Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kundrapu Pyaayya Naidu vs Special Deputy Collector And 15 Others on 1 August, 2024
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
APHC010264242018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3388]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
FIRST APPEAL NO: 549/2018
Between:
Indira Patro and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
S V Joshi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR APPEALS
2. N SUBBA RAO
FIRST APPEAL NO: 635/2018
Between:
Kundrapu Pyaayya Naidu ...APPELLANT
AND
Special Deputy Collector And 15 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP)
2. N SUBBA RAO
FIRST APPEAL NO: 995/2018
Between:
Dalai Appa Rao and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
The Special Deputy Collector and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP)
2. N SUBBA RAO
Common Judgment: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao)
Aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2018 in L.A.O.P. No.1759/1999
passed by learned XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, holding that
first claimant is the title holder of the acquired land of Ac. 111.16 cents under
award No.2/1999, dated 31.05.1999 and the first claimant is entitled to the
entire compensation deposited by the L.A.O., the other rival claimants filed the
above appeals. i.e., Claimant No.2 filed A.S. No.635 of 2018; Claimant
Nos.3&4 filed A.S. No.549 of 2018 and Claimant Nos.5 to 7 & 9 to 16 filed
A.S. No.995 of 2018.
I. The factual matrix is thus:
a) At the instance of Additional General Manager, NTPC,
Visakhapatnam, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) acquired Ac.111.16 cents
in S.No.461/2B and 461/2C in Block No.XX of Cheepurupalli (West) Village in
Paravada Mandal under award No.2/1999, dated 31.05.1999, for
establishment of M/s.Simhadri Thermal Power Project. As there were
disputes among claimants 1 to 10, the LAO has made a reference under
Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for judicial determination and
deposited the compensation amount.
(b) Learned XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, took up a
enquiry in LAOP No.1759/1999. Pending enquiry, claimant No.9 died and his
LRs were brought on record as claimants 11 to 16 vide orders in I.A.
No.2522/2000, dated 03.04.2001.
II. RESPECTIVE CLAIMS OF THE CLAIMANTS:
1. The first claimant is the Srikrishna Salt Works, Visakhapatnam. Its case
as per claim statement is thus:
(a) The lands covered by the reference are situated in Vada Cheepurupalli
which was a Zamin estate. The Ex-Zamindar of Vada Cheepurupalli had
leased out some land covered by patta No.98 to R.Gajapathirao and he used
to lease out the same under registered leases from the year 1927. (Ex.A3) He
sold away Ac.350-00 cents of land covered under patta No.98 to his daughter
B.V.S. Narayanarao under registered document dated 29.7.1948 (Ex.A4). But,
she used to state that she has purchased Ac.1400-00 cents under patta
No.98. In the year 1952, B.V.S.Narayanarao has leased out Ac.807.00 cents
to M/s Barat Mining Company under registered document No.702 dated
10.05.1952 (Ex.A5) for a period of 25 years and handed over the possession.
On the same day, M/s Bharat Mining Company has leased out that land to the
1st claimant under the registered document No.703 (Ex.A6) and handed over
possession to the 1st claimant.
(b) The 1st claimant has constructed building and structures on a large
extent and started salt production from the year 1952 after obtaining license
from the Central Excise Department. On 10.05.1952, Vada Cheepurupalli
village was taken over by the Government under Estates Abolition Act 1948
(The Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948)
(for short "Estates Abolition Act, 1948) and took up survey and settlement
operations. B.V.S.Narayanarao has applied to the Assistant Settlement
Officer, Vizianagaram for grant of ryotwari patta for an extent of Ac.800.00
cents. But, she was granted patta only for Ac.350.00 cents in his
C.No.4560/54, dated 27.12.54 (Ex.A8). B.V.S.Narayanarao has sold the
leased land to the 1st claimant under sale deed dated 01.07.1957 (Ex.A9) for
Rs.20,000/- and gave possession. In the meanwhile, the village was surveyed.
(c) After finalization of measurements, the land covered by the sale deed
came to be Ac.504-00 cents. In the year 1958, a rough patta was issued in
favour of the 1st claimant. Hence, the 1st claimant and B.V.S.Narayana Rao
filed revision petition No.183/62 before the Settlement Officer contending that
both of them together entitled to a ryotwari patta for Ac.1380-00 cents. M/s
Hindustan Mineral Products and the District Collector, Visakhapatnam filed
objections contending that the lands claimed are in Devada village a Mokhasa
village but not in Cheepurupalli. The Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam in his
order dated 15.12.1962 in RP No.183/62 held that Ac.1380-00 cents was
within the boundaries mentioned in Kadapa dated 07.11.1927.
(d) Against the said order, the District Collector and M/s Hindustan Mineral
Products filed R.P.Nos.40 to 46 of 1963 before the Director of Settlements,
Survey and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad who by his order dated
15.12.1964 (Ex.A11) set aside the order of the Settlement officer,
Visakhapatnam. Aggrieved by those orders, B.V.S.Narayana Rao and the 1st
claimant filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue in B.P.Mis.
464/16, dated 29.06.1966 (Ex.A13) who held that B.V.S.Narayanarao should
be granted ryotwari patta for S.Nos.127P, 128, 129, 130P, 446P, 447 to 451,
460, 461P, 462, 463, 464, 467 to 479 for Cheepurupalli approximately
measuring Ac.436-00 cents. But, the same was registered in favour of her
vendees and the 1st claimant was registered as owner of Ac.194-16 cents
covered by S.No.461. Aggrieved by the orders of the Board of Revenue, the
1st claimant and B.V.S.Narayanarao have filed Writ petition No.1065/66
(Ex.A14) and it was dismissed on 16.03.1967.
(e) The Revenue Authorities have incorporated the names of the vendees
of B.V.S.Narayanarao. In 10(1) account and fair adangal, the 1st claimant is
being noted as enjoydar of land of Ac194-16 cents in S.No.461(2) of
Cheepurupalli village. On 10.05.1997, B.V.S.Narayanarao has passed away.
Right from the beginning, the 1st claimant and B.V.S. Narayanarao were
fighting with coordination for obtaining patta for additional extents. During her
lifetime, B.V.S.Narayanarao never raised any dispute to the title or enjoyment
of land in S.No.461 by the 1st claimant.
(f) One Kaveri Lakshmibai who is the daughter of the sister of B.V.S.
Narayanarao never looked after the affairs of B.VS. Narayanarao. In the year
1993, when the Government has appointed officers for collection of particulars
of lands to be acquired for establishing Thermal Power Project in
Cheepurupalli, Lakshmibal made false statement to Mandal Revenue Officer,
Paravada claiming that she is co-owner of the land in S.No.461. She also filed
writ petition challenging the title of the 1st claimant.
(g) The further case of the 1st claimant is that the said Kaveri Lakshmibai
wanted to claim compensation for Ac.194.16 cents covered by 461 of
Cheepurupalli which was sold away to the 1st claimant by B.V.S.Narayanarao
adopted a different method and struck a deal with the District Collector,
Visakhapatnam to strike off all the entries in the Revenue records. As a GPA
Holder of Indirapatro and Laxmi Maricar the alleged daughters of late
B.V.S.Narayanarao, put in a petition to the District collector on 29.8.1998
praying for Implementation of the orders or Board of Revenue in B.P Mis.
No.464/16 dated 29.6.1966. Then the District collector has obtained note in
R.C.No.606/98 dt.28.8.1998 from the Spl. Deputy Tahsildar, Inams working in
RDO's Office Visakhapatnam addressed letter dated 12.9.1998 to MRO,
Parawada impliedly instructed him to indulge in falsification of Government
records.
(h) Kaveri Lakshmibai filed W.P.25476/98 on 2.9.1998 contending that
Ac.194.16 cents in S.No.461 belongs to the daughters of B.V.S.Narayanrao
but, it was wrongly notified in Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act in the name
of the 1st claimant and prayed for cancellation of that notification. It was
disposed off on 11.11.98 instructing both parties to adduce evidence before
the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue officer even
without any notice to the 1st claimant, passed order dated 20.11.1998 in
R.C.363/98 HDT ordering striking of the existing entry showing Sri Krishna
Salt Works as owner of the land Ac.194.16 cents under patta No.98 and
S.No.461 and to enter the name of late B.V.S.Narayanarao. Basing on that
10(1) account, Kaveri Lakshmi Bai claimed compensation at the time of award
enquiry in the month of December 1998.
(i) The 1st claimant filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Visakhapatnam on 6.1.1999 praying for stay of operation of fabricated 10(1)
account and obtained interim stay in R.C.No.44/99 dt.6.1.1999. Then Kaveri
Lakshmi Bai filed W.P.216/99 and obtained stay of the orders of RDO,
Visakhapatnam. Immediately, the 1st claimant filed petition before the District
Collector requesting to withdraw his letter in R.C.4848/98 D3 dated 12.9.1998.
But, no action was taken. Hence, it filed W.P.5152/99 for quashing of that
letter. The Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 01.10.99 has dismissed
W.P.216/99 and directed the RDO to dispose off the appeal preferred by the
1st respondent on merits. W.P.5152/99 was disposed off by observing that the
collector's direction need not be considered. The RDO heard arguments on
03.12.1999. But, did not pronounce his decision.
(j) In the meanwhile, the Land Acquisition Officer without applying mind,
lightly decided that there are rival claims and passed award 2/99 on 31.5.1999
for an extent of Ac.111.16 cents in S.No.461/2 and deposited Rs.2,50,11,000/-
in the court with the details of the extents claimed by each claimant and made
reference. The 1st claimant is claiming entire extent of Ac.111.16 cents
together with structures standing thereon as it has purchased the land under
sale deed No.1829 dated 1.7.1957 from late B.V.S.Narayana Rao. The other
claimants have no manner of title, possession and enjoyment over any part of
the said land. All the other claimants put up rival claims to delay payment of
compensation to the real owners with a view to compel them to come to some
understanding offering substantial amounts of compensation. Hence, the 1st
claimant alone is entitled for the entire compensation and accordingly
payment may be ordered to the 1st claimant by rejecting the claims of other
claimants and ordering them to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as exemplary costs.
2. The 2nd claimant filed his claim statement as follows:
(a) The 2nd claimant is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.16-00 cents in
S.No.461 of Cheepurupalli (W) of Parawada mandal for the last several
decades. A ryotwari patta was issued to their father Kundrapu China
Sanyasayya also called as Chinna Sanyasinaidu and Chinna Swaminaidu.
Originally, it was included in patta No.124. But, the settlement authorities have
issued a rough patta No.994 for this extent. The claimant and his forefathers
were paying land revenue to the erstwhile land owners and to the government
after taking it over. All the documents were taken over by the settlement
authorities stationed at Anakapalli during enquiry.
(b) For long time, the 2nd claimant and his fore fathers cultivated the land
with dry crops like cucumber, ragi etc. But, on account of saline nature of the
land, they did not give proper yield. Hence, they resorted to lime kilning after
taking permission from Geological authorities. As their family find it difficult to
continue on account of their other avocations, they given up the activity. The
said land continues to be ryoti and there is some scrub jungle on part of the
same. At the time of enquiry, the 2nd claimant shown land revenue receipt and
registered kadapa: Though he made enquiries for grant of pass book, the
revenue authorities who had a deal with the 1st claimant did not respond. The
2nd claimant alone is entitled for compensation of Ac.16-00 cents which is in
their possession for several decades.
3. The joint claim of claimants 3 and 4 made through their general power
of attorney holder is thus:
(a) Originally, the subject lands are part of vast extent of land comprised in
patta no.98 of Cheepurupalli which was granted as permanent lease by the
erstwhile zamindars of Cheepurupalli in favour of B.V.S.Narayanarao's father
late Ragathi Gajapathirao with transferrable and heritable rights. The said land
measuring Ac.1380-00 cents was notified as swamp or chunk unfit for
cultivation. It continued to be enjoyed by said Gajapathirao and his daughter
by leasing it to the tenants under registered and unregistered lease deeds.
The 1st tenant was Chandika Hanumantharao Naidu for quarrying lime shell
for two years under registered lease deed dated 7.11.1927 known as kadapa
of the year 1927. The same process was continued by inducting other tenants
in the years 1934 and 1945 under registered and unregistered leases. In the
year 1947, the said Gajapathirao sold the land covered under kadapa of 1927
to his daughter B.V.S.Narayanarao under registered sale deed document
No.1381/48 dated 29.7.1948 (Ex.A4).
(b) Smt. B.V.S.Narayanarao has leased out Ac.807-00 cents to M/s. Bharat
Mining and Trading Company for 25 years under lease deed dated 10.5.1952.
On the same day, the lessee executed registered sub lease in favour of the
1st claimant. Thereafter, Smt. B.V.S.Narayanarao has sold the same to the
sub lessee under registered sale deed dated 1.7.1957 (Ex.A9). That land is
altogether different for which B.V.S.Narayanarao applied for grant of ryotwari
patta.
(c) In the year 1952, Cheepurupalli village was taken over by the
government under the provisions of Madras State Estates Abolition Act 1948.
Then B.V.S.Narayanarao has applied for ryotwari patta and was granted
Ac.350-00 cents of the extent in kadapa of 1927 without actual
measurements. In the survey operations conducted in the year 1957, patta
No.98 correlated to S.No.461 and the extent was noted as Ac.1380- 00 cents
and notices were issued under section 9(2) of Survey and Boundaries Act.
After completion 'B' work by survey party, the correct extent was found as
Ac.508-00 cents and accordingly rough patta was granted to
B.V.S.Narayanarao who, filed revision before the settlement officer and it was
allowed (Ex.A10) directing extension of Eastern boundary and re fixation of
boundary between Cheepurupalli and Devada Mokhasa. The said order was
set aside by the Director of Settlements on the revision petitions filed by the
District Collector and M/s Hindustan Mineral Products.
(d) Then B.V.S.Narayanarao and others filed revision petitions before the
Board of Revenue which, after getting the lands verified on ground by its order
dated 29.6.1966 in B.P.Mis.No.464/66 ordered modification of patta ordering
grant of patta for R.S.Nos.127/P, 128, 129, 130/P, 446/P, 447 to 451, 459,
460, 461/P, 462, 463, 467 to 478 of Cheepurupalli for Ac.436-00 cents. By
virtue of the said order, except B.V.S.Narayanarao none else entitled for grant
of ryotwari patta in those survey numbers. As the revenue authorities did not
take appropriate action basing on the order of Board of Revenue, the said
B.V.S. Narayanarao authorized the claimants 3 and 4 to pursue the matter
with authorities. On their representation, the Collector gave endorsement
dated 29.9.93 and the MRO conducted enquiry. But, no action was taken.
Hence, she made a representation dated 29.8.98 to the District Collector. He
directed the MRO to take necessary action vide his proceedings dated
12.9.1998. Accordingly, the MRO has incorporated the name of
B.V.S.Narayanarao in the records.
(e) With a view to grab the legitimate compensation, the 1st claimant has
filed appeal before the RDO who erroneously allowed it. Hence, the claimants
filed revision before the District Collector and obtained stay of the order of
RDO under order dated 1.2.5.2000. The land of Ac.807-00 cents sold by
B.V.S. Narayanarao to the 1st claimant though shown lying in Cheepurupalll
under patta No.98, it actually lye in the adjacent village of Devada. As the suit
in O.S.8/79 filed by the 1st claimant for declaration that the order of Board of
Revenue was not binding on it was dismissed by the Principal District Judge,
Visakhapatnam. Hence, the 1st claimant has no semblance of right to claim
any title in the land covered by S.No.461/2 of Cheepurupalli village.
(f) The 1st claimant has never been in possession of the land for which
B.V.S.Narayanarao was granted patta. The land in which it put up buildings in
the year 1952 and produced salt after obtaining licence from government is
not in Cheepurupalli village. The claimants 2, 5 to 10 have also no semblance
of title, right or interest in any part of the lands covered by S.No.461/2. But,
the Land Acquisition Officer unnecessarily shown them as claimants. The writ
petition No.1065/66 and 1322/66 filed by the 1st claimant were dismissed by a
common order dated 16.3.1967. The claimants 3 and 4 are entitled for the
total and entire compensation. Hence, their claim may be allowed and the rival
claims of other claimants be rejected with costs.
4. The claim statement of claimants 5 to 7 is as follows:
The claimants own Ac.25-00 cent in S.No.461 of Cheepurapalli under
the sale deeds dated 12.5.1930 & 13.5.1930. The claimants and their
predecessors in title have been in possession and enjoyment of the same by
paying land revenue to the land holder prior to abolition and thereafter to the
government. They have raised cashew tope and have been enjoying the
same. The 1st claimant or any other claimant has no interest or right over the
land of Ac.25-00 cents in their possession. Ac.8- 00 cents of their land which
was with cashew tope, thatched shed, 40 coconut trees and 8 palmryah trees
was acquired in this O.P. The 5th claimant is enjoying half of the same and the
claimants 6 and 7 are enjoying the cashew tope in the acquired land. Hence,
they may be paid compensation for those Ac.8-00 cents land.
5. The claim statement of claimants 8 and 10 which was adopted by the
claimants 11 to 16 is as follows:
(a) The claimants 8 to 10 are the owners of Ac.27-80 cents of dry land in
S.No.461 of Cheepurupalli (W) village of Parawada mandal. They have
succeeded the same from their ancestors. Originally, that property was
purchased by Velugul Ramayya, s/o Atchamma and others under a registered
sale deed dt.12.5.1930 from T.Appalaswamy. Since then, they have been in
possession and enjoyment of the same by raising cashew tope by paying land
revenue to the authorities concerned.
(b) Velugula Ramayya died leaving his sons Venkateswarlu, 9th claimant
and Sriramulu. Venkateswarlu died leaving the 8th claimant and four sons
namely Ramana, Somunaldu, Manikyam and Rambabu. Velugula Sreeramulu
died leaving the 10th claimant. The 1st Claimant or any other claimants have
no right or interest over Ac.27-80 cents of land in S.No.461 and Ac.8-00 cents
i.e., part of it was acquired for establishment of NTPC and it is covered in this
O.P. At the time of award enquiry, the claimants appeared before Land
Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation for Ac.8-00 cents but, he did not
pay the same. There are structures and trees in that land. The claimants are
entitled for the compensation for those trees and structures. Hence, the
compensation may be ordered to be paid to the claimants 8 to 10 in three
equal shares with subsequent interest.
6. The impugned order shows that during the enquiry, nine witnesses were
examined as P.Ws.1 to 9 and 104 documents were marked as exhibits A1 to
A104.
(i) For 1st claimant, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A57, A70,
A71 and A99 to A104 were marked.
(ii) For 2nd claimant, P.Ws.5 and 6 were examined and Exs.A58 to A69
were marked.
(iii) For claimants 3 and 4, P.W.7 was examined and Exs.A72 to A91 were
marked.
(iv) For claimants 5 to 7, P.W.8 was examined and Exs.A92, A94 to A97
were marked.
(v) For claimants 8 to 16, P.W.9 was examined and Exs.A93 was marked.
7. As can be seen from the rival claims, the 1st claimant on one hand and
the claimants 3 and 4 through their GPA holder on the other hand claimed
compensation for the entire extent of Ac.111.16 cents acquired in this case.
Whereas, the 2nd claimant claimed compensation for Ac.16.00 cents in
S.No.461/2B. The claimants 5 to 7 claimed compensation for Ac.8.00 cents in
S.No.461/2C on the ground that out of the total extent of Ac.25.00 cents
owned by them, Acres 8.00 cents was acquired. The claimants 8 to 10 and 11
to 16 claimed compensation for Ac.8.00 cents in S.No.461/2C. Be that as it
may, in view of the rival claims, the Land Acquisition Officer has referred the
case to the Civil court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by
depositing Rs.2,51,50,258/-.
8. (a) The trial court so far as the rival claims between 1st claimant on
one hand and claimants 3 and 4 on the other hand with regard to the entire
extent of Acres 111.16 cents in S.No.461/2B and 2C acquired by LAO is
concerned, held that the deceased mother of claimants 3 and 4 having sold
more extent of land than purchased by her under Ex.A4 and the land after
survey being found only in an extent of Acres 504.16 cents against Acres
807.00 cents sold and having failed to obtain patta for the entire land as
claimed before Settlement Officer and kept quiet from 1966 till 1997, the
claimants are not entitled to lay claim any land in S.No.461 by stating that the
land sold to the 1st claimant is in Devada Village. Thus, the trial court held that
the entire acquired land of Ac.111.16 cents formed part of Ac. 194.16 cents,
which was in occupation of 1st claimant and it is part of the land sold by
Smt.B.V.S.Narayana Rao under Ex.A9 and the entire acquired land was part
of the land purchased by the 1st claimant and he is entitled to compensation.
(b) So far as the claimant No.2 is concerned, the trial Court observed that
though 2nd claimant claimed land in an extent of Ac.16.00 cents in Sy.No.461
and examined PWs.5 and 6 and produced Ex.A58 to A69, however, having
sold Ac.16.00 cents under Ex.A58-Sale deed by Kondrapu Sanyasaiah in
favour of M/s Hindustan Mineral Products Ltd., the 2nd claimant failed to
establish how they still got property in S.No.461. It was observed that Ex.A59
was a kadapa deed for Ac.16.00 cents in patta No.994 and the other
documents such as Ex.A58 and 59 were photo copies of title deed and
pattadar passbooks relating to other land but not in respect of the land in
Sy.No.461. Therefore, 2nd claimant could not establish the title for the land in
Sy.No.461 to claim compensation. The trial Court accordingly rejected the
claim of the 2nd claimant.
(c) So far as the claim of claimant Nos.5 to 7 on one hand and claimant
Nos. 8, 10 & 11 to 16 on the other is concerned, the trial Court observed that
both the sets of claimants have claimed compensation for Ac.8.00 cents
basing on the same sale deed i.e., Ex.P92 which is the certified copy of
Ex.P93 - sale deed executed in favour of Talari Peddappadu, Velugula
Ramaiah and Gokivada Maramma by Talari Appala Swamy in respect of
Ac.27.80 cents in three bits in patta Nos.4, 5 and 9. However, none of them
could establish how they are entitled to the land in Sy.No.461. No documents
were produced by them to show that they were granted any patta in the
Sy.No.461 after abolition of Estates. The trial Court accordingly rejected their
claim.
(d) Ultimately, the trial Court considering the evidence on record held that
the acquired land of Ac.111.16 cents is a part of Ac.194.16 cents in Sy.No.461
which was in occupation of 1st claimant and the same was part of the land sold
by Late Smt. B.V.S. Narayana Rao under Ex.A9 and therefore the 1st claimant
alone is entitled to compensation. Hence the three appeals by the respective
claimants as mentioned in para-1 supra.
III. ARGUMENTS:
Heard arguments of Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for
appellants in A.S.No.549/2018, Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for
appellant/s in A.S.Nos.635/2018 & 995/2018 and learned Government
Pleader for appeals for official respondents and Sri N. Subba Rao learned
counsel for respondent / claimant No.1.
1. Severely fulminating the order dt: 06.03.2018 of the learned Judge in
L.A.O.P No.1759/1999 Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for
appellants No.3 and 4 vehemently argued that the trial Court committed grave
error in comprehending the voluminous oral and documentary evidence
placed before the Court by the appellants to establish that appellants/
claimants 3 and 4 are indeed the owners of the acquired land of Ac.111.16
cents in Sy.No.461/2B and 461/2C and erroneously held as if the 1st claimant
who purchased some land from the mother of appellants herein is the owner
of the acquired land and he is entitled to compensation in toto. Learned
counsel would strenuously argue that the land sold by Smt. B.V.S. Narayana
Rao, the mother of appellants/claimants 3 and 4 under Ex.A9-sale deed dt:
01.07.1957 in favour of 1st claimant is altogether a different land which is
situated in Devada Village whereas the acquired land of Ac.111.16 cents is
situated in Cheepurapalli (West) Village in Parvada Mandal. Therefore, the 1st
claimant cannot lay any claim for compensation on the strength of Ex.A9
which has nothing to do with the acquired lands. On the other hand, the
mother of the claimants 3 and 4 who was held to be entitled to Ryotwari patta
for Ac.436.00 cents by the Board of Revenue in its order under Ex.A13, dt:
29.06.1966, is entitled for compensation, inasmuch as, the acquired land is a
part of the said land. Therefore, claimants 3 and 4 but not the claimant No.1
is entitled to compensation in toto in exclusion of all other rival claimants
including claimant No.1. He would argue that in Civil Appeal No.2177/2007
the Apex Court also confirmed that the "respondent", meaning thereby
claimants 3 and 4 are entitled to the said Ac.436.00 cents of land. While thus
emphasizing that the land sold to 1st claimant by their mother is other than the
acquired land, it is contended on behalf of claimants 3 and 4 that they alone
deserve the compensation.
2. Per contra, Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for
appellant/claimant No.2 in A.S.No.635/2018 argued that his client is the owner
of an extent of Ac.16.00 cents in Sy.No.461/2B which is a part of the acquired
land and the forefathers of the 2nd claimant were granted patta to the said land
by the Assistant Settlement Officer and the trial Court erroneously rejected the
claim of 2nd claimant to that extent. He would argue that the Settlement Fair
Adangal reflects the names of the 2nd claimant and his father Kundrapu
Chinna Swami Naidu for Sy.No.461 and therefore they are entitled to
compensation. In fact, the name of 2nd claimant's father was shown as owner
in the notification issued under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of Land Acquisition
Act. He further argued that the total extent of Sy.No.461 is Ac.1380.00
cents, out of which only Ac.194.16 cents was granted as settlement patta in
favour of 1st claimant and there is no proof that acquired land is part of the
said land. The trial Court has not properly considered the oral and
documentary evidence. Learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal and
direct that the 2nd claimant is entitled to compensation to an extent of Ac.16.00
cents.
3. Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy who is the counsel also for appellants
/claimants 5 to 7 and 9 to 16 argued that the appellants are owners of
Ac.25.00 cents in Sy.No.461 by virtue of Ex.A92 and 93 sale deed dated
12.05.1930 and out of the said land an extent of Ac.8.00 was acquired by the
Authorities and hence they are entitled to compensation to that extent.
However, the trial Court without considering the oral evidence of PWs.5, 6 and
8 and documentary evidence i.e., Ex.P58, 65, 68, 69 and 93 to 97, rejected
their claim. He thus prayed to allow the appeal.
4. In oppugnation, Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for appellant/
claimant No.1 argued that the 1st claimant purchased an extent of Ac.807.00
in patta No.98 situated in Vada Cheepurapalli, Anakapalli Taluk with specific
boundaries from B.V.S Narayana Rao under Ex.A9 - registered sale deed
dated 01.07.1957. The vendee was put in possession of the said land and he
is in enjoyment thereof. The vendor of the 1st claimant purchased the said
land from her father under Ex.A4-registered sale deed dt: 29.07.1948.
Though in the said sale deed the extent of the land is roughly mentioned as
Ac.350.00 cents, however on ground it was more in extent. Thereafter the
said B.V.S. Narayana Rao leased out Ac.807.00 cents of land to M/s Bharat
Mining Company (BMC) under Ex.A5 - registered lease deed dt: 10.05.1952
and put them in possession. The said BMC in turn sub-leased the said
Ac.807.00 cents of land to 1st claimant under Ex.A6 - lease deed dt:
19.05.1952. Learned counsel further argued, while the things stood so,
Cheepurapalli Zamindary Estate was abolished and when B.V.S Narayana
Rao applied for ryotwari patta U/s 11 of Estates Abolition Act, the Assistant
Settlement Officer, Vizianagaram granted patta to her for Ac.350.00 cents
under Ex.A8 proceeding dt: 27.12.1954. Later B.V.S Narayana Rao sold the
sub-leased land of Ac.807 cents to the 1st claimant under Ex.A9 - sale deed
dt: 01.07.1957. Aggrieved by the Ex.A8 - proceedings dated 27.12.1954 of
the Assistant Settlement Officer, Vizianagaram a joint Revision Petition
No.183/1962 was filed by BVS Narayana Rao and her vendee i.e., 1st claimant
before Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam. After enquiry the Settlement
Officer in his order under Ex.A10 dt: 15.12.1962 held that petitioners are
entitled to ryotwari patta U/s 11(A) of Estates Abolition Act for the entire extent
comprised within the limits of the boundaries specified in Ex.P1 and P4 (in
Ex.A10) and the actual extent will be determined after receipt of report from
Officer-In-Charge, Survey Party, Vizianagaram.
5. Learned counsel further argued that questioning the said order, the
Government filed revision before Director of Settlement, Survey and Land
Reforms, Board of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The Director of
Settlement in Ex.A11 order dt: 15.12.1964, while setting aside the orders of
Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam held that the respondents are not entitled
for any land situated in Devada Village.
6. Learned counsel further argued that aggrieved, the 1st claimant and its
vendor approached the Board of Revenue making a claim to grant patta to an
extent of Ac.573.00 cents in favour of BVS Narayana Rao and Ac.807.00
cents in favour of 1st claimant, meaning thereby they claimed a total extent of
Ac.1380.00 cents in patta No.98. The Board of Revenue under Ex.A13 - order
dt: 29.06.1966 held that BVS Narayana Rao should be issued patta in RS
Nos.127/P, 128, 129, 130/P, 446/P, 447 to 451, 459, 460, 461/P, 462, 463,
464, 467 to 478 of Cheepurapalli Village for approximately Ac.436.00 cents.
Thus the Board of Revenue confirmed that the patta entitled to by BVS
Narayana Rao is for an extent of Ac.436.00 cents only. Learned counsel
vehemently contended that since the land sold by BVS Narayana Rao to 1 st
claimant under Ex.A9 is Ac.807.00 cents, and patta obtained by her is for a
lesser extent, the said land shall be deemed to be the part of Ex.A9 and
thereby 1st claimant alone is entitled to compensation.
7. Learned counsel further argued that when some of the ryots raised
objection that the vendor of the 1st claimant was not entitled to patta for a
rough extent of Ac.504.00 cents as some of the land therein was a grazing
land and themselves are entitled to patta, the 1st claimant filed OS No.8/1979
seeking a declaration that there was no grazing land in the above extent of
land and it is the private land purchased by him. The said suit was dismissed
by the District Court, Visakhapatnam under Ex.A86 - judgment dated
06.02.1980. Aggrieved, the 1st claimant filed A.S No.328/1980 before High
Court of A.P. As per Ex.A99 - judgment, the High Court allowed the first
appeal and held that the 1st claimant / plaintiff is entitled to patta for an extent
of Ac.310.00 cents in Sy.No.461 co-related to patta No.98 in Cheepurapalli
Village. It was held that the said land was not a grazing land. Learned
counsel thus emphasized that by virtue of judgment in AS No.328/1980,
neither BVS Narayana Rao nor the 1st claimant was entitled to claim more
than Ac.310.00 cents. The claimants 3 and 4 filed review petition and the
same was dismissed. Learned counsel thus argued that in spite of the land in
Sy.No.461 was held to be of different extents in different proceedings,
ultimately Hon'ble High Court held that the 1st claimant is entitled to patta for
Ac.310.00 cents. Whereas, BVS Narayana Rao sold Ac.807.00 cents to the
1st claimant under Ex.A9. Therefore, BVS Narayana Rao, even if entitled to
patta to any extent of land in subsequent proceedings, the same shall vest in
1st claimant as per Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act as the 1st
claimant purchased Ac.807.00 cents of land from BVS Narayana Rao as a
transferee in good faith for consideration. He finally argued that the other
claimants also are not entitled to any compensation as they failed to establish
their title to the respective lands claimed by them. He thus prayed to dismiss
the appeals.
IV. The points for consideration:
(i) What is the exact extent of land leased out by Ex-Zamindar of Vada
Cheepurupalli Zameen Estate to R.Gajapathi Rao in patta No.98?
(ii) What is the exact extent of the land sold by Ragati Gajapathi Rao in
favour of his daughter Birra Venkata Seetha Narayana Rao (BVS
Narayana Rao) under Ex.A4-Sale deed dt.29.07.1948?
(iii) What is the exact extent of land leased out by BVS Narayana Rao in
favour of Bharat Mining and Trading Company (BMTC) under Ex.A5-
Lease deed dt.10.05.1952?
(iv) What is the exact extent of the land for which ryotwari patta was
issued under Section 11(a) of Estates Abolition Act by the Assistant
Settlement Officer, in his proceedings No.4560/54 in favour of BVS
Narayana Rao under Ex.A8-Order dt.27.12.1954?
(v) What is the exact extent of the land sold by BVS Narayana Rao in
favour of M/s Sri Krishna Salt Works, Visakhapatnam/1st claimant
under Ex.A9-Sale deed dt.01.07.1957?
(vi) For how much extent of the land, BVS Narayana Rao and Sri
Krishna Salt Works, VSP/1st claimant were held entitled for ryotwari
patta by the Settlement Officer as per Ex.A10-Order dt.15.12.1962
in R.P.No.183/62?
(vii) In R.P.Nos.40/63 and 46/63 filed by Collector, VSP and M/s
Hindustan Mineral Products against BVS Narayana Rao and Sri
Krishna Salt Works, whether the Director of Settlements,
Hyderabad in his order dt.15.12.1964 held that BVS Narayana Rao
and Sri Krishna Salt Works were entitled to patta for any extent of
land?
(viii) Whether Board of Revenue in Ex.A13-order dated 29.06.1966 held
that BVS Narayana Rao and 1st claimant are entitled to ryotwari
patta for any extent of land?
(ix) What is the impact of Ex.A14-order dt.16.03.1967 in W.P.No.1065/
1966?
(x) What is the impact of judgment in AS No.328/1980 on the file of
High Court of Andhra Pradesh with regard to the rights of BVS
Narayana Rao vis-à-vis the 1st claimant?
(xi) Whether claimant Nos.2, 5 to 7 and 9 to 16 established their claim
for compensation?
V. POINTS (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) & (v): These points are intertwined and hence
for convenient sake they are taken up together. It should be noted, so far as
claims of claimant No.1 on one hand and claimant Nos.3 and 4 on the other is
concerned, there is any amount of vagueness and mystery shrouded
regarding the actual extent of land which the erstwhile zamindar of Vada
Cheepurupalli had leased out to R.Gajapathi Rao, the father of BVS Narayana
Rao. This clumsiness continued in subsequent transactions as well as quasi
judicial proceedings which we presently look into.
1. In this context, it should be noted that claimants 3 & 4 though claimed
that in patta No.98 of Cheepurupalli West village, the erstwhile zamindar has
granted a permanent lease of Ac.1380.00 cents in favour of R.Gajapathi Rao
with transferrable and heritable rights, however, they have not produced the
so called lease deed said to be executed between them. On the other hand,
they produced Ex.A3-Registration extract of kadapa (lease deed)
dt.07.11.1927 which shows that R.Gajapathi Rao leased out Ac.350.00 cents
in favour of one Chandika Hanumantha Rao Naidu and the said lessee has
executed a reciprocal document i.e., kadapa under Ex.A3 in favour of lessor,
in respect of the land namely Uppupara situated in Cheepurupalli Estate,
Cheepurupalli (West) Village of Anakapalli Sub-Division of Visakhapatnam
District covered by zyrayati patta No.98 for two years i.e., 01.12.1927 to
30.11.1929 on a yearly rent of Rs.1200/-, with the following boundaries:
East: Zyrayati dry of Godechettu Janakiyamma, Dalai Appadu,
Bheri Surya Reddy.
South: The casuarina tope of Samalakonda and Ichapurapu
Yagna Narayana.
West: The zyrayati of Yandrapu Appadu, Akunuri Venkata Surya
Narayana's inam land, Pola Kondangu, Yandrapu
Sanyasi, Dalai Appadu's zyrayati, Venkanna's inam estate
wet.
North: The zyrayati of Bonda Acchanna and Muppidi Venkatrao
Naidu and Mokhasa of Devada.
2. While so, under Ex.A4-sale deed dt.29.07.1948, for a sale
consideration of Rs.3,000/-, R.Gajapathi Rao sold to his daughter BVS
Narayana Rao, approximately Ac.350.00 cents of land situated in
Cheepurupalli Estate covered by zyrayati patta No.98 which was earlier
leased out by him under Ex.A3-kadapa deed. The boundaries of the said land
are as follows:
East: The zyrayati dry of Venki Naidu, Dalai Appadu, Bheri Surya
Rao Naidu.
South: The zyrayati of Samala Kondaiah, Kakarlapudi Varaha
Narsimha Raju.
West: The lands of Masavarapu Poli Naidu, Gandi Swamy,
Kundrapu Appadu, Kulavarthy Ramanaiah, Dalai Appadu,
Andhkuri Appa Rao.
North: The zyrayati land of Bonda Acchannabatthula Ramadandu
and Devada Mokhasa.
It should be noted that there are some slight differences in boundaries
between Ex.A3 & A4 owing to the efflux of time but the extent of land in both
these documents is mentioned as Ac.350.00 cents. However, the case of
claimants 3 & 4 is that though in Ex.A4 the extent of land mentioned as
Ac.350.00 cents, however, on ground its extent is about Ac.1380.00 cents
within the above boundaries which was enjoyed by R.Gajapathi Rao and sold
to his daughter BVS Narayana Rao.
3. While so, BVS Narayana Rao executed Ex.A5 (=Ex.A84)-registered
lease deed dt.10.05.1952 in favour of Bharat Mining and Trading Company
(BMTC) an extent of Ac.807.00 cents of swamp land marked as A B C D E F
G H J K in the plan attached to the lease deed for twenty five (25) years on a
yearly rent of Rs.1200/-. Regarding the origin of such a vast extent of land, it
was mentioned in Ex.A5 that the said land was a part of the land granted to
her father by the zamindar as a permanent lease with transferrable and
heritable rights under patta No.98 of Cheepurupalli Estate and the said land
measures about Ac.1400.00 cents and herself and her father were enjoying
the same.
It should be noted that the claimants 3 & 4 have not produced the lease
deed said to be executed by ex-zamindar in favour of R.Gajapathi Rao
granting permanent lease of Ac.1380.00 cents with transferrable and heritable
rights. Nor in Ex.A5-lease deed, the lessor BVS Narayana Rao referred the
particulars of the so called permanent lease deed said to be executed by
ex-zamindar as a source of her title. In view of this vagueness relating to the
actual extent of the land, what can be inferred from the available record,
particularly Ex.A3-kadapa and Ex.A4-sale deed is that, the ex-zamindar might
have leased out an extent of Ac.350.00 cents in favour of R.Gajapathi Rao
and he in turn initially leased out the said land under Ex.A3 to one Chandika
Hanumantha Rao and later sold the said land to his daughter under Ex.A4-
sale deed. Further, since those said transactions were prior to the abolition of
estates under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948, and as there was no
government survey at that time, the extent of the land covered by Ex.A3 & A4
might be something different from the extent specified in those documents.
Therefore, Ex.A3 & A4 do not reflect the exact extent of the land on ground.
While such clumsiness was prevailing, it appears BVS Narayana Rao
executed Ex.A5-lease deed in favour of BMTC and both lessor and lessee,
under an impression that the land in possession of BVS Narayana Rao was
more than Ac.800.00 cents, entered into lease transaction for Ac.807.00
cents. While so, within short time, BMTC has sub-leased the said land to M/s
Sri Krishna Salt Works/1st claimant under Ex.A6-registered lease deed
dt.19.05.1952. That is how the 1st claimant obtained Ac.807.00 cents of the
land initially on lease.
4. While the things stood thus, Vada Cheepurupalli Estate was abolished
as per the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. As a consequence,
BVS Narayana Rao applied for ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of Estates
Abolition Act, 1948. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Vizianagaram
conducted an enquiry regarding her claim. Apart from Ex.A4-sale deed, it
appears, BVS Narayana Rao placed reliance on Ex.A3-kadapa deed stood in
favour of her father as a source document. She claimed that though in those
documents the extent was mentioned as Ac.350.00 cents, however, its actual
extent was more than Ac.800.00 cents. The Assistant Settlement Officer
ultimately held thus:
"The Tahasildar Manager says that the land comprised in patta
No.98 measures Ac.350.00 cents according to the accounts filed
by the land holder and that it is nearly Ac.700.00 cents to
Ac.800.00 cents on ground more. Some discrepancies are
noticed in the boundaries in the several documents filed by the
petitioner. The Tahasildar Manager also says that no third party
claims any interest in the lands comprised within that ...
boundaries. The village is not surveyed even now. It is therefore,
difficult to fix the exact area comprised in the patta holding of 98
except from the recitals in Ex.P1, P3, P4 & P5 in which given the
extent as Ac.350.00 cents. The petitioner is therefore, held
entitled to a ryotwari patta for an extent of Ac.350.00 cents
comprised in patta No.98 and within the boundaries as
described in Ex.P1 (lease deed dt.07.11.1927) as enumerated
above". (emphasis supplied)
Thus in Ex.A8-Order dt.27.12.1954 the Assistant Settlement Officer
held that BVS Narayana Rao was entitled to ryotwari patta for Ac.350.00
cents only.
5. While so, BVS Narayana Rao, without first challenging the Ex.A8-order,
executed Ex.A9-sale deed dt.01.07.1957 in favour of Sri Krishna Salt
Works/1st claimant and sold away Ac.807.00 cents of the land which was sub-
leased by BMTC to it. In the said sale deed, though a reference was made
about Ex.A8-order, still BVS Narayana Rao sold Ac.807 cents to 1st claimant.
6. Therefore, Points (i) to (v) are concerned, the evidence on record
shows that though Assistant Settlement Officer held that BVS Narayana Rao
was entitled to ryotwari patta for Ac.350.00 cents, however, she sold
Ac.807.00 cents under Ex.A9-sale deed to M/s Sri Krishna Salt Works/1st
claimant. The repercussion of this transaction will be discussed presently in
the points infra.
VI. POINTS (vi) (vii) (viii) & (ix): These points are interconnected and
have a bearing with the points discussed supra.
1. After abolition of estates, survey and settlement operations were
undertaken under Section 21 of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. As such Sri
Krishna Salt Works/1st claimant appears to have applied for survey and
issuance of ryotwari patta for the land purchased under Ex.A9. After survey,
the Officer incharge of survey party issued a rough patta for a revised extent
of Ac.504.00 cents only and hence, the 1st claimant was aggrieved. Similarly,
BVS Narayana Rao was also aggrieved with the Ex.A8-order of Assistant
Settlement Officer issuing her ryotwari patta for only Ac.350.00 cents instead
of an extent of Ac.1380.00 cents as prayed for. Hence, both of them filed
revision petition No.183/62 before Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam wherein
BVS Narayana Rao/1st petitioner claimed patta for Ac.573.00 cents (Ac.1380
- Ac.807) and Sri Krishna Salt Works/2nd petitioner claimed patta for
Ac.807.00 cents. Their main plank of argument was that by the time ex-
zamindar executed permanent lease deed in favour of R.Gajapathi Rao,
V.Cheepurupalli Estate was not abolished and survey and settlement
operations were not undertaken and as such rough extent of the land could
only be shown but with specific boundaries and as it is trite law that
boundaries would prevail over extent, the petitioners are entitled to the entire
extent of land lying within the specified boundaries, which is about Ac.1400.00
cents. They further contended that the petitioners were held entitled to wrong
extents by the authorities basing on the Block survey conducted in 1912 in
respect of Devada village which is one of the boundaries to the subject land.
The said survey was conducted for levy of cess and the petitioners who were
not parties to said survey were not bound.
2. The Settlement Officer enquired into the claim of the petitioners and
observed that the survey of Devada village was conducted under Madras
Survey and Boundaries Act IV of 1897; Devada village was a service inam
land whereas the subject land claimed by the petitioners in Cheepurupalli
West Village is a zyrayati land and hence the said survey was not binding on
the petitioners and further, such survey might have had the defect of
converting zyrayati land into government service inam land. The Settlement
Officer thus in Ex.A10-order dt.15.12.1962 held that the petitioners be
granted ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of Estates Abolition Act, 1948 for
the entire extent comprised within the limits of boundaries specified in Ex.P1
& P4 (produced before him) as shown in the rough sketch prepared by the
Settlement Tahasildar, Visakhapatnam. He further held that the actual extent
will be determined after receipt of report from the officer incharge, No.1,
survey party, Vizianagaram. He directed that Eastern boundary of
Cheepurupalli West village shall be redefined and re-demarcated on the basis
of the report of Settlement Tahsildar, VSP. He also directed that the common
boundary between Cheepurupalli East village and Devada Mukhasa shall be
re-demarcated. He accordingly allowed the revision petition.
3. Aggrieved by the above order, the Collector, Visakhapatnam and others
filed R.P.Nos.40/63 and 46/63 before the Director of Settlements, Hyderabad.
One of the contentions is that in the patta granted by the zamindar in respect
of Cheepurupalli West Village, the area situated in Devada Mukhasa was also
included. Agreeing with the said contention, the Director of Settlements while
holding that the two villages Cheepurupalli and Devada are situated in two
distinct Talukas and zamindar had no power to grant pattas in a land which
does not belong to him, set aside the orders of the Settlement Officer under
his order dt.15.12.1964 vide Ex.A11.
4. Aggrieved BVS Narayana Rao and Sri Krishna Salt Works and others
filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue
having taken into consideration the Ex.A3-registered kadapa deed
dt.07.11.1927 and survey conducted by Assistant Director of Survey and Land
Records passed order dt.29.06.1966 vide Ex.A13 as follows:
"15. The Board therefore holds, that the lands comprising of patta
No.98 of Cheepurupalli Zamin village, with reference to the
boundaries furnished in Kadapa of 1927, are localized as the
lands colour washed in red in the sketch enclosed. It accordingly
directs that in part modification of the patta issued by the A.S.O.
for R.S.No.461, Mrs.B.V.S.Narayana Rao should be granted patta
for R.S.No.127/P, 128, 129, 130/P, 446/P, 447 to 451, 459, 460,
461/P, 462, 467 to 478 of Cheepurupalli Village, measuring
approximately 436 acres. (emphasis supplied) The Northern
portion of R.S.No.461, colour washed in yellow, should be got
sub-divided and registered in accounts as grazing ground
poramboke. The revision petition filed by the villagers of
Cheepurupalli is partly allowed. The joint revision petition filed by
Mrs.B.V.S.Narayana Rao and Sri Krishna Salt Works and the
revision petitions filed by the other revision petitioners 3 to 7 are
hereby dismissed."
5. Aggrieved by Ex.A13 order, BVS Narayana Rao and M/s Sri Krishna
Salt Works filed W.P.No.1065/1966 and High Court of A.P. in Ex.A14-order
dt.16.03.1967 dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:
"It is thus clear that the order in question does not suffer
from any defect which may warrant issue of writ of certiorari. It is
only where there is want or excess of jurisdiction of denial of
principle of natural justice or error of law apparent on the face of
the record that the question of interference would arise. It does not
appear that the Board of Revenue had acted beyond its
jurisdiction is passing the impugned order. Nor does it appear that
it went wrong in interpreting any statutory term or provisions. Nor
can it be said that it had wrongly applied any general principle of
law in passing the order. It is not certainly a case of error of law
apparent on the face of the record.
In these circumstances, W.P.No.1065/1966 deserves to be
dismissed with costs and it is accordingly dismissed with costs of
respondents 1 to 7 and 10."
6. Thus, the above discussion would show that at the inception, under
Ex.A3-kadapa deed dt.07.11.1927 R.Gajapathi Rao leased out Ac.350.00
cents in favour of Chandika Hanumantha Rao Naidu and later sold the said
land to his daughter BVS Narayana Rao under Ex.A4-sale deed
dt.29.07.1948. BVS Narayana Rao sold away the said land to M/s Sri Krishna
Salt Works under Ex.A9-sale deed dt.01.07.1957. Even before affecting the
sale, as the Vada Cheepuraupalli Estate was abolished, she applied for
ryotwari patta in her name for about Ac.1380.00 cents on the premise that the
land purchased by her within the specified boundaries contains the said
extent. However, having regard to Ex.A3-kadapa deed dt.07.11.1927, the
Assistant Settlement Officer held that BVS Narayana Rao who purchased
above lands under Ex.A4-sale deed from her father R.Gajapathi Rao was
entitled to ryotwari patta for Ac.350.00 cents and this order of the primary
quasi-judicial authority was subject matter of revisions before the hierarchy of
authorities and ultimately the Board of Revenue having taken into
consideration the Ex.A3-kadapa deed and also the survey conducted by the
Assistant Director of Survey, held in Ex.A13-order dt.29.06.1966 that Smt.
BVS Narayana Rao is entitled to ryotwari patta approximately for Ac.436.00
cents in R.S.No.461 and other survey numbers. The said order was confirmed
in W.P.No.1065/1966. It should be noted, since under Ex.A9-sale deed, BVS
Narayana Rao sold away to M/s Sri Krishna Salt Works what all the land she
purchased under Ex.A4-sale deed, she has to reimburse the land which she
obtained by way of ryotwari patta to M/s Sri Krishna Salt Works following the
principle feeding the grant by estoppel enumerated in Section 43 of Transfer
of Property Act, 1882.
7. Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act envisages the equitable principle
of "feeding the grant by estoppel". The Section reads thus:
"43. Transfer by unauthorized person who subsequently
acquires interest in property transferred. - Where a person
fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is unauthorized to
transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer
such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option
of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may
acquire in such property, at any time during which the contract of
transfer subsists.
Nothing in this section shall impair the right of transferees
in good faith for consideration without notice of the existence of
the said option."
The above doctrine is based on the principle of estoppel. According to it
where a granter has purported to grant an interest in the land which he did not
at the time possess, but subsequently acquires, the benefit of his subsequent
acquisition goes automatically to the earlier grantee. In other words, where a
vendor sells without title in the property but subsequently acquires title then a
right accrues to the purchaser to claim interest in the said property and it
automatically goes in favour of the transferee. Thus Section 43 explicates that
whenever a person transfers property to which he has no title on a
representation that he has a present and transferrable interest therein and
acting on that representation the transferee takes a transfer for consideration.
If the transferor subsequently acquires the property, the transferee becomes
entitled to it. There is an exception in favour of transferees for consideration in
good faith and without notice of the rights under the prior transferee. But apart
from that, the principle is absolute.
In Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (dead) by LRs. 1 the Apex Court
inter alia, dealt with the principle under Section 43 of T.P.Act. It observed:
"7. Section 43, on the other hand, embodies a 'rule of feeding the
estoppel' and enacts that a person who makes a representation
shall not be heard to allege the contrary as against a person who
acts thereupon and it is immaterial whether the transferor acts
bona fide or fraudulently in making the representation. [See
Jumma Masjid, Mercara v. Kodimaniandra Deviah
MANU/SC/0397/1962 : AIR1962SC847.
In order to get the benefit of the said provision, the
conditions which must be satisfied are:
(1) the contract of transfer was made by a person who was
competent to contract; and
(2) the contract would be subsisting at the time when a claim
for recovery of the property is made.
(2007) 2 SCC 404
However, the provisions would have no application if the
transfer was invalid as being forbidden by law or contrary to public
policy, as envisaged under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
Thus, no estoppel can be pleaded contrary to the provisions of a
statute. The 'rule of feeding the estoppel' shall apply in absence
thereof.
8. The doctrine of feeding the estoppel envisages that 'where a
grantor has purported to grant an interest in land which he did not
at the time possess, but subsequently acquires, the benefit of his
subsequent acquisition, goes automatically to the earlier grantee,
or as it is usually expressed, feeds the estoppel'"
In Ram Pyare v. Ram Narain2 considering the relevant provisions of
the Act including Sections 137A, 134 and 43 of T.P.Act their Lordships of
Supreme Court held as follows:
"4. xxxxx The amount of deposit under Section 134 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition Act was made on October 28, 1961 and it was
on the same day that the sell deed was executed by Matbar Mal. It
is clear that Matbar Mal erroneously represented to the vendee
that he was authorised to transfer the property and professed to
transfer such property for consideration. The very execution of the
sale deed on the same day as the deposit of the requisite amount
under Section 134 is significant enough to establish that the sale
deed was the result of an erroneous representation by Matbar
Mal. It is also clear that the present plaintiffs who are the sons of
the vendor, Matbar Mal cannot possibly claim to be transferees in
good faith which indeed they do not claim to be. Section 43 clearly
applies to the situation."
In Tanu Ram Bora v. Promod Ch.Das (D) through Lrs. & others3 the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"7.4 Section 43 of the T.P. Act provides that where a person
fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to
transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer
such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option
of the transferee, operates on any interest which the transferor
may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract
of transfer subsists. Thus, if at the time of transfer, the
vendor/transferor might have a defective title or have no title
and/or no right or interest, however subsequently the transferor
acquires the right, title or interest and the contract of transfer
subsists, in that case at the option of the transferee, such a
transfer is valid. In such a situation, the transferor cannot be
AIR 1985 SC 694=MANU/SC/0293/1985
(2019) 4 SCC 173
permitted to challenge the transfer and/or the transferor has no
option to raise the dispute in making the transfer.
7.5 The intention and objects behind Section 43 of the T.P. Act
seems to be based on the principle of estoppel as well as the
equity. The intention and objects seems to be that after procuring
the money (sale consideration) and transferring the land,
thereafter the transferor is estopped from saying that though he
has sold/transferred the property/land on payment of sale
consideration, still the transfer is not binding to him. That is why
Section 43 of the T.P. Act gives an option to the transferee and
not the transferor. The intention of Section 43 of the Act seems to
be that nobody can be permitted to take the benefits of his own
wrong. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 43 of
the Act would come into play and protect the rights of the original
Plaintiff."
8. With the above jurisprudence when case on hand is scrutinized, BVS
Narayana Rao executed Ex.A9-sale deed in favour of M/s Sri Krishna Salt
Works reciting therein that under Ex.A4-sale deed dt.29.07.1948 she
purchased the subject land and also obtained ryotwari patta under Ex.A8 and
prior to that she executed Ex.A5-lease deed dt.10.05.1952 in favour of Bharat
Mining and Trading Company for an extent of Ac.807.00 cents and that she
was selling the same land to M/s Sri Krishna Salt Works and in good faith, the
vendee purchased the said land. It should be noted, initially the Assistant
Settlement officer issued ryotwari patta to BVS Narayana Rao only for
Ac.350.00 cents and in the subsequent revisions, the Board of Revenue
confirmed the said extent as Ac.436.00 cents. The contract of sale was a valid
one except for the erroneous representation of BVS Narayana Rao regarding
its extent as Ac.807.00 cents. Therefore, applying the doctrine of feeding the
grant by estoppel, for whatever land she obtained ryotwari patta in patta
No.98, the same shall be reimbursed to M/s Sri Krishna Salt Works. Hence,
the contention of claimants 3 & 4 that the land sold by their mother to M/s Sri
Krishna Salt Works and the land for which she obtained ryotwari patta were
quite different, does not hold water. The acquired land falls within the land
purchased by M/s Sri Krishna Salt Works and therefore, the 1st claimant is
entitled to compensation but not claimants 3 & 4.
These points are accordingly answered.
VII. POINT (x): One of the contentions of claimants 3 & 4 is that in the
review petition filed in A.S.No.328/1980, the High Court of A.P. held that BVS
Narayana Rao was entitled to Ac.436.00 cents and the subject land in that
appeal was different and therefore, it should be understood that the land sold
by her is different from her patta land of Ac.436.00 cents and the acquired
land falls within that domain and therefore claimants 3 & 4 are entitled to
compensation. This argument can be heard only to be rejected.
1. It should be noted, aggrieved by one of the observations of Board of
Revenue in its order dt.29.06.1966 (Ex.A13) that the Northern portion of
R.S.No.461 colour washed in yellow should be subdivided and registered as
grazing ground poramboke in the accounts, M/s Sri Krishna Salt Works filed
O.S.No.8/1979 on the file of District Court Visakhapatnam for a declaration
that the said land is not a communal poramboke but a ryoti land belonging to
the plaintiff and for a consequential permanent injunction. The trial court
dismissed the suit. Hence, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.328/1980 before High
Court of A.P. In that appeal a Division Bench remanded the matter to the trial
court to conduct an enquiry and submit a report on the following issues so as
to deliver judgment in the appeal:
(1) Whatever the land covered by patta No.98 is situated in
Sy.No.461 only, as per the survey conducted in the year 1957
after the estate was taken over or the land covered by patta No.98
extends over the land in Sy.No.127P, 128, 129, 130/P, 446/P, 447
to 451, 459, 460, 461/P, 462, 463, 464, 467 to 479 of
Cheepurupalli?
(2) Whether the lands on the northern portion of sy.No.461 are
recorded as communal or village poramboke in the village
accounts maintained by land holder and whether there is any
evidence to support the report of the Assistant Director, Survey
and Settlement?
(3) The total extent of land in Sy.No.461 maintaining the same
boundaries fixed in Survey operation that was conducted in 1912
between Cheepurupalli and Devada villages.
(4) Whether patta no.98 can be co-related to sy.No.461 only
and not other survey numbers as reported by the Assistant
Director?
2. The District Judge, Visakhapatnam after enquiry submitted his report
dt.26.06.2004 as follows:
Issue No.1:
That the land covered by patta No.98 was correlated only
to Sy.No.461 as per the survey conducted in the year 1958 and
the estate was taken over and the other survey numbers have
nothing to do with the land situated in patta No.98 of
Cheepurupalli village.
Issue No.2:
That the land that is being used as village poramboke in
the village accounts is on the northern side of Sy.No.461, but no
part of Sy.No.461 is shown as communal and village poramboke
in the village accounts.
Issue No.3:
That the appellant is entitled for a patta to the extent of 310
acres in Sy.No.461 correlated to patta No.98 of Cheepurupalli
village.
Issue No.4:
In the light of those findings, the issue No.4 (ie) whether
patta No.98 can be correlated to Sy.No.461 only and not other
survey numbers as reported by the Assistant Director, becomes
redundant.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and judgment and decree in
O.S.No.8/1979 was set aside and it was held that the appellant is entitled for
a ryotwari patta for an extent of Ac.310.00 cents in S.No.461 correlated to
patta No.98 in Cheepurupalli Village.
3. Later, claimants 3 & 4 filed A.S.L.P. No.15306/2004 in Review
C.M.P.(S.R.) No.53639/2004 in A.S.No.328/1980 seeking leave to file a
petition to review the judgment in A.S.No.328/1980 on the ground that in the
extent of Ac.310.00 cents for which 1st claimant was held entitled to decree,
their mother's patta land of Ac.436.00 cents is also included and thus their
rights are affected. Since the subject matter in AS. 328/1980 (O.S.No.8/1979)
was in respect of the land situated in the Northern portion of R.S.No.461
which was recorded as government grazing poramboke but not in respect of
Ac.436.00 cents, the counsel for 1st claimant herein submitted that the said
suit and appeal were only in respect of Ac.310.00 cents which was wrongly
held to be that of government grazing poramboke and it was not making any
claim in respect of other patta land in the suit and appeal. Recording the same
and observing that there was no effect of any rights of the review petitioner in
respect of the properties claimed or held by them to an extent of Ac.436.00
cents and they were not in any way affected, the Division Bench closed the
petition.
As rightly observed by the trial court, the Division Bench in Ex.103-
order did not enquire or gave any positive finding with regard to the claim of
claimants 3 & 4 with regard to the aforesaid Ac.436.00 cents. Therefore, the
judgment in A.S.No.328/1980 should only be understood in the context of the
nature of Ac.310.00 cents of land situated towards North of the land in
S.No.461. Claimants 3 & 4, therefore, cannot shore upon the said judgment to
lay any claim. Even otherwise, assuming for a moment that BVS Narayana
Rao was granted ryotwari patta for Ac.436.00 cents pursuant to Ex.A4, having
sold more extent than the land purchased by her under Ex.A4, she cannot
retain that land but reimburse to the 1st claimant.
VIII. POINT (xi): The 2nd claimant is concerned, his claim is that he has
been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.16.00 cents in S.No.461 of
Cheepurupalli (West) village, since several decades back ryotwari patta was
issued to their father Kundrapu Chinna Sanyasaiah @ Chinna Sanyasi Naidu
and Chinna Swami Naidu. The trial court perused the oral and documentary
evidence adduced on his behalf i.e., evidence of PW5 & 6 and Ex.A58 to A69.
As rightly observed by the trial court, when Kundrapu Sanyasaiah already
sold Ac.16.00 cents of land in S.No.461 under Ex.A58-regisered sale deed
dt.20.12.1963 in favour of M/s Hindusthan Mineral Products it is not known
how the family of the 2nd claimant still retains possession of the said Ac.16.00
cents for decades together. Similarly, the 2nd claimant has not established his
relationship with the said Kundrapu Sanyasaiah. Thus, there is no clarity with
regard to the title of the 2nd claimant. Then Ex.59 is a kadapa executed
among Kundrapu Pagidipalli, Kannuru Acchennaidu and Bandaru Ram Naidu
in respect of Ac.16.00 cents in patta No.994. It is also not known how claimant
No.2 is connected to the said land. So also the other documents filed by
claimant No.2 were rightly not weighed with the trial court to uphold his title for
Ac.16.00 cents.
1. So far as the claim of claimants 5 to 7 on one hand and 8 to 16 on the
other are concerned, both the sets of claimants are making a claim for
compensation for Ac.8.00 cents basing on the Ex.A92-sale deed
dt.12.05.1930. Under Ex.A92 Talari Peda Appadu, Velugula Ramaiah and
Gokivada Maramma purchased three bits of land totaling Ac.27.80 cents of
land of Dalaipalem village in Cheepurupalli Estate from Talari Appala Swamy.
Claimants 5 to 7 are said to be the L.Rs. of Talari Appadu and claimants 8 to
16 are said to be the L.Rs. of Velugula Ramaiah and as per Ex.A97-
agreement between the two families, Dalai people should get 3/4th share and
Velugula people should get 1/4th share in the acquired land. The trial court
held that the claimants 5 to 7 and 8 to 16 failed to establish that they have any
land in S.No.461, perhaps for the reason that the property covered by Ex.A92-
sale deed was not related to patta No.98 i.e., R.S.No.461. They have also not
produced ryotwari pattas said to be issued to them in the subject land covered
by patta No.98 i.e. R.S.No.461. The trial court accordingly rejected their claim.
On perusal of the evidence on record we hold that the finding of the trial court
is correct.
2. Thus on a conspectus of evidence on record, we agree with the finding
of the trial court that the acquired land of Ac.111.16 cents is a part of
Ac.194.16 cents in S.No.461 which was in occupation of the 1st claimant and it
was a part of the land sold by Smt. BVS Narayana Rao under Ex.A9. Thus
the 1st claimant is the title holder of the acquired land and it is entitled to
receive the entire compensation in exclusion of all other claimants.
3. Accordingly, the A.S.Nos.549, 635 and 995 of 2018 are dismissed by
confirming the order in LAOP NO.1759/1999 passed by learned XII Additional
District Judge, Visakhapatnam. No costs.
As a sequel interlocutory applications pending if any shall stand closed.
______________________
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO,J
_______________________
DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR,J
Dt.01.08.2024
KRK/NNN
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
A.S.Nos.549, 635 and 995 of 2018
01.08.2024
KRK/NNN
