Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Joint Collector, Chittoor 2 Ors. vs S. Kamalamma 2 Ors. on 23 October, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
1
RRR,J & HN,J
Rev.I.A.No.3/2019
In W.A.No.516 of 2017
APHC010629072017 [3041]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 516 of 2017
Joint Collector, Chittoor & 2 Ors. and Others ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
S Kamalamma 2 Ors and Others ...Respondent(s)
**********
Advocate for Appellant: GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
Advocate for Respondent: ....
CORAM : SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
DATE : ______October 2024
P.C:
I.A.No.3 of 2019
in
W.A.No.516 of 2017
(per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu and learned G.P. for Revenue for respondents.
2. The facts of the case are - Sri S. Ramaiah, is said to have been
put in possession of Ac.9.00 of land, in R.S.No.251/1 of Vedantapuram
village, Chittoor District, by the then Mahant of Sri Hathiramji Mutt, under a
2
RRR,J & HN,J
Rev.I.A.No.3/2019
In W.A.No.516 of 2017
Saswata Patta, dated 05.03.1943. After the demise of Sri Ramaiah in 1978,
his son Sri S. Ramanaiah is said to have continued in possession of the land
and filed a petition, for grant of ryotwari patta, under Section 11(a) of the A.P.
(Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for
short „the Act‟), before the Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer had, by
proceedings S.R.No.81/11(a)/81, dated 19.01.1982, granted a ryotwari patta
to an extent of Ac.9.00 in Sy.No.251/1 of Vedantapuram village, Tirupathi
Rural Mandal, on the basis of the Saswata Patta, dated 05.03.1940, and the
cist receipts dated 05.06.1945, 02.01.1947 and 10.12.1946 produced by Sri S.
Ramanaiah. The said ryotwari patta is said to have been implemented in the
revenue records and pattadar pass book and Title deed were issued in favour
of Sri S. Ramanaiah, in 1983.
3. Thereafter, the Director of Settlements, exercising suo moto
powers of revision, cancelled the patta given to Sri S. Ramanaiah on the
ground that the land, for which patta had been granted, was part of the
Swarnamukhi river poramboke.
4. Upon an appeal being filed, against the said order, the
Commissioner, Appeals, by his order, dated 28.08.2000, in proceedings
No.P3/1500/90, set aside the order of Director of Settlements, holding that Sri
S. Ramaiah was inducted into the land by the Mahant of Sri Hathiramji Matt,
and that the affidavit of the Tahsildar, Chandragiri that the said land was
situated 300 meters away from Swarnamukhi river had not been considered in
the order of Director of Settlements. The Commissioner, Appeals also held
3
RRR,J & HN,J
Rev.I.A.No.3/2019
In W.A.No.516 of 2017
that exercise of suo moto power by the Director of Settlements, more than 8
years after the grant of the original patta was bad in law, on account of the
decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dated 20.03.1992, in
W.P.No.16482 of 1990. It appears that the Commissioner, Appeals also took
into account the judgment of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati in
A.S.No.46 of 1991 in which continuous possession and enjoyment of the land
by Sri S. Ramanaiah had been accepted and upheld.
5. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Rural Mandal, challenged
the said order of the Commissioner, Appeals, by way of W.P.No.22069 of
2003. This writ petition was dismissed, by order dated 21.10.2003, by a
learned Single Judge of this Court. Against this order, W.A.No.2322 of 2003
was filed. As Sri S. Ramanaiah passed away during the pendency of this
appeal, the petitioners herein were impleaded as his legal representatives.
The Division Bench, after hearing both sides, upheld the finding of the
Commissioner, Appeals as well as the learned Single Judge by order dated
31.03.2009 and dismissed the writ appeal. The Division Bench, while
dismissing the writ appeal, had held that no material had been placed before
the Court to contradict the counter of the Tahsildar that the land in question
was away from the Swarnamukhi river.
6. During the pendency of the litigation, the petitioners sought
issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, by an application filed by Sri
S. Ramanaiah, in 1990 itself. This application was forwarded by the Tahsildar,
Tirupati Rural to Joint Collector, Chittoor for necessary instructions. The Joint
4
RRR,J & HN,J
Rev.I.A.No.3/2019
In W.A.No.516 of 2017
Collector, Chittoor, on the basis of the communication of the Tahsildar, in
purported exercise of power as a revisional authority under the A.P. Rights in
Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, set aside the ryotwari patta granted
to Sri S. Ramanaiah by the Settlement Officer, Nellore holding that the entire
extent of land, in Sy.No.251 of Vedantapuram, was classified as Swarnamukhi
river and as such any ryotwari patta or orders of settlement authority in
relation to Sy.No.251 would have to be treated as fabricated documents and
would be null and void.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.24980 of
2009. This writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh, by the judgment dated 03.03.2017. The revenue authorities
raised the plea that the grant of ryotwari patta in favour of Sri S. Ramanaiah
was issued on account of fraud being played on the State and as such the
ryotwari patta would have to be set aside and the order of the Joint Collector
setting aside such ryotwari patta should not be faulted. The learned Single
Judge held that the issues raised by the revenue authorities in W.P.No.24980
of 2009 had already been raised in the earlier round of litigation, in both
W.P.No.22069 of 2003 and W.A.No.2322 of 2003, and the findings of the said
judgment are binding and the same issues cannot be raised again.
8. The learned Single Judge also took the view that while fraud
would vitiate any proceeding and any such order obtained by fraud would be
non est or a nullity, the same cannot be raised once the Court, in an earlier
5
RRR,J & HN,J
Rev.I.A.No.3/2019
In W.A.No.516 of 2017
round of litigation, had considered this objection and had rejected it. The
learned Single Judge had also found fault with the action of the Joint
Collector, Chittoor in setting aside the ryotwari patta issued under the Estate
Abolition Act, 1948 while acting as a revisional authority under the A.P. Rights
in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971.
9. Aggrieved by this judgment, the revenue authorities filed
W.A.No.516 of 2017. This appeal was allowed by a Division Bench of this
Court by order dated 11.12.2018.
10. The Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge had set
aside the proceedings of the Joint Collector, primarily on five grounds and
held that all the five grounds had not been made out.
11. Aggrieved by this judgment, the present review application has
been filed.
12. The Division Bench set the five grounds as follows: -
(i) The order of the Settlement Officer, dated 19.01.1982 had
attained finality on account of the orders of the High Court in the earlier writ
petition and the writ appeal and there was no scope for the Joint Collector to
reopen the issue.
(ii) That the contention of the authorities that, since the Settlement
Officer was found to have abused his official position in the matter of granting
some pattas, all the pattas should be considered to be tainted, cannot be
accepted in relation to all pattas granted by the said Settlement Officer, unless
material is placed before the Court, to invalidate the pattas before the court,
6
RRR,J & HN,J
Rev.I.A.No.3/2019
In W.A.No.516 of 2017
and in any event, the issue does not remain on account of the orders of
confirmation of this Court in the earlier writ petition and writ appeal.
(iii) That the nature of the land being determined as ryoti land in the
earlier round of litigation cannot be raised again by contending that the land is
river poramboke.
(iv) That the plea of fraud would not be available when the said plea
had already been raised and rejected in the previous proceedings.
(v) That the Joint Collector, exercising rights under the A.P. Rights in
Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 cannot sit in judgment over the
decision of the superior officers under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948.
13. The Division Bench set aside these findings on the following
basis:
a) On ground No.1 the Division Bench held that the order of the
Settlement Officer had not been confirmed on the merits of the case by the
learned Single Judge or the Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation.
The Division Bench held that the writ petition filed by the Mandal Revenue
Officer, in the earlier round, was dismissed on the ground of laches and on the
ground that the order of Commissioner was based upon appreciation of the
evidence before the learned single judge, while the Division Bench dismissing
the writ appeal had passed the order on the ground that there was an
admission by the Tahsildar that the land was ryoti in nature and not river
poramboke. The Division Bench held that the writ petition dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches at the stage of admission would not amount to res
7
RRR,J & HN,J
Rev.I.A.No.3/2019
In W.A.No.516 of 2017
judicata in subsequent proceedings and relied upon the judgment in Daryao
vs. State of U.P.1; Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd., vs. Janapada Sabha2;
and Hoshnak Singh vs. Union of India3. As far as the writ appeal order was
concerned, the Division Bench took the view that since the appeal had come
up under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the decision cannot be treated as
giving finality to the order of the learned Single Judge and that confirmation of
the order of the learned Single Judge by the Division Bench would not cure
the basic defect of violation of principles of natural justice by the
Commissioner, Appeals.
b) On the second ground, the Division Bench held that once the
settlement officer was found to have abused his official position in the matter
of grant of some of the pattas, it is not possible to sift the orders into two
categories and all the orders would be treated with suspicion.
c) On the third ground, the finding of the learned Single Judge that
the question whether the land was river poramboke, had already been
rejected in the earlier round of litigation or rejected on the basis of various
findings given by the Division Bench was not correct.
d) On the fourth ground, the Division Bench held that the question of
fraud, was not considered in the earlier round of litigation, as the learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
The division bench also held that various other takids issued by the Mahant of
1
AIR 1961 sc 1457
2
AIR 1964 SC 1013
3
(1979) 3 SCC 135
8
RRR,J & HN,J
Rev.I.A.No.3/2019
In W.A.No.516 of 2017
Sri Hathiramji Matt had been found to be fabricated documents and the
ground of fraud should have been accepted.
e) On the fifth ground, the Division Bench held that the Joint
Collector had invoked provisions of the Act, 1948 as it was the petitioners who
had approached the revenue authorities for grant of pattadar passbooks and
title deeds and the Joint Collector would fall within the expression of Collector,
as defined under Section 2(2) of Act 26/1971.
14. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri
A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the
finding of the Division Bench in relation to the principles enunciated in Daryao
vs. State of U.P. etc., were never raised by the Government and these were
findings given by the Division Bench without an opportunity being given to the
petitioners to raise their objections on these grounds.
15. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, would draw the attention of this Court to
the findings of the learned Single Judge in the earlier round of litigation in
W.P.No.22069 of 2003 and the order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.2322 of
2003 and more particularly, internal page-3 of the order of the Division Bench.
He contends that the finding in this order in internal page-4 wherein the
Division Bench considered these issues and had held in favour of the
petitioners. He would contend that in such a situation, the findings of the
Division Bench, to the contrary, is sufficient to review the said judgment.
16. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, draws the attention of this Court to
internal page-8 of the order of the Joint Collector dated 04.08.2009 wherein
9
RRR,J & HN,J
Rev.I.A.No.3/2019
In W.A.No.516 of 2017
the Joint Collector gives a finding of fact that Sy.No.251 consisting of
Ac.200.68 of land was classified as Swarnamukhi River while Sy.No.251/1
consisting of Ac.34.00 was set apart, for the purpose of formation of C.J.F.S,
in favour of Harijan Development Corporation. He would also draw the
attention of this Court to page-53 of the review petition, which contains the
Adangal for Sy.No.251/1 wherein the entire extent of land in Sy.No.251/1 is
118.00. He would submit that these variations make it clear that the land in
Sy.No.251/1 is not part of the river poramboke.
17. Sri G. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Government Pleader,
would submit that the review petition is not maintainable, in view of the
judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme court, in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State
Tax Officer (1) and Anr.,4.
18. The scope of a review application is fairly settled. These principles
have been reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Sanjay Kumar
Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) and Anr., in the following manner:
16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that:
16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only when
circumstances of a substantial and compelling character
make it necessary to do so.
16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be
detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be
4
(2024) 2 SCC 362
10
RRR,J & HN,J
Rev.I.A.No.3/2019
In W.A.No.516 of 2017
an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to
exercise its power of review.
16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule
1CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be
"reheard and corrected".
16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot
be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have
already been addressed and decided.
16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error
which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should
not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the
points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent
decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself
cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
19. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, would rely upon the following passage in the
judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs.
Karunesh Kumar And Ors.,5 to contend that the principles set out above
have to be relaxed in cases of review of an order, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India:
Para 33
20. It would now have to be seen, applying these principles, whether
this court can entertain this review petition.
Consideration of the Court:
5
AIR 2023 SC 52,
11
RRR,J & HN,J
Rev.I.A.No.3/2019
In W.A.No.516 of 2017
21. Shorn of all details, the action of the Joint Collector setting aside
the ryotwari patta issued by the Settlement Officer, was negative by the
learned Single Judge on the ground that the issue of fraud / misrepresentation
raised by the Joint Collector for cancellation of the ryotwari patta was not
available as this issue had already been considered by a learned Single
Judge of the erstwhile High Court as well as a Division Bench, which had
negative such a contention. The learned Judge also took the view that the
Joint Collector, exercising authority under the A.P. Rights in Land and
Pattadar Passbooks Act could not have set aside a ryotwari patta issued
under the Estate Abolition Act.
22. This decision of the learned Single Judge was set aside by the
Division Bench on the ground that the orders of the learned Single Judge in
the earlier round were not on merits and the writ petition was dismissed only
on the ground of laches which would not amount to res judicata. The Division
Bench also held that the consideration of the issues on merits, by the Division
Bench in the earlier writ appeal, was not binding, as such a finding given in an
appeal filed under the Letters Patent, would not amount to a finding decision.
On the question of jurisdiction, the Division Bench took the view that the action
of the Joint Collector in setting aside the ryotwari patta was not a suo moto
action and that it was on the basis of a request made by the patta holder for
issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds and as such the Joint
Collector would have jurisdiction.
12
RRR,J & HN,J
Rev.I.A.No.3/2019
In W.A.No.516 of 2017
23. Review is sought on this decision of the Division Bench judgment
on the ground that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the earlier
round, was based both on the ground of laches as well as on the merits of the
case and the judgment of the learned Single Judge would amount to res
judicata. Further, the decision of the Division Bench, in the earlier appeal,
would be binding even if it is a Letters Patent appeal and there is no
distinction betweenthe binding nature of the order passed under the Letters
Patent as well as an order passed under the appellate jurisdiction conferred
by any statute. The further ground of review is that the revenue documents
placed before this Court demonstrate that the land in question was not part of
the Swarnamukhi river and was far away from the river.
24. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.22069 of 2003, dated 21.10.2003 shows that the writ petition filed by
the Mandal Revenue Officer had been dismissed both on the grounds of
laches as well as on merits.
25. This ground of review has substantial merit. However, the binding
nature of an order under the Letters Patent, the jurisdiction of the Joint
Collector in rejecting a ryotwari patta issued under the Estate Abolition Act,
while exercising jurisdiction under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar
Passbooks Act, the consideration of the fact that the settlement officer, who
had issued this patta had issued various other pattas, which were found to be
irregular, the question of whether the land is river poramboke or not etc.,
which matters which require further consideration which would be barred by
13
RRR,J & HN,J
Rev.I.A.No.3/2019
In W.A.No.516 of 2017
Guideline No.16.3 of the Guidelines set out by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
the judgment cited above.
26. Though the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
Karunesh Kumar and Ors., had observed that the parameters of review in a
writ proceeding should be relaxed, the said guideline would not extend to the
extent of permitting a review in relation to the above issues in the present
case.
27. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not going into the merits
of the contentions raised by the learned Senior counsel, as it would be beyond
the scope of review.
28. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed.
_________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
______________
HARINATH. N, J
Js.
RRR,J & HN,J
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
&
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
In
(per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)
_____ October, 2024
Js.
