Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs K Srinivasulu Naidu on 19 October, 2022

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
                               AND
            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

                           Writ Appeal No.391 of 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao)


      The State Government of A.P. preferred the instant writ appeal aggrieved by

the order dated 07.02.2022 in W.P.No.9618/2020 passed by the learned single

Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and directing the 6th

respondent in the writ petition i.e., District Collector to act upon the Government

Memo dated 10.01.2019 and take steps to delete / denotify the land in an extent of

Ac.0.48 cents in Sy.No.227/10 situated in Venkatagiri Village and Mandal, SPSR

Nellore District from the list of prohibited properties notified under Section

22(A)(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 within six weeks. Consequently

respondents 4 & 5 in the writ petition were directed to implement the order to be

passed by 6th respondent therein. Learned Judge further directed that the appellants

herein cannot highhandedly interfere with the possession of the respondent herein.

2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing Additional

Advocate General for appellants and learned Senior Counsel Sri L.Ravi Chandra

for the respondent.

3. As rightly observed by the learned single Judge, the entire case pivots on the

Memo No.27030/85/2018-EA&AR-REV dated 10.01.2019 issued by the 1st

appellant herein, while W.P.No.31653/2017 filed by the respondent herein was

pending. The said Memo was issued after a prolonged legal battle between the

legal representatives of the original settlement Pattadar namely Neerupaka

Ramaiah in respect of the subject land of Ac.0.48 cents, their successive purchasers

on one hand and the Government on the other hand. Ultimately the predecessor in

title of the respondent succeeded.

4. Be that it may, when the respondent herein sought to alienate the subject

property which was purchased by him, he came to know that the land was included

in the prohibitory list of properties notified under Section 22A of the Registration

Act. The said inclusion was against the earlier orders in W.P.Nos.10773/1996 and

10035/2014. Hence, the respondent herein filed W.P.No.31653/2017. When the

said writ petition was pending, the Government issued the aforesaid Memo

No.27030/85/2018-EA&AR-REV dated 10.01.2019. Paras 7 & 8 of the Memo are

germane for consideration and they are extracted hereunder:

"7. In the reference 5th cited, Sri K.Srinivasulu Naidu, SriKalahasthi town & Mandal, Chittoor District has submitted that he is willing to withdraw the WP No.31653/2017 pending before Hon'ble High Court, if Government has issued orders for deletion

of subject land from the list of prohibited properties notified under section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908.

8. Government after careful examination of the matter, hereby order for de-notification of the land to an extent Ac 0.48 cts in Sy.No.227/10 situated in Venkatagiri Town & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District from the list of prohibitory properties notified under Section 22-A(1) of Registration Act, 1908 and also from the respective Prohibitory Order Book (POB) subject to withdrawal of the WP No.31653/2017 filed by Sri K.Srinivasulu Naidu, Sri Kalahasthi town & Mandal, Chittoor District."

Thus, pursuant to the said Memo, the respondent has withdrawn

W.P.No.31653/2017 on 28.02.2019. However, the appellants have not honoured

their Memo and not de-notified the subject land from the prohibitory list. On the

other hand, the third respondent tried to meddle with the possession of the

petitioner. Hence, the respondent filed W.P.No.9618/2020.

5. Learned single Judge having found that the appellants herein have retreated

from the earlier promise made in the Memo and reviewed its own order and issued

a further Memo dated 30.06.2020 wherein it decided to cancel the earlier orders

issued in the Memo dated 10.01.2019, held that the appellants herein have changed

their stand and they are bound in letter and spirit to implement the Memo order

dated 10.01.2019 and allowed the writ petition and issued the directions to the

respondents in the writ petition as mentioned supra.

6. On a careful perusal of the entire record and previous orders, we find no

illegality or irregularity in the order of the learned single Judge impugned in this

appeal. As rightly observed by the learned single Judge, having issued the Memo

dated 10.01.2019 after considering various legal aspects and obtaining several

legal opinions from the Government Pleader that it was not a fit case for the

Government to prolong the litigation, the 1st appellant had issued a conditional

order in the Memo that the subject land will be de-notified from the prohibitory list

subject to withdrawal of W.P.No.31653/2017 filed by the respondent herein. The

respondent believing the said Memo, withdrew W.P.No.31653/2017. However,

without honouring its commitment as per the Memo dated 10.01.2019, the

Government have reviewed its own order and issued another order, which is not

sustainable in the eye of law.

(a) In the grounds of appeal, the appellants sought to defend its action on the

lame excuses and on untenable reasons. They sought to challenge the settlement

patta originally issued in favour of Neerupaka Ramaiah whose validity was upheld

in the previous round of litigation. The hollowness of appellant's contention is

writ large from the contents in their own Memo dated 10.01.2019 itself. In Para 5

of the Memo, it is stated thus:

"5. In the reference 5th cited, after careful examination of the report of the District Collector, SPSR Nellore, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P. Vijayawada has observed and stated as follows:

a. The Ryotwaripatta was granted in favor of Sri Nirupaka Ramaiah as per SR No.324/11(a)/Venkatagiri dated 27.05.1962 in which ryotwaripatta was granted in his favour and the Revision Petition was also allowed by the Commissioner (appeals), O/o CCLA and quashed the notice dt. 4-02-2013 of the Commissioner & Director of Settlements vide CCLA's Proceedings No.P2/201/2013, dt. 6-04-2013.

b. The Director (SS & LR) and District Collector, Nellore directed the Tahsildar, Venkatagiri to obtain opinion of GP and to file WP against the orders of the Commissioner of appeals, O/o CCLA. The Tahsildar, Venkatagiri has obtained the Govt. Pleader's opinion. The Government Pleader has opined that "after discussing the case details no useful purpose will be served by filing writ petition against the orders of CCLA and such viewed that it is not fit case to file a writ petition challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Appeals dt. 6-04-2013 as was expressed earlier" (emphasis supplied). As per the Government Pleader's opinion, a letter was addressed to the Director (SS&LR) seeking instructions in the matter. The Director (SS&LR) vide R.P.No.1/2013(B1) dt. 20.01.2016 has instructed the District Collector, Nellore to take necessary action as per the orders issued by the Hon'ble High Court in different writ petitions and SLP of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and opinion of the Government Pleader. In all W.P.s and SLP, the Hon'ble Courts have delivered the judgment in favour of the petitioner Sri N.Rama Krishna S/o. Polaiah and the Government Pleader is also opined that it is not a fit case to file a writ petition or appeal. But neither the District Collector nor the Director stated any specific grounds for filing WP. Moreover, it is not reported under what circumstances they ordered for filing WP against the orders of their own Superior authority. The Government Pleader is opined categorically in three instances that it is not a fit case to file WP.

c. The District Collector stated that the validity of the Ryotwaripatta is still under enquiry before Director (SS&LR) with an intention to safeguard the interests of Government and this land has been entered u/s. 22A(1)(b) of Registration Act, 1908 under the provisions of Registration Act and list of properties in Annexure-II has been approved by the District Collector, SPSR Nellore and sent to District Registrar, Nellore. In fact, the decision on the opinion of Government Pleader in this case is pending with District Collector. It is also reported that the orders issued by Addl. SO, Nellore were implemented. Therefore the validity of the Ryotwaripatta is still under enquiry may not be correct (emphasis supplied).

d. The District Collector stated that the Hon'ble Court in its order dated 20.11.2014 in W.P.No.10035/2014 has observed that "this order does not preclude the Govt. to assert its title by following due procedure of law". As the validity of the RyotwariPatta is still under enquiry before the D.O.S., with an intention to safeguard the interests of Govt., this land has been entered u/s 22A(1)(b) of Registration Act, 1908 under the provisions of Registration Act and list of properties in Annexure-II has been approved by the District Collector, SPSR Nellore and sent to District Registrar, Nellore. It is a fact but these orders were issued when the petitioner seeking relief against the inaction of officers of Registration Department and in the absence of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.10773/1996 and orders of the Commissioner (appeals), O/o CCLA, dated 06.04.2013. It is also reported that the orders issued by Addl. SO, Nellore were already implemented."

Therefore, it is preposterous for the appellants to once again project the same

grounds to file the writ appeal. As rightly contended by the learned Senior

Counsel Sri L.Ravi Chandra, the review of the Memo order undertaken by the

Government is not maintainable under law in view of the fact that it is hit by the

doctrine of Promissory Estoppel coupled with legitimate expectation. In Lalaram

v. Jaipur Development Authority1, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:

"7. For the purposes of promissory estoppel State is the promisor. In Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies it was determined that even if a case would not fall within the purview of Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it would still be open to a party, who had acted on a representation made by the Government, to claim that it should be bound to carry out the promise made by it, even though the promise was not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution of India. In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. responding to the plea of the State Government that there could be no promissory estoppel so as to inhibit it from formulating and implementing its policies in public interest, the court reiterated preconditions for the operation of the doctrine: (1) A clear and unequivocal promise, knowing and intending that it would be acted upon by the promisee; (2) On such acting upon the promise by the promise, it would be inequitable to allow the promisor to go back on the promise. Subsequent judgments imbued the approach with considerations of unfairness and immorality.[128] and[129].

8. A doctrine parallel to promissory estoppel, founded on fairness and natural justice, termed "legitimate expectation". In espousing this equitable notion of exacting fairness in governmental dealings, the court in Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries proclaimed that there was no unfettered discretion in public law and that a sovereign authority possessed powers only to use them for public good. Observing that the investiture of such power imposes with it, the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is 'fair play in action', it was underlined that it also raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his dealings with the State and its instrumentalities.[133] and[134]."