Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N Ravindrudu, Prakasam Dist vs The Assistant Commissioner, Prakasam ... on 12 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+ CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.182, 129, 152, 159,
166, 167, 174, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 183, 320, 342,
345, 381, 606, 620, 717, 816, 827, 835 and 857 of 2017
C.M.A. No.182 of 2017
Between:
# Nathani Ravindrudu, S/o Vekataswamy
Aged about 56 years, Cultivation,
R/o Srinagar, Addanki,
Prakasam District, State of A.p.
... Appellant
And
$ 1. The Assistant Commissioner,
Endowments Department,
Ongole, Prakasam District.
2. Sri Karri Parasaiah Kunta,
Addanki Village & Mandal,
Prakasam District.
Rep. by its Executive Officer.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 12.01.2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see
- Yes -
the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals - Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the
- Yes -
Judgment?
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+ CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.182, 129, 152, 159,
166, 167, 174, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 183, 320, 342,
345, 381, 606, 620, 717, 816, 827, 835 and 857 of 2017
C.M.A. No.182 of 2017
% 12.01.2024
# Nathani Ravindrudu, S/o Vekataswamy
Aged about 56 years, Cultivation,
R/o Srinagar, Addanki,
Prakasam District, State of A.p.
... Appellant
And
$ 1. The Assistant Commissioner,
Endowments Department,
Ongole, Prakasam District.
2. Sri Karri Parasaiah Kunta,
Addanki Village & Mandal,
Prakasam District.
Rep. by its Executive Officer.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri V.Mallik
Counsel for Respondents: Mrs. Padmavathi Padnavis
Sri Srinivasa Rao, SC for
Endowments
<Gist :
>Head note :
?Cases referred :
1. 1963(2) AndhWR 214
2. 2014 LawSuit (SC) 3
3.W.A.No.888 and 899 of 2022, dated 23.09.2023
4. AIR 1996 (1) ALT 33 (sc)
3
5. 1996 LawSuit (SC) 94
6. 2014 LawSuit (Hyd) 556
7. 2012 LAwSuit(A) 887
8. 1995 3 SCC 426
9. MANU/AP/0122/2023 = C.R.P.No. 2200 of 2022
10. 2011(9) SCC 126
11. 2010 SCC Online AP 352
12. http://indiankanoon.org/doc/169654277/= W.P.No.17713 of 2017
4
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.182, 129, 152, 159,
166, 167, 174, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 183, 320, 342,
345, 381, 606, 620, 717, 816, 827, 835 and 857 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
All the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against
the common order dated 30.09.2016 passed in O.A.Nos.407,
408, 411, 412, 413, 414, 416, 417, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423,
425, 426, 427, 428, 430, 431, 432 and 433 of 2012 on the
file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani.
2. As the issue involved in these civil miscellaneous
appeals is one and the same, these matters are taken up
together for disposal by this Common Judgment.
3. The facts in these appeals are similar and identical,
therefore CMA No.182 of 2017 is taken as lead case, and the
facts therein are referred to for convenience.
4. The facts of the case are that the 2nd petitioner is
an institution that was published under Section 6(c )(i) of
the Endowments Act 30/1987 vide R.Dis.No.J3/42590/
1987 of the Commissioner Endowments Department, A.P.
Hyderabad. The said Kunta is spread over in an extent of
Ac 24.97 cents in S.No.632 of Addanki which is meant for
drinking water purpose and the said Kunta was managed by
the then Trustee Sri Karri Parasaiah and thereafter, his
lineal decedents managed for certain period. The said
Kunta has got landed property in an extent of Ac 32.80
cents in S. No.1004 of Addanki. In the Resurvey Settlement
Register, it shows that it is an Inam land granted in favour
of 2nd petitioner Kunta and Karri Perraiah was the then
trustee. In 10(1) Account, it was clearly mentioned that the
owner of the said land is Karri Parasaiah Kunta and it is its
Manyam represented by the Trustees Karri Venkata Swamy
and others. As per the extract of Inam-1 B Register, the
land was mentioned as Dharmadayam belongs to the said
Kunta (Tank). As per approved Property Register under
Section 43 of Endowments Act 30/1987 dated 12.11.2009
issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowment
Department, Ongole, the said land belongs to 2nd petitioner
temple. No.3 Adangal also shows the same. As the trustees
of Karri family mismanaged the said property, the
institution was appointed Executive Officers.
5. The 2nd petitioner issued registered notices dated
25.4.2011 to the respondents in all the cases, asking to
show their rights in the land otherwise legal action would be
initiated. Accordingly, some respondents were issued reply
dated 30.5.2011 stating that the said Kunta was a private
charitable endowment or a private charitable trust and the
land of Ac 32.80 cents in S.No.1004 was owned and enjoyed
by the family of Karri Parasiah and their lineal decedents,
who partitioned the said property and they acquired title by
prescription and they sold the properties as owners.
Accordingly, the 2nd petitioner and others have filed
W.P.No.32266 of 2011 before this Court seeking for
declaration that the proposed auction of lease hold rights
without evicting the petitioners in due process of law, is
illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petition was disposed of
by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2012 with a direction
to the respondents to deliver vacant possession. In spite of
repeated demands, the respondents failed to vacate. Hence
the applications were filed.
6. The respondents filed their counters in all the
applications with common defence that the Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain the petitions, nobody claimed the
schedule properties. It is further stated that the lands were
treated as private lands. It is further stated that the
respondents are owners of the petition schedule properties
and they are bonafide purchasers for value. The 2 nd
petitioner has no title to the property. Several documents
clearly establish that the respondents and their
predecessors in title are in possession and enjoyment of the
same as absolute owners. A copy of order dated 24.2.1993
issued by the Principal Secretary to Government reveals that
the Commissioner, Endowments Department sought
permission of the Government to give the leasehold rights
for fishing in Sri Karri Parasaiah Kunta to one Batula
Srinivasa Reddy for a period of six years from 1993-1994 to
1998-1999 on an annual maktha of Rs.10,500/- or
otherwise by public auction and the Government accorded
permission shows that the 2nd petitioner is not the owner of
the said Kunta. The copy of Inam-B Register also shows
that it is Dharmadayam and it is Karri Peraiah Kunta
Manyam. There is no date of Inam-B Register. It is not a
public charitable institution and the said land is a private
charitable endowment.
7. It is further stated that the family of Karri
Paasaiah held large extents of land in Addanki revenue
village and for purpose of drinking water, for their cattle and
bullocks, their family had excavated a kunta called
'Parasaiah Kunta' in their land of Ac. 24.97 cents situated in
Sy No.632. It is a private kunta. The land in an extent of
Ac 32.80 cents was owned by the family of Karri Parasiah,
which is ancestral property. The said family set apart the
produce from out of the land of Ac 32.80 cents in S.No.1004
for maintenance, upkeeping and repairs of Kunta by
constituting a committee and the same practice continued.
The lineal descendants of Karri Parasaiah partitioned the
property of Ac 32.80 cents in S.No.1004 and they were in
absolute possession and enjoyment of the land for over a
century and they were acquired title by enjoying the
property and they have alienated some portions of land to
others claiming absolute rights in the property. The owners
were issued pattadar pass books and title deeds after due
enquiry by Revenue authorities. Till now the 2nd petitioner
has not questioned the validity of the said passbooks and
title deeds either by filing appeals before the competent
authority and it became final. As per order dated
24.02.1993 issued by the Principal Secretary to the
Government, the Kunta being situated in Government land,
the endowment department is not entitled to claim that
Parasaiah Kunta is vested in Endowment department. The
petitions are barred by limitation. Hence, prayed to dismiss
the petitions.
8. Basing on the above pleadings of the respective
parties in all the cases, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues:
1) Whether the 2nd applicant is not a public but a private entity
and the petition schedule property is a private property
outside the purview of the Act 30/1987 as contended by the
respondent?
2) Whether the petition schedule property owned by the 2nd
applicant in the possession of the respondent is as
unauthorized occupant and encroacher U/s 83 of the Act and
if so liable to be evicted?
3) Whether the O.A as filed is not maintainable under Section
83 of the Act?
4) To what result?
9. During the course of trial, the Executive Officer i.e.,
the 2nd petitioner was examined as PW.1 in all the
applications. In order to establish the case, the parties have
adduced oral evidence and got market their documents in all
the cases. Upon considering the oral and documentary
evidence of both parties, the Tribunal has allowed all the
applications with costs and directed the respondents in all
cases to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the
petition schedule properties within One month to the 2nd
petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil
miscellaneous appeals came to be filed.
10. The pleadings which are cited by the appellant in
C.M.A.No.182 of 2017, the same are adopted by the other
appellants in other civil miscellaneous Appeals i.e., CMA
Nos., 129, 152, 159, 166, 167, 174, 176, 177, 178, 180,
181, 183, 320, 342, 345, 381, 606, 620, 717, 816, 827, 835
and 857 of 2017.
11. Heard Sri V.Mallik, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants and Mrs. Padmavathi Padnavis, learned
counsel and Sri Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for
Endowments appearing for the respondents.
12. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants
argued that the common order of the learned Tribunal is
vitiated by errors of law and jurisdiction. He submits that
the tribunal ought to have seen that against Sy.No.1004-2B
and Sy.No.1004/2C the appellants' name have been
incorporated and as such admittedly the appellants are in
possession of the schedule property and failure to consider
the same in all the cases, has vitiated the conclusion. He
submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the claim
of the respondent/endowment department is barred by
limitation as the respondent/ endowment department has
not clearly pleaded as to when they have acquired title and
further ought to have seen that the claim of limitation is not
saved under Section 143 of the Act and failure to consider
the same has vitiated the conclusion. He further submits
that the Tribunal ought to have seen that it has been
neither be pleaded nor established even assuming without
conceding that dharma kunta correlates to Karri Parasaiah
Kunta whether the same is a private charitable trust or
public charitable trust in as much no trust deed is filed and
in the absence of the same, the same cannot be assumed
and further the Act 30/87 has no application to private
charitable trust as per Section 1(3) of the Act.
13. To support his contentions, learned counsel for
the appellants has placed reliance on a catena of decisions
reported in (i) Boppudi Punniah vs. Lakshmi
Narasimhaswamy varu, by its Trustee1, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that :
We now come tn the knotty problem as to who should be regarded
as the holder of the inam in regard to service inams. The learned
Advocate-General, appearing for the institutions, maintains that this class
of inams fall outside the pale of the Act in question and it is not competent
for the tribunals functioning under the Act to decide as to who the
inamdar at the time of the commencement of the Act was according to
him, this Act deals only with classes (i) and (iii) mentioned above.
( 14 ) THE reason why the learned Advocate-General suggests that the
Act was not comprehensive enough to take in inams serving as
emoluments annexed to service is that, there is no provision in the Act
enabling the temple authorities to insist upon performance of service and
that when once a ryotwari patta is issued the pattadar cannot be
deprived of the patta. He also submits that the expression 'inamdar ' is
inappropriate with reference to an office-holder, who is not an absolute
owner of the property, and that an office-holder who could enjoy the
property only so long as he renders service could not be conceived of as
an ' inamdar '. It may be mentioned here that sri Bhujanga Rao,
appearing on behalf of some other institutions, contends that the act
covers all types of inams not excluding service inarm and that it is not
correct to argue that the Act is inapplicable to inams pertaining to
services. Of course, he contends that the temple should be deemed to be
the holder of service inams. We will deal with it later on.
( 15 ) WE are inclined to accept the arguments of Sri Bhujanga
Rao as representing the correct law. We are not persuaded that the points
presented by the learned advocate-General are substantial. We are
unable to agree that the Legislature was either ignorant of or overlooked
the existence of the inams of this type which undoubtedly are in great
number in the Andhra area. In fact, it may not be incorrect to say that this
category of inams forms a considerable proportion of the inams in the
andhra area, be it in ryotwari or zamindari area. There is no justification"
for attributing ignorance to the Legislature of the existence of this class of
inams.
( 16 ) WE must proceed on the assumption that the Legislature was aware
of the fact that there are large number of inams belonging to this category.
If that were so, there is no reason why we should suppose that the
Legislature thought of keeping out of the purview of the Act this class of
inams, especially when the intendment of the Act was to abolish and
convert inam lands into ryotwari lands. The absence of a provision
enabling the authorities concerned to insist upon performance of service
could not lead us to the conclusion that all service inams were excluded
from the purview of the enactment. Further, it is argued on behalf of the
respondents that it is open to the authorities concerned to insert a clause
that the patta is issued to individuals as incumbents of a particular
service and that the inam could be enjoyed only so long as service is
rendered. That may safeguard amply the interests of the institution. Even
if it were not sufficient, it could only be stated that it is a lacuna in the
enactment and it is for the Legislature to fill it up and this Court cannot do
anything in the matter. Moreover, if the argument of the learned Advocate-
1963(2) AndhWR 214
General were to prevail, it must be held that the inams of the third
category are also outside the Act, because there is no provision enabling
the authorities concerned to compel the discharge of the obligations
imposed upon them under the terms of the original grant. We cannot make
any distinction in that behalf between the two classes of inams. But it is
not contended that the Act is inapplicable to persona] grants. On the
parity of this reasoning, the service inams also must be held as inams
governed by this enactment. Consequently, we are not very much
impressed with the argument based upon the absence of a provision
indicated above.
WE will now proceed to consider the argument of Sri Bhujanga
Rao, learned counsel for the institutions, that pattas must be issued to the
temples, as the object of the grantor was to get services performed in the
temples. Since the inam constitutes the emoluments of persons performing
certain services, it is the institution that gets the advantages of services,
and in the fitness of things it is the institution that should get the patta,
continues the learned counsel. We are unable to assent to this
proposition. It is no doubt true that the purpose of the grant was that it
should serve as a source of maintenance for service-holders in the temple
; but that does not entitle the temple to get the patta. The criterion is not
whether the temple got any benefit from the grant by reason of services
rendered there. The question is as to whom the inam was made and to
whom it was confirmed at the time of the inam enquiry. It has been laid
down in several decisions that service inams or personal inams could not
be treated as endowments to the deity merely because the temple stood to
gain by performance of services in the temple. Further, the problem has to
be solved with reference to section 4 which says that patta should be
issued to the person or institution "holding the land as inamdar. "
incontestably, the service-holders have been in possession
.
(ii) In a case of Union of India and others vs. Vasavi
Coo.op Housing Society Ltd. And others2, wherein it was
held that :
At the outset, let us examine the legal position with regard to whom the
burden of proof lies in a suit for declaration of title and possession. This
Court in Maran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira
reported in AIR1959 SC 31 observed that "in a suit for declaration if the
plaintiffs are to succeed, they must do so on the strength of their own
title." In Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh, Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 426,
this Court held as under:
"the onus to prove title to the property in question was on the plaintiff. In
a suit for ejectment based on title it was incumbent on the part of the
court of appeal first to record a finding on the claim of title to the suit land
made on behalf of the plaintiff. The court is bound to enquire or
2014 LawSuit (SC) 3
investigate that question first before going into any other question that
may arise in a suit."
This Court in several Judgments has held that the revenue
records does not confer title. In Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M.
Papaiah and another (1989) 3 SCC 612 held that "it is firmly established
that revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of
interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question
of law." In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and others (1993) 4 SCC
349 this Court has held that "that the entries in jamabandi are not proof
of title". In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others (1996)
11 SCC 257 this Court held that "the entries in the revenue papers, by no
stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour
of the plaintiff."
14. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents while reiterating the averments made in the
petitions, denied all the contentions made by appellants. He
submits that the respondents filed No.3 Adangal for the year
2007-2008 for Fasli No.1422 relating to the year 2012-2013.
It cannot be disputed that by the year 2007-2008 the name
of appellants or ancestors were not mentioned in the village
account, either as pattadars or occupiers of land by any
means. 10(1) account copy shows that it is Parasaiah Kunta
Manyam and the institution is the Patta holder, but not
Karri Parasaiah Family members. Their names were not
mentioned in 10(1) account at any point of time. Had the
names of family members of Karri Parasaiah were
mentioned in any village account for any extent of land in
S.No.1004 at any point of time, the appellant could have
secured them very easily and filed them to show to the
Court, as to enjoyment of the land by such persons. It was
not in dispute that notices were issued to some of the
appellants, even on 25.4.2011 and some of the appellants
received the same and some of them issued reply notices.
So, the entries got made in village account No.3 after
making claim by the 2nd respondent by way of notice to the
appellants, cannot be given weight. Even prior to issuance of
such notices by the 2nd respondent, claiming the land,
demanding the appellants to vacate, the names of appellants
were appeared in any of the village accounts. Learned
Standing Counsel mainly contended that when the names of
the third parties are going to be entered into the village
account, it is the duty of revenue authorities to cause
notices to the previous land holders, whose names were
recorded in the village account, calling for objections and
make enquiry.
15. She further contended that the documents filed
by the appellants are concerned, pattadar pass books or title
deeds filed by some of the appellants are all of recent origin.
There is no evidence on record that whether any enquiry
was conducted by the revenue authorities by issuing notices
to the institution, whose name was previously appearing as
pattadar for a long time, before issuing such pattadar pass
books or title deeds in favour of the some of the appellants.
For the first time, the names of appellants were incorporated
in No.3 Adangal for the years 2012-2013. It has no value at
all. It seems that the appellants must have managed the
revenue authorities for inclusion of their names showing the
documents available with them behind back of the
respondents.
16. In a case reported in "Sri Santhi Nikethan, a
Partnership Firm rep., by its Managing Partner
R.K.Jayaraman v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its
Principal Secretary, Revenue (Assignment)
Department3", wherein the Division Bench of this Court
held that:
"11. In the present case, it is not denied that the
properties in question, which the petitioners claimed as
owners, have since been brought on the register
maintained in terms of Section 43 of the Endowments
Act. The entire case of the petitioners is that they have
been enjoying the property in question as owners with
effect from 1990 onwards and the ownership was being
asserted on the basis of registered sale deeds executed
in their favour by their erstwhile vendors. However, we
W.A.No.888 and 899 of 2022, dated 23.09.2023
are of the opinion that once the property has been
registered and brought on the register maintained under
Section 43 of the Endowments Act, the writ Court could
not have directed the registration of the property in the
name of the petitioners in the light of the existence of
Section 22-A of the Registration Act. It is in that context
that the writ Court proceeded to hold that disputed
questions of fact arise in the writ petitions, which could
only be gone into before the civil Court".
17. On a perusal of the entire material available on
record, this Court observed that, it is not the case of the
appellants that, any one of the appellants or their
predecessors or vendors got any ryotwari patta under Inams
Act. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
Peddinti Venkata Muraliranganatha Desika Iyengar and
others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another 4,
in para No.17 the Apex Court observed that legislature
sought to destroy the effect of the law in Inams Abolition Act
on erroneous belief or assumption that it did not bind the
religious or charitable institutions or endowment or that the
holder of land did not acquire title or no patta was granted
to him and the land was still with the institution and
threated the occupant as encroacher. It was further held
AIR 1996 (1) ALT 33 (sc)
that Section 76, Explanation-II to Sec.2(22) of the Act to that
extent are invalid and unconstitutional.
18. In the present set of cases, it is not the case of the
appellants that Roytwari patta was granted under Inams Act
to any of the appellants or to their predecessor or
transferors. Section 76 has no application to the facts of the
case. Therefore, the above judgment is not applicable to the
case of the appellants.
19. It is the contention of the appellants that in
W.P.No.32266 of 2011 this Court was directed the
Endowment Department to obtain declaration that they are
owners of the said property and therefore the respondents
have to file applications under Section 87 of Endowment
Act, but filed applications under Section 83 of the Act
30/1987, which are not maintainable. Until and unless, it
is held that the 2nd respondent is owner of the property or
title holder, the appellants cannot be termed as
encroachers.
20. In a case of Peddinti Venakta Murali
Ranganatha Desika Iyengar vs. Govt. of Andhra
Pradesh5, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that :
In Boppudi Punniah & Ors. v. Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy
Varu & Ors. [(1963) 2 A.W.R. 214], the applicability of the Act to service
inams held by office holders enjoying the inams and the right to grant of
ryotwari patta had fallen for consideration. The Division Bench, after an
exhaustive review of the Act, held that service inams formed a
considerable proportion of inams in the Andhra area, be it in ryotwari or
zamindari area. There is no justification for attributing ignorance to the
legislature of the existence of this class of inams. There is, therefore, no
reason to suppose that the legislature thought of keeping out of the
purview of the Inams Abolition Act this class of inams, especially then the
intendant of the Act was to abolish and convert inam lands into ryotwari
lands. The absence of a provision enabling the authorities concerned to
insist upon performance of service could not lead, to the conclusion that
all service inams were excluded from the purview of the enactment.
Service inams also must be held as inams governed by this enactment.
The ryotwari patta should, therefore, be held to have been issued to the
service holders.
(ii) In another case of G. Satyanarayana vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh6, wherein it was held that:
From the respective pleadings and the stands taken by them, the
following Points emerge for consideration :
1. (a) What documents constitute title for lands?
(b) Whether the entries in the revenue records constitute conclusive proof
of title and if not whether they have evidentiary value in determination of
title?
2. Whether multiple registered sale transactions reflecting long standing
possession give rise to a presumption of title to the property?
3. Whether the entries in Resurvey and Resettlement Register (RSR) and
Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) are conclusive in determining title?
4. Whether eviction proceedings under the 1905 Act can be initiated when
there is a bonafide title dispute.
1996 LawSuit (SC) 94
2014 LawSuit (Hyd) 556
This Act was made for the abolition of minor imams, including
charitable and religious service imams . Under Section 4 of the Act, in
case of inam land in a ryotwari or Zamindari village, a person or
institution, holding such land as inamdar on the date of commencement of
the Act shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect thereof. Under
Section 7, the Tahsildar may suo motu and shall on application by a
person or institution, after serving notice in the prescribed manner on all
the persons or institutions interested in the grant of ryotwari pattas in
respect of the inam lands concerned and after giving them a reasonable
opportunity of being heard and examining all the land records determine
the persons or institutions in accordance with the provisions of Section 4
and grant them pattas in the prescribed form.
Having traced the backdrop of the land tenures and the evolution of
ryotwari system, the stage is set for considering what are the documents
that constitute ownership/title to land. The Board Standing Orders (BSO)
of the Board of Revenue of Madras (1907 Edition) succinctly dealt with
the rights and obligations under a patta. Paras 27 and 28 of the BSO
included in Part III Title to Land read :
27. Issue of pattas (1) Form of patta The Form of patta is given in the
Manual of Village Accounts.
(2) Renewal of patta As a rule, fresh pattas need only be issued when
desired by the ryots concerned. When the holding of a ryot has undergone
no change, it is obviously unnecessary to issue fresh patta. Each ryot
should have one original patta containing a detailed list of the fields
comprising his holding as it stood when the patta was drawn up. The
pattas of future years should show only the changes which have taken
place in his holding or in the revenue payable by him. In the event,
however, of numerous changes taking place in the original patta, it may
be convenient to issue a fresh one.
(3) (Omitted as not relevant) (4) Entry of names in joint-patta The entries of
names in a joint-patta will be made without reference to the extent of land
enjoyed by each pattadar.
28. (1) Effect of registry as pattadar : The registered pattadar of a
ryotwari holding is, as regards Government, the responsible proprietor of
the ryotwari lands registered in his name in the Land Register of the
district, until they pass from his possession by sale for arrears or in some
other legal manner. Lands which a ryot has left waste will not be struck
out of his patta on that account.
1. Conditions on which pattadar may alienate : A registered pattadar
may, so far as Government are concerned, alienate, sublet, mortgage, sell,
give, bequeath, or otherwise dispose of the whole or any portion of his
holding, provided always : (1) that unless and until such transfer or
disposal is registered in the Land Register of the district, the registered
pattadar remains liable for the assessment and such other legal charges
due on the land, just as if no such transfer or disposal had occurred; and
(2) that when the transfer is registered, the transferee takes the land
subject to payment of any arrears of assessment or other legal charges
due on it, and to the same obligations and conditions, special or general,
as the transferor held it on.
2. Effect of absence of pattadar: Mere prolonged absence of non-
occupation does not invalidate the right of transfer just mentioned.
3. Patta not affected by improvements: A registered pattadar improving
his holding by constructing a tank on it, digging a well, or erecting
buildings on it, is not chargeable with any additional assessment for such
improvements; but he is not entitled to claim, as of right, any reduction of
assessment on account of the space occupied by such improvements.
4. Pattadars obligation: The registered pattadar of a field or holding is
bound to pay the fixed assessment on it, whether cultivated, waste or
fallow, in the presented instalments, unless it be remitted in accordance
with the rules laid down in Standing Order No.13.
5. Currency of patta : A patta retains its validity until superseded by one
of later date. It does not necessarily require renewal from year to year.
6. Mineral right of pattadar: The registered pattadar is entitled to work
minerals on his land, but is liable to pay therefor a separate assessment
in addition to the usual assessment for surface cultivation.
7. Joint-pattadars rights to receipt book: Sub-receipt books should be
given to all holders of land on joint-pattas who want them. The entries in
these sub-receipts will be transferred to the principal receipt book when it
is produced for the purpose before the village officers by the possessor.
The sub-receipts will be in the same form as the receipt, but will not
mention the extent of the land on account of which payment is made.
8. Tree-patta: For the rights and restrictions implied in a tree-patta vide
Standing Order No.18, paragraph 2, clause b(ii).
It is thus deducible from the above that the British treated patta as a
document whereunder possessory right with absolute rights to alienate,
sub-let, mortgage, sell, bequeath or otherwise dispose of in any manner
he likes were conferred on the pattadar.
As regards the pattas granted under the A.P. (Andhra Area)
Estates Abolition Act, 1948, the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams
Act, 1955, and the Hyderabad Jagir Abolition Act, the pattadars (persons
in whose favour pattas are granted by way of regrant)/occupancy right
certificate holders and their successors-in- interest, hold title. Title will be
divested from them in the event of transfer of these properties through
legally recognised modes. In case of persons claiming rights under the
Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, protected tenants
and land holders on whom ownership rights are conferred hold title to the
lands over which such rights are conferred.
(iii) In another case reported in Raavi Satish vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh7, wherein the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh held that :
"In cases of alienation of properties which are claimed to belong to
Religious and Charitable Endowments failing under A.P Hindu Religious
Institutions and Endowments Act 1987, or Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act,
1995, unless relevant material is available before the Registering officers to show
that they are owned by such Institutions, registration of the documents shall not
be refused. Even if evidence is available to show that the properties sought to be
alienated belong to the Institutions referred to above, the Registering officers shall
receive the documents, pass orders assigning reasons for rejection and
communicate the same to the parties concerned, who shall be free to assail such
orders by availing the remedy of appeal under Section 72 of the Act.
(iv) In a case of Nagar Palika Jind v. Jagat Singh8,
wherein, the Apex Court held that "the onus to prove title to
the property in question, was on the plaintiff. In a suit for
rejectment based on title it was incumbent on the part of the
Court of appeal first to record a finding on the claim of title to
the suit land made on behalf of the plaintiff. The Court is
bound to enquire or investigate that question first before going
into any other question that may arise in a suit"
21. It is settled law that the plaintiff in a suit for
declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the
strength of its own title and that could be done only by
adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it,
2012 LAwSuit(A) 887
1995 3 SCC 426
irrespective of question whether the defendants have proved
their case or not. So, even if the title set up by the
defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment
of plaintiff's own title, plaintiff must be non-suited. The
plaintiffs have to show, independent of the entries that the
plaintiff's predecessors had title over the property in
question and it is that property which they have purchased.
22. Now the point that arisen for determination is:
a) whether learned Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain or decide
the rights of parties, so also decide the genuineness of the documents
relied by the appellants, purportedly issued by the Revenue Authorities,
in the absence of Revenue authorities?
23. In a case of "Kommineni Narendra v. Ravela
Rama Mohana Rao @ Ramalingaiah and others"9, wherein
this Court has discussed the case decided by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in "Khatri Hotels Private Limited and Another v.
Union of India and Another"10, wherein it was held as
follows:
"It was pertinently added that this exclusion of the
jurisdiction of the civil court would be subject to two
limitations. First, 'the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to
examine into cases where the provisions of the Act have not
MANU/AP/0122/2023 = C.R.P.No. 2200 of 2022
2011(9) SCC 126
been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted
in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial
procedure. The second is as regards the exact extent to
which the powers of statutory tribunals are exclusive'. The
question as to whether any particular case falls under the
first or the second of the above categories would depend on
the purpose of the statute and its general scheme, taken in
conjunction with the scope of the enquiry entrusted to the
tribunal set up and other relevant factors."
24. This Court, in Kommineni Narendra's case, relied
on another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
"Executive Officer, Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy
Temple, Beeranguda, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District
v. Sai Krupa Homes, Karimnagar and Others" 11 and opined
that the civil suit is maintainable to decide the issue as to
whether the property belongs to Endowment Department or
others.
25. And also while relying on a case of "Anam
Educational Charitable v. The Assistant Commissioner" 12,
the learned Single Judge of this Court categorically discussed
the power of endowments tribunal to decide certain disputes
as per Section 87 of the Act 30 of 1987, which reproduced
hereunder:
2010 SCC Online AP 352
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/169654277/= W.P.No.17713 of 2017
"Section 87(1) The Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the
power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to
enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question-
(a) Whether an institution or endowment is a charitable institution or
endowment;
(b) Whether an institution or endowment is a religious institution or
endowment;
(c) Whether any property is an endowment, if so whether it is a charitable
endowment or religious endowment;
(d) Whether any property is a specific endowment;
(e) Whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honour,
emoluments or perquisites in any charitable or religious institution or
endowment and what the established usage of such institution or
endowment is in regard to any other matter;
(f) Whether any institution or endowment is wholly partly of a secular or
religious character and whether any property is given wholly or partly for
secular or religious uses; or
(g) Where any property or money has been given for the support of an
institution or endowment which is partly of a secular character and
partly of a religious character or the performance of any service or charity
connected with such institution or endowment or the performance of a
charity which is partly of a secular character and partly of a religious
character or where any property or money given is appropriated partly to
secular uses and partly to religious uses, as to what portion of such
property of money shall be allocated to secular or religious uses;
(h) Whether a person is a founder or a member from the family of the
founder of an Institution or Endowment.
26. On a perusal of the above citations, it is required to
be examined whether the reliefs claimed in O.As can be
granted by the Tribunal. In the instant case, the similar issue
is involved, which is a mixed question of fact, to decide with
regard to title dispute between the parties. Therefore the
learned tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the same.
27. In view of the above foregoing discussion and
following the decision of M/s Sri Santhi Nikethan's case
(supra), this Court is inclined to dispose of these appeals
while granting liberty to the appellants.
28. Accordingly, all these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals
are disposed of granting liberty to the appellants to file a
civil Suit before Civil Court having original jurisdiction as
are available under law within a period of two (02) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then,
both the parties in all these Appeals are directed to maintain
status quo, existing as on today. There shall be no order as
to costs.
29. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending,
if any, shall also stand closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 12 -01-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.182, 129, 152, 159,
166, 167, 174, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 183, 320, 342,
345, 381, 606, 620, 717, 816, 827, 835 and 857 of 2017
Date : 12.01.2024
Gvl
