Sri Balagoni Sai Kiran vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 625 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                         AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                  WRIT APPEAL No.80 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




1.   The writ appeal is arising out of an order dated

08.01.2021 passed in W.P.No.3789 of 2019 by the learned

Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has

dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein.


2.   The appellants/petitioners preferred the writ petition

before the learned Single Judge stating that the appellant

No.1/petitioner No.1 is the owner and possessor of land

admeasuring       Acs.2.00          guntas        in      Sy.Nos.692/1/1,

692/1/2,    692/1/3,         692/1/4          &     692/1/5;            appellant

No.2/petitioner No.2 is the owner and possessor of land

admeasuring       Ac.1.35          guntas         in      Sy.Nos.692/3/1,

692/3/2,    692/3/3,         692/3/4          &     692/3/5;            appellant

No.3/petitioner No.3 is the owner and possessor of land

admeasuring Ac.1.32 guntas in Sy.No.692/2; and the

appellant No.4/petitioner No.4 is the owner and possessor

of land admeasuring Ac.1.10 guntas in Sy.No.692/6, total

admeasuring      Acs.6.37        guntas,        situated        at      Duddeda

Village, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District (erstwhile

Medak District) (hereinafter referred to as 'subject lands').

Originally, the subject lands were Government lands,
                                       2




which were assigned to the appellants/petitioners herein

under assignment patta certificates. The appellants/

petitioners    further       stated       that   on   20.02.2019,          the

respondent No.4/Tahsildar, Kondapak Mandal, came to

the subject lands and asked the appellants/petitioners to

stop cultivation. It was brought to the notice of the

respondent No.4/Tahsildar that the lands are assigned

lands. However, without hearing, the appellants/

petitioners were thrown out of the lands. The respondent

No.4/Tahsildar informed them that the Government is

allotting the land for Government Projects and the

appellants/petitioners were directed to remove the crop.

The appellants/petitioners have challenged the said action

of the State without issuing notice and without following

due process of law as illegal, irrational, arbitrary and in

violation of the constitutional rights guaranteed under the

Constitution of India. The following prayer was made in

the writ petition.

"to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents and their officials, in seeking to violate and interfere with the constitutional rights of the petitioners over their property comprising of Sy.Nos.692/1/1, 692/1/2, 692/1/3, 692/1/4, 692/1/5 to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts; 692/3/1, 692/3/2, 692/3/3, 692/3/4 & 692/3/5 to an extent of Ac.1-35 gts; 692/2 to an extent of ac.1- 32 and 692/6 to an extent of Ac.1-10 gts total

admeasuring Ac.6-37 gts situated at Duddeda Village, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District (erstwhile Medak District), without issuing any notice to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural justice and Article 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and resultantly restrain the Respondents from interfering with such rights of the petitioners in any manner and pass any order or other orders..."

3. A counter affidavit was filed by the State Government

and the State Government took a categorical stand that

the appellants/petitioners are not at all the owners of the

land and as per the revenue records, the land in survey

No.692 to an extent of Acs.9.00 guntas is recorded as

'Bancharai' (Gairan). It was also stated that according to

Form-I Register for the year 1989-90, vide proceedings

No.B/1867/2003, dated 23.07.2003, the names of the

appellants/petitioners were entered as assignees in

respect of Acs.6.37 guntas relying upon the patta

certificates, which were allegedly issued on 06.05.1998.

The State Government on verification of records came to

the conclusion that the Distribution Register relating to

file No.B/1867/2003 discloses that the same is relating to

representations submitted in Janmabhoomi Programme

for the villagers of Etigadda Kistapur. It has been further

stated on affidavit that the revenue records were burnt by

some extremists and the appellants/petitioners, claiming

as assignees, have preferred a writ petition praying before

this Court to decide the disputed questions of assignment,

title and possession as well as identification of lands. It

was also brought to the notice of this Court that the

appellants/petitioners have voluntarily made applications

to the Tahsildar, Kondapak Mandal in Form-C under Rule

16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue

Rules, 1951 ('the Rules', for brevity) relinquishing their

rights over the subject lands, vide applications, dated

04.02.2017, duly submitting 'Razinama'. The said

applications were signed by the appellants/petitioners

and attested by witnesses and the same were accepted by

the Tahsildar, vide order dated 04.02.2017. It has been

further stated that after Razinama was accepted, the State

Government took possession of the lands after drawing

Panchanamas and the lands were thereafter allotted to

Yaprala Narasimha Reddy through registered exchange

deeds executed by the Tahsildar concerned on behalf of

the State of Telangana, in lieu of surrender of their patta

lands situated in survey No.692 to the Government for the

purpose of construction of double bed room houses. It has

been further stated that the appellants/petitioners are not

at all in possession of the lands and they are not the

assignees and such disputed questions of facts cannot be

looked into in the writ petition.

4. A rejoinder was also filed by the appellants/

petitioners and the signatures on the applications, dated

04.02.2017 relating to Razinama were also disputed in the

rejoinder. It has been stated that the respondent

No.2/District Collector, Siddipet District in collusion with

the Authorities was trying to grab the Government lands

allotted to the backward classes and is trying to allot them

to his relatives and well wishers under the guise of double

bed room houses.

5. The respondent No.4/Tahsildar also filed an

additional counter affidavit stating that the

appellants/petitioners did submit applications on

04.02.2017 and thereafter the lands were allotted to some

other persons, who gave their lands for construction of

double bed room houses in survey No.692 situated at

Duddeda Village, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District. It

has also been stated that as many as two thousand

double bed room houses have come up over the lands

exchanged by Yaprala Narasimha Reddy and a prayer was

made to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has

vehemently argued before this Court that there was a

batch of certificates issued in favour of the

appellants/petitioners in the year 1989-90 and they were

cultivating the said lands and they have never

relinquished their rights and therefore, forged and

fabricated documents have been created by the State

Government based upon some applications dated

04.02.2017 and the whole exercise of respondents to evict

the appellants/petitioners from the subject lands is illegal,

arbitrary and against the constitutional rights guaranteed

under the Constitution of India to the appellants/

petitioners. Reliance has been placed upon the Judgment

delivered in the case of Dammalapati Ramalingam v. District

Collector, Khammam District1.

7. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ

petition holding that the disputed questions of facts

cannot be decided in the writ petition. The lands, over

which the appellants/petitioners were claiming title, were

allotted to one Yaprala Narasimha Reddy and some other

persons, who have not been impleaded as parties in the

writ petition, by virtue of the registered exchange deeds

and over the lands, which were given by Yaprala

2006 (6) ALD 5 (AP)

Narasimha Reddy and others, large number of houses

have already been constructed and were allotted to other

persons and they are in possession of the land. The

learned Single Judge has also held that no document has

been filed to establish before this Court that the

appellants/petitioners are in possession of the subject

lands. The learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion

that the question as to who is in possession of the subject

lands cannot be determined in a writ petition filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the

appellants/petitioners have approached this Court after

two years of passing of the resumption order by the

Revenue Authorities. Paragraphs 14 to 18 of the order

passed by the learned Single Judge are reproduced as

under:-

"14. Here, it is apt to extract Rule 16 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Rules, 1951, which reads as follows:

16. Relinquishment of land. - A registered holder may relinquish his land by submitting an unconditional razinama in writing to the Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar before the end of April in any year. Such razinama need not be stamped but shall be in Form C and the declaration therein shall be attested by two respectable witnesses. The Patwari shall, if requested to do so by the registered holder, write the razinama himself without charging any fees for the same. If the razinama is prepared by the

Patwari, he shall affix his signature beneath the words written on the lower left hand corner of such razinama. The Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar, as the case may be, who receives such razinama shall certify it in his own hand according to the certificate prescribed in Form C. He shall exercise due care in ascertaining the identity of the person who has signed the same, notwithstanding that such notice has been duly endorsed as hereinbefore required. The relinquishment shall have effect from the close of the current year.

Thus, it is clear that the respondents have followed due procedure in resuming the subject lands and the same does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or irregularity.

15. I had gone through the decisions relied upon by both the sides. In Dammalapati Ramalingam's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners therein were purchasers of the assigned lands from the original assignee. The Government wanted to resume the land on the ground of non cultivation by the original assignee. Under those circumstances, the original assignee relinquished the land as per the procedure laid down under Rule 16 of the Rules. There was no notice to the purchaser of the assigned land. Therefore, it was held as follows:

"Section 2(1) of the Act defines "assigned lands" means lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor persons under the rules for the time being in force. Therefore, even if the land is allegedly assigned in 1971, the same is covered under the Act. Section 3(2) of the Act prohibits transfer of assigned land and in the event of such transfer, power is conferred on the competent authority under Section 4 of the Act to take possession of the assigned land, after evicting the

person in possession in such manner as may be prescribed. The procedure is contemplated under Rule 3 of the Rules, which provides that before taking any action under Section 4 of the Act, the authorized officer shall issue notice to the person who acquired the assigned land in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act gives overriding effect to it over all other laws. Therefore, even if there is some other law, which enables the revenue authorities to accept relinquishment by the registered holders, but still the provisions of the Act cannot be ignored. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the respondents on Rule 16 enables the Tahsildar to give effect to relinquishment by registered holder in Form-C and take possession of the land. Having regard to Section 10 of the Act, it must be held that the procedure contemplated under Section 4 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules overrides Rule

16."

But in the instant case, the petitioners themselves, who are the original assignees, voluntarily relinquished their rights over the subject lands assigned to them, by making applications of Razinama in Form-C under Rule 16 of the Rules and the said applications were accepted by the Tahsildar concerned. They did not alienate the subject lands to anybody. The petitioners herein are the original assignees of the subject lands and they voluntarily relinquished the subject lands in favour of the Government. Under these circumstances, no procedure as contemplated under Sections 3, 4 and 10 of Act 9 of 1977 is required to be followed. Hence, the above decision is distinguishable on facts from the case on hand.

16. In Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad through its Commissioner v. State of Maharashtra2 relied by the learned Special Government Pleader, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court erred in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in deciding the disputed questions of fact regarding title over disputed land raised by the parties therein. In Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited v. Union of India3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that adjudication on disputed questions of fact is outside the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the issue before the High Court was violation of principles of natural justice as no notice was served on the appellants before initiating recovery proceedings; Hence, High Court ought not to have decided the matter by going to depth of facts of case and hence, order passed by the High Court is untenable. In Swati Ferro Alloys Private Limited v. Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO)4, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that matter involving disputed question of fact about the ownership of the land in question could not be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that the High Court was justified in directing the parties to approach civil Court for resolving such dispute.

17. Before parting, it is pertinent to state that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed, not against the decision, but the decision- making process. Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, only on grounds of perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and procedural irregularity. Except on these grounds, administrative decisions cannot be interfered with. A decision is vitiated by irrationality, if the decision is so

(2015) 16 SCC 689

(2014) 15 SCC 44

(2015) 4 SCC 204

outrageous, that it is in defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly have taken such decision. In the instant case, none of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners do establish any of the above circumstances to grant the relief sought by them. There is no material as well as circumstances to hold that the petitioners have not voluntarily surrendered the subject lands in favour of the Government. The record placed before this Court and the submissions made establishes that the petitioners have relinquished their right over the subject lands and voluntarily surrendered the same in favour of the Government and the subject lands were exchanged with the land belonging to Yaprala Narasimha Reddy and others and construction of double bed room houses have come up over the land taken in exchange from Yaprala Narasimha Reddy and others. There is no perversity, patent illegality or procedural laches on the part of the revenue authorities in accepting the voluntary surrender of the subject lands by the petitioners.

18. For the foregoing reasons, the relief sought by the petitioners in this writ petition cannot be granted. There are no grounds to allow this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed."

8. In the present case, the appellants/petitioners are

claiming title and possession and they are aggrieved by

dispossession from the subject lands and their contention

is that they have been forcibly evicted from the subject

lands, which were assigned to them and they were also

granted pattas by the State Government. The factum of

grant of pattas to the appellants/petitioners itself is in

dispute. However, the appellants/petitioners have stated

before this Court that as per Form-I Register for the year

1989-90, vide proceedings No.B/1867/2003, dated

23.07.2003, the names of the appellants/petitioners were

entered as assignees in respect of Acs.6.37 guntas relying

upon the patta certificates said to have been issued vide

proceedings dated 06.05.1998. The undisputed facts of

the case reveal that the revenue records relating to

assignment of pattas in the year 1989 was burnt by some

extremists and taking advantage of the situation, the

appellants/petitioners are allegedly claiming right over the

lands as their names were entered in the revenue records

in the year 2002-2003. The counter affidavit filed by the

respondents reveal that the proceedings No.B/1867/

2003, Distribution Register, discloses that the proceedings

relate to representations submitted in Janmabhoomi

Programme for the villagers of Etigadda Kistapur and it

was not the file relating to assignment of land or file

relating to entry in the revenue records. Meaning thereby,

the State Government has disputed the grant of original

pattas, title and possession of the appellants/petitioners.

Not only this, the record of the case reveals that on

04.02.2017 the appellants/petitioners submitted

applications for Razinama under the Rules and the same

were accepted by the Tahsildar, however the

appellants/petitioners are disputing the signatures on the

applications for Razinama, which again becomes a

disputed question of fact and therefore, in the considered

opinion of this Court, the disputed questions of facts

cannot be decided in a writ petition by the High Court in

exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, as rightly held by the learned Single

Judge, relying upon the Judgment delivered in the case of

Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad (supra), Hindustan Coca

Cola Beverage Private Limited (supra) and Swati Ferro Alloys

Private Limited (supra).

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, as purely

disputed questions of facts are involved in the present

case - the factum of possession and the factum of title

were disputed and the persons whose rights were being

affected were not impleaded as respondents, the learned

Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition

as devoid of any merit.

10. Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However,

liberty is certainly granted to the appellants/petitioners to

take recourse to civil remedies available under law,

wherein all the disputed questions of facts can be resolved

based upon the evidence adduced by the parties.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J

14.02.2022 Pln