V.R. Santha vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh,
2023 Latest Caselaw 1008 AP

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


         W.P.Nos.10976 of 2022 & 10839 of 2010


COMMON ORDER:


     With the consent of all the learned counsels appearing

for the parties both these writ petitions themselves were taken

up together for hearing.

     Sri S.S.Prasad, learned senior counsel appears for the

writ petitioners.   He argued the matter at length.     Learned

senior counsel submits that the writ petitioners are the

owners   of   the   property   measuring   Ac.17.32    cents   in

Sy.Nos.385, 386 and 387.       Later, the survey numbers were

sub-divided as Sy.Nos.385/1, 385/2, 386/1, 386/2, 387/1

and 387/2 of Ramapuram Village.        The petitioners claim to

have secured their title through K.Ramaswamy Vodayar and

others who granted pattas to the claimants under the Estate

Abolition Act, 1948. It is stated that thereafter the petitioners

have been in possession and enjoyment of the property and

have developed the same.       They claim to have developed a

mango garden in the said area and were enjoying the

property. The 2nd respondent, according to the learned senior

counsel, exercised suo motu revision on the representation of

a third party and cancelled the pattadar pass books granted

to the petitioners and also directed the resumption of the

land. According to the learned senior counsel, the patta was

granted in 1980. Pattadar pass books were granted in 2001

and thereafter and order of cancellation was passed on

15.11.2001. He submits that the whole action is arbitrary

and is barred by law. He also submits that since a ryotwari

patta was granted to the vendors, the land ceased to be a

Government land and that therefore, the Andhra Pradesh

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short

'the Act') does not apply. Lastly, he submits that while

exercising the Act, the Joint Collector cannot pronounce

anything on the validity of the patta granted under the Estate

Abolition Act, 1948. Relying upon a compilation of case law,

learned senior counsel argues that the revision is patently

barred by time. He relies upon:

(1) State of H.P. and others v. Rajkumar Brijender

Singh and others1 ,

(2004) 10 SCC 585

(2) Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune

Municipal Transport and others2,

(3) A.Janardhana v. Union of India and others3,

(4) Surinder Singh v. State of H.P. and others4 and

(5) Lingamdinne Chandrasekhar Reddy and others

v. Joint Collector, Kadapa and others5.

The primary contention basing on the first four

judgments is about the delay and on the basis of the last

judgment he argues that under the Act, while exercising

power of revision, the Joint Collector cannot pronounce on

the legality of the patta granted under the Estate Abolition

Act. Learned counsel points out that the Joint Collector has

also ignored section 12 of the Act, which states that nothing

in the Act shall apply to the land belonging to the State

Government. While holding that the land is State Government

land, learned senior counsel submits that the Joint Collector

cancelled the pattas. In addition, he also submits that

(2010) 8 SCC 467

(1983) 3 SCC 601

2006 (2) ShimLC 237

2009(4) ALT 593

W.P.No.10976 of 2022 had to be filed against the Government

since the respondents were interfering with the petitioners'

possession and enjoyment of the land. He submits that the

issue of law and fact are similar, but in W.P.No.10976 of 2022

the prayer is for a Mandamus against the invasion of the

petitioners rights. Learned senior counsel in conclusion

submits that if W.P.No.10837of 2010 is heard and allowed on

merits, as a consequence, W.P.No.10976 of 2022 should also

be allowed.

In W.P.No.10976 of 2022, the State has filed a detailed

counter and Government Pleader for Revenue argued on the

merits of the matter. According to the learned Government

Pleader, Sy.Nos.385, 387 of Ramapuram Village are classified

as Kaluva poramboke and Gutta poramboke. In 1970, the

land was sub-divided and pattas were assigned to about six

people. Since the assignees did not cultivate the land,

possession was taken over by the State. It is also pointed out

that when Ramaswamy Vodayar filed an application under

the Estate Abolition Act, the Joint collector rejected the same.

The title of the petitioners is very strongly refuted and

disputed by the learned Government Pleader. It is asserted

that the property which is in the custody of the Government

was taken back from the assignees who failed to cultivate the

land. It is also argued that the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.223 of

2005 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Chittoor

and after protracted trial, the writ petitioners case as

plaintiffs was dismissed since they did not establish their

possession. It is also pointed out that land in Sy.Nos.387/1,

387/2 are occupied by the petitioners and that they are

Government lands. It is also submitted that as the

petitioners are not in possession of the property and Ac.0.85

cents of land was identified for allotting house site pattas for

eligible people and the allotment of the land was being made

after the land was cleared of rocks and bushes. An amount of

Rs.1,80,000/- was also sanctioned to the beneficiaries. With

regard to the ryotwari patta claimed by the writ petitioners, it

is submitted that the orders passed by the particular Joint

Collector-cum-Settlement Officer are overruled and in fact

Government issued a memorandum dated 25.04.1984

cancelling all such orders that have been passed by the

particular Joint Collector and Settlement Officer. Along with

the counter affidavit, the Government Pleader has filed the

adangal copy to show that the land in Sy.No.387/8 is

classified as Gayalu and is unfit for cultivation. Copies of D-

Form pattas issued to others are also filed. Learned

Government Pleader also relies upon the findings of the

learned Junior Civil Judge in O.S.No.223 of 2005, wherein on

merits, the claim of the petitioners' possession of the land was

negatived.

On behalf of respondent No.4, I.A.No.2 of 2022 is filed to

implead the petitioner as respondent No.4. Counter affidavit

is also filed to this application. After hearing the counsels,

this Court is of the opinion that the said interlocutory

application should be allowed since in the opinion of this

Court the presence of the 4th respondent is necessary for

effective adjudication and the application is thus allowed.

Along with the implead application, I.A.No.3 of 2022 is

also filed by the 4th respondent, wherein he sought for

vacation of the interim order.

Sri O.Uday Kumar, learned counsel relies upon the

judgment in O.S.No.223 of 2005 between the present writ

petitioners and the defendants including the present 4th

respondent-Jayasankar. In this suit, the writ petitioners are

the plaintiffs. Their claim is ultimately negatived by the

Court. Learned counsel relied upon this judgment to argue

that since a Court of competent jurisdiction after protracted

trial negatived the case of the petitioners, this Court cannot

grant any relief more particularly in W.P.No.10976 of 2022.

He also points out that the writ petitioners filed an appeal

against the said decree. An interlocutory application is also

filed to withdraw the said appeal, namely I.A.No.50 of 2019,

but the same was dismissed by the Court and the appeal is

still pending. Lastly, he submits that all these facts are

suppressed by the writ petitioners and the present writ is

filed. On the ground of non-disclosure of material facts and

suppression of facts, learned counsel argues that the writ

petition should be dismissed particularly, as a Mandamus is

an equitable relief. He relies upon a compendium of case law

which are as follows:

1) State of A.P. and another v. T.Suryachandra

Rao6

6 (2005) 6 SCC 149

2) Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of

Maharashtra and others7

3) Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

others8

4) Oswal Fats and Oils Limited v. Additional

Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division,

Bareilly and others9

5) Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police,

Chennai v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and another10

6) Sciemed Overseas Inc. v. BOC India Limited and

others11

COURT: This Court after considering all the submissions

notices that as far as W.P.No.10976 of 2022 is concerned, as

rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the

respondents, there is no express and clear description of the

threat of dispossession. The essential conditions that must

7 (2005) 7 SCC 605

8 (2013) 2 SCC 398

9 (2010) 4 SCC 728 10 (2011) 5 SCC 496

11 (2016) 3 SCC 70

be pleaded in such a case are the settled uninterrupted

possession of the petitioners and the impending threat to the

same from the respondents. In the opinion of this Court

neither of these two is spelt out or pleaded with clarity.

Both the learned Government Pleader and Sri O.Uday

Kumar have relied upon the judgment in O.S.No.223 of 2005.

This Court notices that the schedule of the property covered

in the said suit is:

SCHEDULE Chittoor District - Chittoor Sub District - Gudipala Mandal, 197 Ramapuram Village accounts lands situated at Chalicheemalapalle Village in:

1) S.No.385/2-Dry- Extent Ac.0.82-1/2 cents.

2) S.No.387/2-Dry - Extent Ac.3.88-1/2 cents.

3) S.No.385/1 - Dry - Extent Ac.3.82-1/2 cents.

4) S.No.387/1- Dry - Extent Ac.3.88-1/2 cents.

Lands situated at Gudipala Mandal-No.5 Lakshmambapuram Village accounts - situated at Chalicheemalapalle Village:-

5) S.No.386/1 - Dry - Extent Ac.0.95 cents.

6) S.No.386/2 - Dry - Extent Ac.0.95 cents. Land situated at 197 Ramapuram Village accounts:

7) S.No.385, 386, 387 dry in the three survey numbers and extent of Ac.1.20 cents.

The above said items 1 to 8 are situated at one place within the following boundaries:-

North: Mango garden belongs to Bujalingam Naidu, West: Lands of Papamma and others, East: Gutta and the land purchased by the Government from Pinayakapani, to given to Harijans for cultivation, South: Gutta, land of 4th defendant and Vijayan and his brother.

These lands are in survey numbers Sy.Nos.385, 386 and

387. The plaint schedule shows that they are one contiguous

bit. A reading of this judgment and decree would reveal that

the present petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit.

Defendant No.5 in the suit is respondent No.4 in

W.P.No.10976 of 2022. The 2nd petitioner was examined as

P.W.1. The sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners

are marked as documents. Pattadar pass books are also

marked along with electricity receipts etc. An advocate

commissioner was also appointed. For the respondents,

Ex.B.1 to B.33 were marked. Four (4) witnesses were

examined. In page 16 of the judgment, the trial Judge relied

upon the DKT pattas and pass books issued to other

individuals. Revenue entries were also perused. Then, the

Court came to the conclusion that the land was resumed by

the Government after the cancellation of the ryotwari patta.

With regard to the cancellation of the Patta, the respondents

relied upon Ex.B.3, which is the memorandum dated

25.04.1984 by which the orders passed by the concerned

Officer were cancelled. The status quo order granted in

W.P.No.10893 of 2010 by this Court was also brought to the

notice of the Court. Copy of the status quo order was marked

as Ex.A.20. The Tahsildar was examined as D.W.1. The

classification of the land as per Ex.B.6 was noted as Kaluva

and Gutta poramboke lands. The same was spoken of by

DW.3 also. Ultimately, the Court came to the conclusion that

the plaintiffs failed to produce any cogent evidence that on

the date of the purchase of the property, their vendors were in

possession or that after the purchase of the property, the

plaintiffs-writ petitioners are in possession of the property.

Admittedly, against this case, A.S.No.71 of 2016 is filed.

Petitioners made an attempt to withdraw the said appeal by

filing I.A.No.50 of 2019. The said application was dismissed

on 05.02.2020 and a copy of the order passed is also filed.

Therefore, it is clear that the said appeal is still pending.

Apart from this, this Court also notices that there are

very seriously disputed questions of fact. The possession of

the petitioners in 2022 when W.P.No.10976 of 2022 has filed

is doubtful. No documents are independently filed to show

that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the

property.

That judgment and decree in O.S.No.223 of 2005 was

passed in March, 2016. Adverse comments were made about

the documents and the possession of the plaintiffs. Yet when

the second writ, W.P.No.10976 of 2022 was filed, clear and

categorical evidence to show the possession of the petitioners

and/or the threat of dispossession is not visible. In the

absence of adequate pleading and proof to show the

petitioners possession or the threat of dispossession, this

Court holds that the writ petitioners are not entitled to any

relief in W.P.No.10976 of 2022.

Coming to W.P.No.10839 of 2010, while the arguments

of the learned senior counsel appearing to be attractive at the

first blush, a deeper consideration of the issues would reveal

that many of the points that are raised in the course of the

writ petition and the submissions made were also subject

matter of the suit which was dismissed. Admittedly, the

appeal is also pending. The attempt of the writ petitioners to

withdraw the appeal has also not yielded any result. It is also

a fact that the 4th respondent joined in W.P.No.10976 of 2022

and has also been independently fighting for his "right". The

issues raised in the writ petition also pertain to the identity of

the property, the extents, the boundaries, the classification of

the land as Kaluva and Gutta poramboke etc., the possession

as on date of the filing of the writ petition and subsequent

possession along with title are issues, which arise for

determination. These are all disputed questions of fact,

which cannot be decided in this writ petition. As rightly

pointed out, the Joint Collector in the impugned order has

entertained the case long after the Pattadar Pass Books were

issued, decided certain aspects of 'title' and made certain

observations which are not legally sustainable with regard to

ryotwari patta etc., under the Estate Abolition Act. Hence,

the said order dated 20.03.2010 is set aside. On a

consideration of the entire issue considering the seriousness

of the facts/issues (which include classification of the lands;

occupation of lands etc.,) and the scheme of the Act including

Section 8(2) of the Act, the petitioners are directed to agitate

and establish their claims before the civil Court only. A writ

is not a proper remedy to decide the issues raised. Till the

issue attains a legal finality, the revenue entries are directed

to be kept as 'Disputed' and not changed. No finding is given

on the merits of the petitioners claim.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion

that the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief in

W.P.No.10976 of 2022 while W.P.No.10839 of 2010 is

partially allowed along with certain directions.

W.P.No.10976 of 2022 is dismissed and W.P.No.10839

of 2010 is partially allowed. No order as to costs.

In view of dismissal of W.P.No.10976 of 2022, no further

orders are necessary in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.10976 of

2022. I.A.No.2 of 2022 in W.P.No.10976 of 2022 is allowed

and Office is directed to make necessary amendment to the

cause title. As a sequel, the other miscellaneous petitions if

any shall stand dismissed.

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

Date: 22.02.2023 KLP