf institutions. The said

provision of Section 22-A(1)(c) pre-supposes the title of the

institution over the land and merely prohibits registration of the

documents executed by those without authority. Therefore under

Section 22-A(1)(c) only the persons who can execute the documents

of the properties of the institutions be only sent but not a list of

properties belonging to such institutions.

In the instant case on record, the reason mentioned by the

Joint Collector for inclusion of the property in the list of prohibited

properties under the impugned order vide D.Dis.F8/Tpt U/22

Lands/191/18 dated Nil/09/2018 is as follows:

"The Tahsildar, Tirupati has construed that the request of the applicant for deletion of the land in Sy.No.78-2 measuring an extent of Ac.5-00 cents of Mangalam Village in Tirupati Urban Mandal from Section 22-A(1) list cannot be considered, as the land is not sub-divided.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati has also recommended that the application of Sri T.C. Rajaratham s/o Chenchu Pillai for deletion of land in Sy.No.78-2P measuring an extent of Ac.5-00 cents of Mangalam Village in Tirupati Urban Mandal from Section 22-A(1) List is liable for rejection.

A perusal of entire order, despite recommendations made by

the Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, for deletion of

the subject property from the list of prohibited properties, by MSM,J wp_44992_2018

considering the Govt. Memo.No.486/J2/84-6 dated 25.04.84 and

Govt.Memo.No.395/J2/84-2 dated 28.05.84, the request of

Petitioner No.1 was rejected. But, the purport of the memos was not

known to the respondents. Even otherwise, when the order of the

Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981 is affirmed by the

Supreme Court, such memos will not come in the way of Petitioner

No.1 to claim title over the property. Therefore, inclusion of the

subject property in the list of prohibited properties under

Section 22-A(1) without specifying the clause is an illegality. When

an application was made by the petitioner according to the procedure

prescribed under law, the order passed by the District Collector must

disclose the reasons for such conclusion. Procedure of non-

disclosure of reasons is against the spirit of the Act and the Rules.

On more than one occasion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

this Court, held that the reasons are the heart beat of any decision.

In H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt v. Commr., Hindu

Religious and Charitable Endowments Department9 the

Constitution Bench of the Apex Court emphasized the Latin Maxim

"cessante ratione legis, cessat lex ipsa" which means, when the

reason for a law ceases, the law itself ceases.

In M/s.Steel Authority of India Ltd., v. STO, Rourkela-I

Circle & Ors10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court testing the correctness

of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax

against the assessment, at Paragraph 10, held that, Reason is the

heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and

without the same it becomes lifeless.

9 (1979) 4 SCC 642 10 2008 (5) SCC 281 MSM,J wp_44992_2018

In Woolcombers of India Ltd. vs. Workers Union11 the

Hon‟ble Apex Court while considering an award under Section 11 of

the Industrial Disputes Act insisted on the need of giving reasons in

support of conclusions in the award. The Court held that the very

requirement of giving reason is to prevent unfairness or arbitrariness

in reaching conclusions. The second principle is based on the

jurisprudential doctrine that justice should not only be done, it

should also appear to be done as well. The learned Judges said that,

a just but unreasoned conclusion does not appear to be just to those

who read the same. Reasoned and just conclusion on the other hand

will also have the appearance of justice. The third ground is that

such awards are subject to Article 136 of Constitution of India

jurisdiction of the Court and in the absence of reasons, it is difficult

for this Court to ascertain whether the decision is right or wrong.

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 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

11 (1974) 3 SCC 318 MSM,J wp_44992_2018

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 judgment, 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 judgment is reason. Judgment is of value on the strength of its reasons. The weight of a 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 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 vs. Saheli Leasing and MSM,J wp_44992_2018

Industries Limited12 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 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."

Therefore, a judgment or an order shall contain the above

seven minimum requirements. When judgment is pronounced

without reasoning, it is not a judgment in the eye of law for the

reason that the requirement of reasoning by Authority is to convey

the mind of the authority while deciding such an issue before the

(2010) 6 SCC 384 MSM,J wp_44992_2018

Court. The object of the Rule in making it incumbent upon the

authority for determination and to cite reasons for the decision is to

focus attention of the authority on the rival contentions which arise

for determination and also to provide litigant parties opportunity in

understanding the ground upon which the decision is founded with a

view to enabling them to know the basis of the decision and if so

considered appropriate and so advised, to avail the remedy available.

(vide G. Amalorpavam and others v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai and

others13). From a bare reading of the principle laid down in the

above judgment, the requirement of recording of reasons is only to

show that the Court had focused concentration on rival contentions

and to provide litigant parties an opportunity of understanding the

ground upon which the decision is founded. Even if it is an order

under the provisions of the Act, still these basic requirements cannot

be ignored by authorities. In such case, a judge/authority is required

to apply his mind and give focused consideration to rival

considerations raised by both parties. Such order or judgment

without independent consideration is not legally sustainable since

Courts do not act blindly or mechanically and pass orders or

judgments. Courts/authorities ought to be cautious and only on

being satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved despite

being in admission, should proceed to pass judgments (vide Balraj

Taneja and another v. Sunil Madan and another14). The need for

recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at

the original stage, a decision without reasons is like grass without

root, the requirement to record reasons is one of the principles of

natural justice as well and where a statute required recording of

13 (2006) 3 SCC 224

AIR 1999 SC 3381 MSM,J wp_44992_2018

reasons in support of the order, it must be done by the authorities

concerned as held by the Apex Court in S.M. Mukerji v. Union of

India15. The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and

the resultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all

concerned in the justice administration system. Despite heavy

quantum of cases in the Courts, in the view of Courts, it would

neither be permissible nor possible to state as principle of law that

while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action and

more particularly judgment of Courts in appeal before in High Court,

providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The Doctrine of

audi alteram partem has three basic essentials, firstly; a person

against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are

likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of

being heard, secondly; the concerned authority should follow fair and

transparent procedure and lastly; the authority concerned must

apply its mind and dispose of the matters by reasoned order or

speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by Courts in India

and abroad (vide Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax v.

M/s. Shukla and others16).

Even otherwise, it is the duty of the Court/authority to state

its reasons on each issue by due application of mind, clarity of

reasoning and focused consideration; a slipshod consideration or

cryptic order or decree without due reflection on issues raised in the

matter may render such decree unsustainable and therefore hasty

adjudication must be avoided and each and every matter that comes

to the Court must be examined with seriousness it deserves, as held

1990 Crl.L.J.2148

(2010) 4 SCC 785 MSM,J wp_44992_2018

by the Supreme Court in Board of Trustees of Martyr Memorial

Trust and another v. Union of India and another17. From the

principles laid down in the above judgments, the impugned order

passed by the fourth respondent/Joint Collector is nothing but a

slipshod one without focused consideration on the issues raised by

petitioners. In such case, the same cannot be sustained, since the

order passed by the administrative authorities must disclose the

reasons. But the order impugned in the writ petition is bereft of any

reasons. Therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside, as it is in

violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to law.

Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the petitioners and

against the respondents.

In the result, writ petition is allowed declaring the action of the

third respondent/District Collector in inclusion of the land to an

extent of Ac5-00 in S.No.78/2 (P) of Mangalam village, Tirupathi

Urban Mandal, Chittoor District in the list of prohibited properties

under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, by treating the

same as Government land as illegal and arbitrary; with the following

directions:

(a) The rejection order dated Nil/09/2019 passed by the fourth

respondent/Joint Collector is declared as illegal, arbitrary and

the same is set-aside.

(b) Consequently, the sixth respondent/Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban

Mandal is directed to delete the subject land in Sy.No.78/2 (P)

to an extent of Ac.5-00 in Mangalam village, Tirupathi Urban

Mandal, Chittoor District from the list properties prohibited

2012 (10) SCC 734 MSM,J wp_44992_2018

from registration under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act,

1908;

It is needless to mention that, failure to comply with the above

order may lead to serious consequences. No costs.

The miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand

closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 06.05.2022

Note:LR copy to be marked b/o SP