State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its ... vs Sri R. Bhaskara Raju Died Per Lrs ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1846 Tel

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                         AND
       THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

            WRIT APPEAL Nos.506 AND 904 OF 2013

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

      This judgment and order will dispose of both writ

appeal Nos.506 and 904 of 2013.


2.    We have heard Mr. Parsa Anantha Nageswar Rao,

learned Special Government Pleader for Revenue for the

appellants and Mr. Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Both the appeals arise out of the order dated

17.12.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing

writ petition No.18442 of 2011 filed by respondent Nos.1

and 2 as the writ petitioners. While State of Andhra

Pradesh (now State of Telangana) and its officials are the

appellants in writ appeal No.506 of 2013, Andhra

Pradesh State Financial Corporation is the appellant in

writ appeal No.904 of 2013. Appellants in writ appeal

No.506 of 2013 were arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 5 in

writ petition No.18442 of 2011, whereas appellant in writ

appeal No.904 of 2013 was arrayed as respondent No.6 in

writ petition No.18442 of 2011.

4. The related writ petition No.18442 of 2011 was filed

by respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking a declaration that the

action of the respondents i.e., appellants herein in

interfering with their possession in respect of land

admeasuring Acs.18.00 cents in survey No.307 of

Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District ('subject land') on the basis of

panchanama of the Mandal Revenue Inspector dated

20.08.2007 and the sketch enclosed thereto is illegal,

arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Respondent Nos.1 and

2 further sought for quashing of the same.

5. Above prayer was made by respondent Nos.1 and 2

on the backdrop of the following facts:

5.1. P.Narsimha Reddy and P.Seetharam Reddy being

brothers and constituting a joint family were owners of

land admeasuring Acs.82.68 cents in survey No.307 of

Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District. P.Seetharam Reddy filed ceiling

declaration, so also his son P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy in

discharge of their obligations under the Andhra Pradesh

Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act,

1973 in respect of their share of Acs.41.34 cents in the

above land before the Additional Revenue Divisional

Officer. Additional Revenue Divisional Officer passed

orders on 28.10.1976 in the ceiling declarations holding

the declarants to be non-surplus land holders. Thus,

lands admeasuring Acs.41.34 cents out of the total extent

of Acs.82.68 cents in survey No.307 of Gajularamaram

Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District which

was the share of P.Seetharam Reddy and P.Venkata

Narsimha Reddy remained unaffected by the Andhra

Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings)

Act, 1973 (briefly, 'the 1973 Act' hereinafter).

5.2. Likewise, P.Narsimha Reddy and his son P.Anji

Reddy filed declarations under the 1973 Act in respect of

their shares out of Acs.82.68 cents of land. On

30.10.1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal passed a

common order declaring that the two declarants were

holding surplus lands.

5.3. Consequently, P.Narsimha Reddy and his son P.Anji

Reddy in discharge of their obligations under the 1973

Act surrendered the surplus land admeasuring Acs.38.26

cents out of their share of Acs.41.34 cents.

5.4. On 01.06.1989, P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy i.e., the

non-surplus land holder executed a registered general

power of attorney in favour of respondent No.1,

R.Bhaskara Raju who on his death has been substituted

by his legal heirs i.e., respondent Nos.4 to 7. Respondent

No.1 was authorised to sell land admeasuring Acs.4.00 in

survey No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Additionally, P.Venkata

Narsimha Reddy orally agreed to sell another extent of

land admeasuring Acs.10.00 cents in the same survey

number to respondent No.1. As the entire sale

consideration was received pursuant to the oral

agreement, on 30.11.1989 he executed a registered

general power of attorney in favour of N.Purnachander

Rao and another in respect of land to an extent of

Acs.10.00 cents authorising them to execute and register

a regular sale deed in favour of respondent No.1.

5.5. On 11.12.1989 P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy sold

another extent of land admeasuring Acs.4.00 cents out of

his share to respondent No.1 through a registered sale

deed and delivered possession of the land to respondent

No.1.

5.6. Under sale deed dated 06.02.1990, respondent No.1

sold to respondent No.2 land admeasuring Acs.4.00 cents

in survey No.307 and Acs.5.00 cents in survey No.307

out of Acs.10.00 cents of land which he possessed.

5.7. Similarly, N.Purnachander Rao and another, the

constituted attorney of P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy

executed another sale deed dated 03.07.1990 in favour of

respondent No.1 in respect of the remaining land

admeasuring Acs.5.00 cents. Since then respondent No.1

has been in possession of the land in his own right as

purchaser.

5.8. Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad

through proceedings dated 21.05.1993 granted quarry

lease for building stone and road metal in the name of

respondent No.1 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.4.00

cents in survey No.307. That apart, respondent No.2 also

leased out his land admeasuring Acs.9.00 cents in survey

No.307 to respondent No.1 for running a stone crushing

unit under the name and style of M/s.Mechanised

Aggregate Industries. Thus, respondent No.1 contended

that he was in possession of the entire land of Acs.18.00

cents in survey No.307 out of which he was the owner of

Acs.9.00 cents and respondent No.2 was the owner of

remaining Acs.9.00 cents of land.

5.9. It was stated that respondent No.1 had obtained

commercial electricity connection for the purpose of

running the stone crushing unit. He had also obtained

another commercial electricity connection in the name of

M/s.Granite Metal Industries besides obtaining a

domestic service connection.

5.10. According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, as pleaded in

the writ affidavit, total extent of land in survey No.307

was Acs.441.13 cents, out of which possession of

Acs.318.27 cents were taken over by the Additional

Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of the

1973 Act. The balance lands are patta lands including

Acs.18.00 cents of land belonging to respondent Nos.1

and 2.

5.11. Out of the lands admeasuring Acs.318.27 cents

surrendered by various declarants under the 1973 Act,

State Government allotted on lease basis land to an

extent of Acs.238.28 cents to Andhra Pradesh State

Financial Corporation (briefly, 'the Corporation'

hereinafter) through G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16.08.2007,

possession of which was handed over to the Corporation

by the Mandal Revenue Inspector vide panchanama

dated 20.08.2007.

5.12. When one of the purchasers of land in survey

No.307, P.Netrananda Reddy sought clarification, Joint

Collector of Ranga Reddy District through proceedings

dated 27.03.2009 informed the Corporation that the land

in respect of which clarification was sought for by the

individual was retainable land. According to respondent

Nos.1 and 2, a comparison of the sketch enclosed to the

proceedings dated 27.03.2019 and the sketch enclosed

with the panchanama dated 20.08.2007 would clearly

show that ceiling surplus land surrendered to the

Additional Revenue Divisional Officer was encroached

upon by third parties. The encroachers had developed the

land into house plots. They alleged that on the basis of

the panchanama dated 20.08.2007 appellants were

interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of

respondent Nos.1 and 2 in respect of their land

admeasuring Acs.18.00 cents in survey No.307

unaffected by ceiling proceedings. Thus, assailing the

panchanama dated 20.08.2007 and the sketch enclosed

thereto as well as the action of the appellants in

interfering with the possession and enjoyment of

respondent Nos.1 and 2 over land admeasuring

Acs.18.00 cents in survey No.307 of Gajularamaram

Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the

related writ petition came to be filed seeking the relief as

indicated above.

6. The writ petition was contested by appellant No.4

i.e., Deputy Collector and Tahsildar by filing counter

affidavit and additional counter affidavit. Stand taken

was that the land to an extent of Acs.441.13 cents in

survey No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was classified as

Dasthagardan in the name of Smt. Lala Begum and

others; the same was purchased by P.Venkata Narsimha

Reddy, P.Ramchandra Reddy and D.Laxmi Narayan

Reddy. After coming into force of the 1973 Act, the above

named persons filed individual declarations. After due

computation by the Land Reforms Tribunal, the above

named persons retained an extent of Acs.122.70 cents

and surrendered land to the extent of Acs.318.27 cents to

the government as surplus land, the details of which

were mentioned as under:

Sl. Name of the pattedar Surplus Retainable No. land land

1. P.Seetharam Reddy -- Ac.55.12

2. P.V.Narsimha Reddy Ac.38.26 Ac.44.42

3. P.Ramchandra Reddy Ac.137.80 --

4. D.Laxminarayana Ac.142.21 Ac.23.18 Reddy Ac.318.27 Ac.122.72

6.1. Thus land to the extent of Acs.318.27 cents vested

with the government being the absolute owner of the

above land since pattadars had surrendered this land

under the 1973 Act. In this connection, Revenue

Divisional Officer had issued Occupancy Rights

Certificate (ORC) in respect of land to the extent of

Acs.123.28 cents.

6.2. P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy and P.Anji Reddy were

declared to be surplus land holders. They had

surrendered land to the extent of Acs.38.26 cents.

According to village records, the land admeasuring

Acs.317.25 cents was classified as kharij khata ceiling

surplus land; an extent of Acs.79.00 cents is covered by

crushers; and an extent of Acs.20.00 cents was allotted

to the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation, Qutbullapur Circle.

6.3. Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated

16.08.2007 had issued orders to alienate Acs.33.11 cents

of government land in survey No.308 of Gajularamaram

Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and

to allot government land to an extent of Acs.238.28 cents

in survey No.307/1 in favour of the Corporation on lease

basis for a period of 99 years @ Rs.40.00 lakhs per acre.

The land was allotted to the Corporation to enable it to

utilise the land for raising its capital base. District

Collector of Ranga Reddy vide proceedings dated

20.08.2007 handed over possession of Acs.33.11 cents of

land to the Corporation under the cover of a

panchanama. Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

vide letter dated 02.12.2010 informed that temporary

permissions issued for quarry lease were withdrawn in

respect of land to the extent of Acs.33.02 cents in both

survey Nos.307 and 308.

6.4. Declarants had already sold away the retainable

patta land admeasuring Acs.122.72 cents in survey

No.307 to different individuals. Consequently, names of

the purchasers were recorded in the pahanis and the

land was covered by different layouts. There was no land

available to the extent of Acs.18.00 cents out of the

retainable land in survey No.307 as claimed by

respondent Nos.1 and 2. On verification from the sketch

enclosed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 relating to the

subject property, it is stated that the same is not

matching with the boundaries of the land purchased

through registered sale deed dated 11.12.1989.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 under the guise of retainable

part of land were trying to grab valuable government land

allotted to the Corporation for public purpose. Thus, the

Deputy Collector-cum-Tahsildar sought for dismissal of

the writ petition.

7. Further clarifications were made by the Deputy

Collector-cum-Tahsildar by filing additional counter

affidavit.

8. Likewise, counter affidavit was filed by the

Corporation. It was contended that there was a serious

dispute on facts about the title and possession of

respondent Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the land claimed to

have been purchased by them. The dispute about title

and possession should not be adjudicated in a

proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Proper forum would be the civil court.

8.1. Corporation stated that G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated

16.08.2007 was issued by the State to alienate

government land to the extent of Acs.33.11 cents in

survey No.308 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of the

Corporation and also to allot government land to the

extent of Acs.238.28 cents in survey No.307/1 of the

same village to the Corporation on lease basis for a period

of 99 years by taking the value of the land at Rs.40 lakhs

per acre. While doing so, it was declared that such

allotment of land would be construed as government

equity contribution for which Corporation was required to

allot appropriate shares to the government covering the

value of the land. The land was to be utilised by the

Corporation to raise its capital base.

8.2. Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16.08.2007

possession of the land admeasuring Acs.228.28 cents

and Acs.33.11 cents were handed over to the Corporation

under a panchanama dated 20.08.2007. After taking over

possession of the land, Corporation started fencing the

same besides raising boundary so as to protect it from

encroachers/land grabbers. However, because of the

quarrying operations carried out by the encroachers, the

fencing was completely damaged.

8.3. While denying that Corporation had encroached

upon the land of respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is alleged

that the real motive of respondent Nos.1 and 2 was to

grab valuable government land allotted to the

Corporation for a public purpose.

8.4. Denying that handing over of government land to

the Corporation was arbitrary or unreasonable,

Corporation challenged the delay of more than three

years in instituting the challenge to the panchanama and

sketch plan. Therefore, Corporation sought for dismissal

of the writ petition.

9. Surprisingly, instead of adjudicating the grievance

of respondent Nos.1 and 2 through the relief sought for

or maintainability thereof, learned Single Judge posed

the question that the issue to be addressed in the writ

petition related to sanctity of the surrender proceedings

under the 1973 Act, which was neither questioned by

anybody nor was an issue. After an elaborate discussion

on the provisions of the 1973 Act, learned Single Judge

also referred to provisions of the Andhra Pradesh

(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act,

1950 as well as the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and

made exclusive references thereto. Learned Single Judge,

thereafter, referred to proceedings before the Revenue

Divisional Officer on 08.02.1991 and 23.02.1991

culminating in order dated 07.03.1991. Learned Single

Judge held as follows:

Section 11 of the Land Ceiling Act required the Revenue Divisional Officer to take possession of ceiling surplus lands which he did in the instant

case. While surrendering the surplus lands, landholders have simultaneously retained Ac.123.72 cents as retainable land with them.

Therefore, the alienations made by the landholders to the extent of Ac.123.72 cents retainable extent of land cannot be faulted at all. The petitioners have successfully demonstrated as to how they acquired title to Ac.18.00 of land forming part of the retainable extent of land held by the landholders. Though, Sri Y.N.Lohitha, learned counsel for the sixth respondent has raised a contention that the land purchased by the petitioners is not forming a contiguous block, but however, Sri Hari Sreedhar has successfully demonstrated as to how the Ac.18.00 cents of land formed into contiguous block, with reference to the land held by Sri Netrananda Reddy. He could demonstrate that this Ac.18.00 of land belonging to the petitioners is lying to the south of Sri Netrananda Reddy's land. I am therefore of the opinion that, the survey sketch presented by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Qutbullapur Mandal, indicating that the land held by the petitioners as forming part of the retainable extent of land deserves acceptance unhesitatingly. Still, the objection raised on behalf of the sixth respondent that, when the facts are in such serious disputes, the parties must be relegated to the Civil Court to enable the evidence to be gathered properly, need to be answered. There is no real bar or prohibition from collecting evidence in a proceeding initiated under Article 226 of our Constitution. If the circumstances so warrant, such

an exercise can be carried out. But, as a rule of prudence and self imposed restraint, the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 would not normally undertake collection of evidence. In fact, the material papers, produced, so long as admissible in evidence, are considered as evidence and on that basis writ petitions are decided. In the present case, the controversy was centered around the nature of the land. What was essentially required to be decided is whether this land vested in the Government pursuant to the Abolition of Inams in 1955 or was it vested in the Government, free from all encumbrances, pursuant to their surrender by the excess landholders after statutory adjudication in accordance with the Land Ceiling Act. Once this controversy is resolved and a firm opinion is reached that the lands in question vested in the Government free from all encumbrances as it was surrendered by the surplus landholders, in terms of the Land Ceiling Act, what remains thereafter to be resolved is the mere localization of the land in question. At the time of surrender proceedings, as is required in terms of Section 11 of the Land Ceiling Act, necessary Panchanama is prepared and a sketch is also prepared localizing the surrendered extents of land. Therefore, there was never any difficulty with regard to localisation of the land. The difficulty arose only because of the encroachments allowed to be made freely in the ceiling surplus land by various individuals who are backed by the Occupancy Rights Certificates granted improperly by the

Revenue Divisional Officer, subsequent to the land being surrendered to the State Government under the Land Ceiling Act. Therefore, I am of the firm opinion that the controversy in the present case is not such a type as to require collection of oral evidence warranting institution of any civil suit. Further, the principle that no person can be deprived of his legitimate right of use/possession of landed property without recourse to law is too well known, to be allowed to be disturbed on the basis of a Panchanama prepared by a Tahsildar while delivering possession of land to the sixth respondent.

For all the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners succeed in this writ petition. Inasmuch as, the petitioners not challenged the validity of the orders of the State Government alienating the land in favour of the sixth respondent, they have no manner of any right to object the State Government from allocating or alienating the land belonging to it, other than the one held by them, in favour of the sixth respondent. But what the petitioners can legitimately object to is, the land held by them cannot be included in the land allocated or alienated in favour of the sixth respondent, unauthorizedly. The petitioners have every right to protect their right, title and interest in the land in question. They can be divested of such a right, only through a process of law but not by preparing a Panchanama by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Hence, the respondents are not liable to prevent the petitioners from put to effective use the land of

Ac.18.00 purchased by them in Sy. No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal.

10. Thus, from the above, it is seen that learned Single

Judge has recorded a finding of fact that respondent

Nos.1 and 2 could successfully demonstrate their title

over Ac.18.00 cents of land forming part of the retainable

extent held by the landholders. When it was pointed out

that purchase of the aforesaid land by respondent Nos.1

and 2 could not be accepted as the land did not form a

contiguous block, learned Single Judge noted that

learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/writ

petitioners had successfully demonstrated as to how

Acs.18.00 cents of land formed a contiguous block; and

that he could further demonstrate that this Acs.18.00

cents of land belonging to respondent Nos.1 and 2 lie to

the south of Netrananda Reddy's land. Therefore, learned

Single Judge unhesitatingly accepted the survey sketch

presented by the Revenue Divisional Officer indicating

that land held by respondent Nos.1 and 2 formed part of

the retainable extent of land.

11. We are afraid, learned Single Judge had delved into

an arena which is purely within the domain of civil court

jurisdiction. It is not for the writ court to decide title and

possession of a petitioner in a proceeding under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that a writ

proceeding is not meant for establishment of one's right

but for enforcement of such a right. Existence of such a

right is a pre-condition for a writ court to invoke its

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Declaration of title and possession over land would

require examination and determination of various factual

aspects including adducing and analysing evidence, both

documentary and oral. Though there is no bar for a writ

court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India from

collecting evidence nonetheless such an exercise is

required to be avoided as a writ court is not the

appropriate forum for adjudication of title and

possession.

12. Proceeding further, learned Single Judge realised

the difficulties, but posed the question as to the nature of

the land and observed that what was essentially required

to be decided was whether the land vested in the

government pursuant to the 1955 Act or was it vested in

the government free from all encumbrances pursuant to

surrender of surplus land by the landholders after

statutory adjudication in accordance with 1973 Act.

Learned Single Judge again proceeded that there was no

difficulty with regard to localisation of the surrendered

land and therefore, the controversy was not of such a

type as would require collection of oral evidence

warranting institution of a civil suit.

13. We are afraid, learned Single Judge committed a

fundamental error in entering into an arena which

should be avoided by a writ court for the reasons

mentioned supra.

14. Finally, learned Single Judge noted that as

respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not challenge the orders of

the State Government alienating land in favour of the

Corporation, they would not have any manner of right

objecting to the State Government allocating or alienating

land in favour of the Corporation but respondent Nos.1

and 2 can certainly protect their right, title and interest

in respect of their land. Here also, learned Single Judge

fell into grave error as such a direction would require

clear demarcation of land between respondent Nos.1 and

2 on one hand and Corporation on the other hand.

Without such clear cut demarcation, learned Single

Judge directed the appellants not to interfere with the

effective use of Acs.18.00 cents of land by respondent

Nos.1 and 2.

15. We are of the view that these are matters which are

best left for adjudication by the civil courts. Therefore the

conclusions and findings rendered by the learned Single

Judge cannot be sustained at all.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to agree to

the line of reasoning and findings rendered by the

learned Single Judge. However, it would be open to

respondent Nos.1 and 2 to establish their right over what

they claim to be their land before the competent civil

court, subject of course to limitation.

17. That being the position, order dated 17.12.2012

passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition

No.18442 of 2011 is hereby set aside and quashed.

18. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed and the

writ appeals are allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J

28.04.2023 pln