Telangana High Court
Mohd. Sirajuddin vs State Of Telangana on 20 November, 2023
Bench: T.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.21103 OF 2021
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of
Mandamus declaring
(a) the proceedings No.B/5/1999 dt.23.04.2010 of the 7th
respondent declaring the petitioners' land as surplus land and the
proceedings No.B/5/1999 dt.03.06.2010 rejecting the claim of the
petitioners for payment of compensation, as illegal and arbitrary;
(b) the inaction of the respondents in implementing the decision
taken by the Government on 29.06.2011 as illegal and arbitrary and
contrary to the rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution
of India; and,
(c) consequently to direct the respondents to initiate appropriate
proceedings to acquire the land in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20 of
Maheswaram (Maysaram) Village, Ranga Reddy District and,
(d) to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition as
stated in the writ and affidavit as contended by all the parties are as
under:
Petitioners Contentions:-
The petitioners claim to be the joint Muslim Munthakab holders
and owners of the land admeasuring Ac.383.00 gts., in Survey
Nos.222/1 to 222/20 of Maheswaram Village, Ranga Reddy District
through succession from their ancestors. The petitioners rely upon the
entries in the Khasra Pahani prepared in 1954-55 and the entries in the
Pahanis thereafter and the entries in the Dharani Portal in support of this
contention.
3. In the year 1967 the Divisional Forest Officer, Hyderabad, i.e.,
respondent No.5 herein, vide his office Ref.No.B1/16/1357 (Part-II)
dt.22.06.1967, submitted a proposal for reservation of forest and
issuance of notification under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 to
constitute an area of Ac.383.00 gts., of patta lands in Survey Nos.222/1
to 222/20 of Maheswaram Village (then Maisaram), Ranga Reddy
District as Reserve Forest. The Conservator of Forests, A.P., Hyderabad,
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
i.e., respondent No.4 herein vide his letter No.9403/73/67/M9,
dt.05.08.1968, submitted proposals to the Chief Conservator of Forests,
A.P. i.e., respondent No.3 herein, for approval and in turn, respondent
No.3, vide Ref.No.4620/243/67/J2, dt.23.02.1968, has accorded
permission to take action under Section 4 of the Forest Act. On receipt
of the same, the 4th respondent, vide proposals bearing
Ref.No.81/16/1352F dt.28.10.1968, submitted proposals for approval
and for adequate transmission to the Board of Revenue. The District
Collector under his letter No.B3/18005/68, dt.10.06.1971 submitted the
said proposals to the Board of Revenue, Hyderabad and the District
Collector under his letter dt.23.05.1973 requested respondent No.5 to
justify the reservation proposals of such vast private land. Respondent
No.5, vide his letter RC.No.81/52/F, dt.02.07.1973, addressed to the
District Collector, clarified that the proposals were already referred to
the Conservator of Forests and Chief Conservator of Forests and
approval for reserving the forest block was given on 23.09.1968 and that
the area contains copious forest growth. The District Collector returned
the reservation proposals with copies of the Board of Revenue letters
dt.19.07.1975 and 16.03.1975 on 26.09.1975. Subsequently, vide letter
bearing RC.No.81/H6/1352F, dt.01.12.1975, respondent No.5 herein
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
submitted the reservation proposals supplying omissions for his
approval. The MRO, Maheswaram, vide his letter dt.07.09.1987,
submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East,
with a copy marked to respondent No.5, stating that the land in Survey
Nos.222/1 to 222/20 comprising of Ac.348.14 gts., was in the
occupation of the Forest Department for the last 20 years and that the
Forest Department has planted Eucalyptus Trees in an area of 100 Acres
and that the remaining area was being prepared for plantation of trees.
He also pointed to the declarations filed by the certain claimants before
the authorities under the Land Reforms Act in respect of the said land.
Thereafter, on 26.09.1994, vide letter bearing No.81/52/H6, respondent
No.5 resubmitted the reservation proposals under Section 4 of the Forest
Act in respect of 383 Acres which were approved by the District
Collector on 26.09.1994 and forwarded to the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests on 03.10.1995. The Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests, in turn, submitted notification proposals under Section 4 of
the Forest Act to the Government for approval and the Government also
granted approval vide G.O.Ms.No.1, EFS & T (For.I) Department,
dt.04.01.1999 and the same was published in A.P. Gazette on
28.01.1999 and in R.R. District Gazette on 23.07.1999.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
4. Consequently, the Forest Settlement Officer submitted
proclamation notification under Section 6 of the Forest Act to the
District Collector, Ranga Reddy District on 16.09.1999 and the Forest
Settlement Officer also in the notification dt.28.09.1999 issued in
Telugu, published it as patta land while in the English Version, it was
mentioned as "Poramboke". On 29.07.2000, the Forest Settlement
Officer submitted preliminary valuation certificate for payment of
compensation. On 19.10.2000, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy
District sought a clarification from the 5th respondent as to the nature of
lands, whether it was Poramboke as mentioned in A.P. Gazette or it was
patta land as referred to in the Valuation Certificate. After enquiry, a
detailed report dated 23.11.2000 was sent to the District Collector by the
MRO Maheswaram clarifying that the lands are patta lands and that the
names of Khaja Mohinuddin, Kareemuddin and Habeebuddin are shown
as occupiers in the revenue records as per Khasara Pahani and from the
years 1962-63, the names of Sri.Khaja Mohiuddin's brothers i.e., the
above persons are recorded as pattedars and that the possession was
shown to be with Forest Department and also stated that they are patta
lands and not poramboke lands. Respondent No.5 thereafter addressed a
letter dt.28.11.2000 to the District Collector requesting to allot
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
Ac.383.00 gts., available under land bank of Ranga Reddy District to the
petitioners in order to avoid payment of compensation. Further, the
Forest Settlement Officer, in his letter No.B/5/99 dt.08.01.2008
addressed to the District Collector after taking all the facts and the
correspondence between the forest department and the revenue
department in respect of the subject land, observed that admittedly the
lands are patta lands and not forest lands and therefore, the provisions of
the conservation of Forest Act are not attracted as held by the Hon'ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the decision reported in 1999 (5) ALD
566 and recommended for exclusion of the land from the proposals of
forest block and requested the authorities to look into the matter
immediately. However, no decision was taken in respect of allotting
alternative land to the petitioners from the land available in the land
bank of Ranga Reddy District or for exclusion of the same from the
proposals of forest block.
5. In the meantime, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.30573 of
1997 for a direction to the respondents therein to acquire the schedule
land and to pay compensation for the same. In the said Writ Petition, the
petitioners specifically pleaded that the lands were occupied by the
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
Forest Department and that no notification in this respect was issued nor
was any compensation paid to the petitioners. These facts were admitted
by the respondents in their counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.30573 of
1997 and they also admitted that the Forest Department was in
possession of the land continuously and that they were initiating the
process of reservation of forest under Section 4 of the Forest Act and
that they will issue notification to this effect by appointing a Forest
Settlement Officer, who will give finality to the process duly
adjudicating the claims to be filed by the petitioners therein. The issue
of land being part of the declaration under the A.P.Land Reforms
(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act was mentioned in the counter
affidavit. After considering the rival contentions, this Court vide orders
dated 07.08.1998 gave directions to the respondents to initiate
notification proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, and also
adjudicate the claim of the petitioners within a period of four (4) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The grievance of the
petitioners is that though decades have passed, no action has been taken
by the respondents in this direction till date and no compensation has
been paid to the petitioners so far. It is submitted that the petitioners
have filed a detailed claim statement under Case No.B/5/99 on
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
16.08.2008, but no decision has been taken thereon till date and taking
advantage of the pendency of the proceedings, certain third parties have
made false claims in respect of portions of this land and even filed
W.P.No.21771 of 2008 and W.P.No.1980 of 2009. It is submitted that
the petitioners got themselves impleaded in W.P.No.21771 of 2008 and
both the Writ Petitions were ultimately dismissed by this Court vide
orders dated 27.02.2009.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the
petitioners are the owners and pattedars of the land, the Forest
Department was in possession of the same for more than 50 years with a
proposal to acquire the same, but the respondents were not initiating any
further steps to issue fresh notification for acquisition of land. As the
notification issued in 1999 has lapsed and no further notification was
issued, the petitioners filed W.P.No.9526 of 2009 and in the counter
affidavit filed by the Forest Department in W.P.No.9526 of 2009, the
above position was admitted by the respondents and the Writ Petition
was disposed of vide orders dt.04.12.2009 directing the respondents
therein to finalize the issue relating to the acquisition of the land in
Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20 in Maheswaram Village, Ranga Reddy
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
District for the purpose of conversion thereof into reserve forest, within
a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
However, when no action was taken by the respondents thereafter, the
petitioners filed a Contempt Case in C.C.No.1779 of 2015 and in the
counter filed in the Contempt Case, the Government has taken a stand
that proceedings were issued vide B/5/2/1999 on 23.04.2010 and
No.B/5/2/1999 dt.03.06.2010 holding that the land of the petitioners was
part of ceiling surplus land and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled
to any compensation and hence rejected the claim. Challenging the said
finding given by the Forest Department, the present Writ Petition is
filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stand taken
by the respondents in the impugned orders dated 23.04.2010 and
03.06.2010 rejecting the claim petition of the petitioners is completely in
contradiction to the stand taken by them from the inception i.e., the year
1967, from the date of initiation of proposals to constitute and conserve
the area of Acs.383 of patta lands in Survey No.222/1 to 222/20 of
Maheswaram Village, Ranga Reddy District as a reserve forest as stated
and admitted by them in the counter affidavits filed by them in the
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
earlier writ petitions. It is submitted that the first writ petition filed by
the petitioners was W.P.No.30573/1997 for a direction to the
respondents therein to acquire the schedule land and to pay
compensation for use and acquisition of the land and in the counter
affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.30573 of 1997, it was
admitted that the Forest Department has taken over the possession of
land and that the proposals were initiated for notification of the same
under Section 4 of the Forest Act. It was stated that these lands were
shown as the patta lands for the entire area of Acs.383.00 Gts., as per the
Revenue records and that the settlement as prayed for by the petitioners
will take place shortly. The issue of the lands being part of the
declaration under Andhra Pradesh Ceiling and Agricultural Land
Holding Act was referred to and it was observed that the petitioners
have submitted their declarations. It is submitted that the said counter
affidavit was filed in the year 1998, i.e., much after the Land Reforms
Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 16.02.1978 in LRA No.2253 of
1997, has held that the land in question cannot be included in the
holdings of the declarants as it was in the possession of the forest
department and thus has to be deleted from the holding of the
petitioners. It is submitted that subsequent to the Land Reforms
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
Appellate Tribunal order, the notification under Section 4 of the Forest
Act was issued in the year 1999 and the same was published in the
A.P.Gazette on 28.01.1999 and in Ranga Reddy District Gazette on
23.07.1999. Thereafter, the Forest Settlement Officer, also in the
notification under Section 6 of the Forest Act submitted proclamations
on 16.09.1999 and in the notification dated 28.09.1999 in Telugu,
published as Patta Land, while in English Version as 'Poramboke',
which according to the petitioners was apparently by mistake and the
Telugu Version has to be considered as it was in accordance with the
revenue records.
8. The next writ petition filed by the petitioners was W.P.No.9526
of 2009 as the respondents were not initiating any further steps to issue
notification for acquiring their land.
9. It is submitted that in the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent No.7 in W.P.No.9526 of 2009, i.e., the Forest Settlement
Officer, it was stated that compensation was quantified at
Rs.1,14,84,687/- and that it was for the forest department to pay the
compensation in cash or allot the alternate land and that it was pending
consideration by the Forest Authorities. It is submitted that accordingly,
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
the W.P.No.9526 of 2009 was disposed off vide orders dated 04.12.2009
directing the respondents to finalize the issue relating to the acquisition
of land in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20 in Maheswaram Village, Ranga
Reddy District for the purpose of conversion thereto into Reserve Forest
within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order and in compliance thereof, the Government had initiated action
and the Chief Secretary vide letter No.76/CSN/2010, dated 07.09.2010
has sent a brief note to the Special Chief Secretary, EFS&T Department
for a decision in this regard. It is submitted that the decision of the
respondent No.7, Forest Settlement Officer, dated 23.04.2010 and
03.06.2010 was not referred to therein and were never communicated to
the petitioners and hence it cannot be treated as binding on the
petitioners. It is submitted that the said order being contrary to facts on
record and without calling for any remarks or clarifications/explanation
from the petitioners is not only ex-facie, illegal and violative of
principles of natural justice but are also contrary to the order passed by
the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. It is submitted that the respondent
No.7 is also incompetent to pass such order as he became functus officio
after he has already quantified the compensation. It is submitted that the
respondent No.7 had earlier initiated Land Acquisition proceedings and
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
also determined the compensation to be paid, in compliance with the
directions of this Court in W.P.No.30573 of 1997 and the said stand was
confirmed in the sworn counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.9526 of 2009
and therefore, he has become functus officio and could not have arrived
at a different conclusion thereafter without any proceedings being
pending before him and hence could not have passed the orders dated
23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010.
10. It is further submitted that the decision of the respondent No.7
has become invalid and ineffective after the State Government has taken
a decision on 29.06.2011 to acquire the land in compliance with the
directions of the High Court in W.P.No.9526 of 2009.
11. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 had moved the file
which was circulated to various departments of the Government and
finally, after taking the legal opinion of the Law Department, the
Government has taken a decision on 29.06.2011 to issue a notification
under the Land Acquisition Act by observing as under:
"As per the directions of Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.9526
of 2009 dated 14.12.2009 LA Proceedings U/s.4(1) and 6(1) have to
be initiated invoking urgency clause U/s.17(i) of LA Act a fresh for
acquisition of subject lands".
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
12. It is submitted that in spite of such a decision, no further steps
were taken by the respondents and therefore, Contempt Case was filed
vide C.C.No.1179 of 2015 and the same was allowed after giving
several opportunities to all the respondents and all the respondents were
convicted by order dated 13.07.2021. It is submitted that against the
order in the Contempt Case, the respondents have filed Contempt
Appeals No.14 to 19 of 2021 and the Division Bench of this Court has
allowed the Contempt Appeals on 16.08.2021 only on the ground that
the petitioners have invoked the contempt jurisdiction after a period of
one year and liberty was given to the petitioners to take appropriate legal
recourse in respect of the proceedings dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010
and subsequent orders. In view of the said liberty given by the Court, the
present Writ Petition has been filed.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners
have been pursuing their legal remedies since 1997 before this Court
and in spite of the directions of this Court in three successive writ
petitions, the respondents are avoiding the payment of compensation to
the petitioners by not resorting to acquisition of the petitioners' land
under untenable and illegal grounds. He submitted that pursuant to the
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
orders of this Court in W.P.No.30573 of 1997, the respondents have
taken steps to initiate acquisition proceedings and also have issued
notification under Land acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.1 EFS & T
(For.I) Department, dated 04.01.1999, Gazette No.4, dated 28.01.1999,
Ranga Reddy District and Gazette Nos.54 & 57, dated 23.06.1999
respectively, but the respondents did not proceed further and therefore,
the acquisition proceedings got lapsed by virtue of Sec.11 (a) of Land
Acquisition Act. It is submitted that pursuant to the orders in
W.P.No.21771 of 2009 filed by the third parties claiming interest in the
said land, this Court has observed that the Forest Department is in
possession of the property and that through letter dated 08.01.2008, the
Forest Settlement Officer has impressed the District Collector about the
urgency and that the concerned land is a patta land and therefore, claims
made by the various individuals for compensation would be determined
in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and also
assuming that the Government is not inclined to initiate proceedings
under the Land Acquisition Act, a final word must come from the
concerned authority of the Government and not from the Forest
Settlement Officer, who is only an adjudicatory authority. The Court
also observed that the petitioners have not placed before the Court any
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
communication which connotes the final decision of the Government
not to go for acquisition of the land or for provision of alternative land.
It is submitted that in W.P.No.9526 of 2009, the Forest Settlement
Officer has filed counter affidavit stating that the proposals for acquiring
the land under the Land Acquisition Act were also initiated and that
action was being worked out for cash compensation to be paid to the
petitioner, i.e., a total sum of Rs.1,14,84,687/-. It is submitted that
instead of complying with the directions of this Court in the above writ
petition, the respondents are making efforts to invent reasons to deny
compensation to the petitioners, resulting in the passing of the impugned
proceedings dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the Land
Reforms Appellate Tribunal order dated 06.04.1978 wherein the
Tribunal, after taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble
High Court in W.P.No. 9526 of 2009, has observed that the appellants
are not in possession of the said land and therefore the land covered by
Survey No.222 to an extent of Ac.348.78 Cents in Maisarani has to be
deleted while computing the holding of the appellants. It is the case of
the petitioners that in the Contempt Petition, the respondents pleaded as
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
if the impugned proceedings of Forest Settlement Officer amounts to
compliance. It is submitted that this plea is false, as the respondents,
while taking the said defence, deliberately suppressed the fact that the
Government, in compliance with the directions of this Court, has taken a
decision on 29.06.2011 to initiate land acquisition proceedings. It is
submitted that in spite of continuously pursuing the issue with the
respondents and pursuing the legal remedy for more than five decades,
the petitioners are not paid any compensation and the respondents have
not proceeded to acquire their lands, though it has long since been
converted into forest area.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this
Court to the order of the Division Bench in Contempt Appeal Nos.14 to
19 of 2021, wherein it was observed that the petitioners could have
questioned the impugned proceedings of Forest Settlement Officer dated
23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010 instead of filing the Contempt Case and
therefore, the petitioners, having no other efficacious alternative
remedy, except to seek the reddressal before this Court, have filed the
present writ petition.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
16. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of
this Court to the list of Chronological Events and also to the various
documents filed along with the writ petition to demonstrate that the
scheduled land is a patta land and that the writ petitioners are the
pattedars, but the same is in the possession of the Forest Department for
more than 50 years and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation, both for the use of the land as well as acquisition of land
by the Forest Department.
17. The Contentions of the Respondent No.6, the District
Collector, Ranga Reddy District:
In response, respondent No.6 has filed a counter affidavit on his
behalf and also on behalf of respondent No.2 refuting the claims made
by the petitioners. It is stated that the Assistant Director, Survey and
Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, through his letter
No.K3/1543/2021, dated 10.08.2021 has reported that on verification of
the revenue records of Maheshwaram Village in the Record Room and
also the scanned images of Nakkal Sethwar for the year 1339 Fasli i.e.,
1929 A.D., the land in Survey No.222 is recorded as "Poramboke
Kancha" to an extent of Ac.353.30 gts.,in which as per the scanned copy
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
of Sethwar available for Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20, it is recorded as
Mahasura Jungle, i.e., forest land. It is therefore submitted that the
subject lands are Government lands and not patta lands. It is stated that
in the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, the subject land has been
divided into 20 sub divisions from 222/1 to 222/20 and the name of one
Khaja Moinuddin has been recorded under Column No.8 as pattadar of
the lands without any valid records and valid orders from the competent
authority and as such, the said entries are fraudulent entries. It is also
alleged that after due enquiry into the fraudulent entries in Khasra
Pahani, it has come to the notice of the Government that the father of Sri
Khaja Moinuddin, viz., Mohd. Sirajuddin, S/o Vazir Ali is stated to have
worked as Tahsildar of Shabad and Ibrahimpatan Taluks of the then
Hyderabad District during the H.E.H. Nizam's period. It is stated that
there was no Maheswaram Mandal at that point of time and it existed in
the erstwhile Ibrahimpatnam Taluk and taking advantage of the said
position, Mr. Mohd. Sirajddin, S/o Vazir Ali, father of Sri Khaja
Moinuddin appears to have got entered the names of his sons in the
Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 as pattadars of the above lands
illegally without any valid orders and in collusion with the then Patwari
of the Village. It is submitted that mere entries in the revenue records
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
including Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 does not create any right
and title over the subject lands.
18. It is further stated that without having any knowledge about the
recorded evidence of the subject land being Government land classified
as Poramboke Kancha and Mahasura Jangle in settlement records, the
Government has initiated action for acquisition of the land as the names
of Sri Khaja Moinddin, S/o Sirajuddin and others were mentioned in the
Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 as patta holders. It is stated that the
forest and revenue officials were under the erroneous impression that the
lands in question are patta lands and have erroneously initiated action
under the Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that in the subsequent
enquiries made through the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal about the
fraudulent entries, the fact of the father of petitioners 1 to 6 working as
Tahsildar of Shabad and Ibrahimpatnam Taluks has come to light. It is
further submitted that on the basis of wrong entries made in the records,
the legal heirs of Sri Khaja Moinuddin have filed declarations in
C.C.No.2936, 3502, 3518, 3519, 2945, 2939, 2938, 2937, 2940, 2941,
2144/I/75 in respect of these lands and other lands held by them in
Thumaloor, Pulmamidi and Maheshwaram Villages of erstwhile
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
Ibrahimpatan Taluk and that the Land Reforms Tribunal and the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad South processed these
declarations and issued orders dt.05.05.1977 declaring the declarants as
surplus holders to the extents mentioned in the proceedings. Thereafter,
the petitioners and others filed an appeal in L.R.A.No.2253/77 before
the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and requested not to
compute the extent of Ac.348.87 cents in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20 of
Maheswaram Village as land in their hands as the same was in the
possession of the Forest Department. The Land Reforms Appellate
Tribunal had accepted the same and allowed the LRA and had held that
the land of Ac.383.78 cents which was not in the possession of the
declarants cannot be considered as their surplus land. It is stated that
merely on the basis of the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate
Tribunal, the petitioners cannot claim the Government land as their patta
land and seek compensation for the same. It is further submitted that
even if the land is to be considered as the land of the petitioners, when it
forms part of their surplus land, and is in possession of the Forest
Department, it is the land of the Government and therefore, the
petitioners would not be eligible for compensation. Thus, the
respondents No.2 & 6 prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
19. The Contentions of respondent No.5, the Divisional Forest
Officer, Ranga Reddy District:
The respondent No.5 also has filed a counter affidavit not only
supporting the stand of respondents No.2 and 6, but in addition stating
that the subject land was in possession of the forest department for the
past 80 years and was conserved by the forest department by deploying
all its resources. It is stated that in the year 1932, in the Sethwar, the
subject land was earmarked as Kancha Poramboku (Government Land)
and even later in supplementary Sethwar, it was shown as Kancha
Poramboku (Government Land). It is stated that in the revenue records
for the year 1954, without any verification of records, the subject land
was recorded as Patta Land contrary to the established record and hence
cannot be relied upon. He also referred to the correspondence between
the Conservator of Forests, chief Conservator of Forests and the
Divisional Forest Officer between the years 1967 to 1973 in respect of
the subject land and pointed out that in his letter dated 02.07.1973, the
Divisional Forest Officer Categorically stated that the classification of
the subject land as Patta Land was doubtful because the alleged patta
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
holders failed to produce any documents in support of their right in the
land.
20. In respect of the proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal
in the year 1973 and the proceedings before the Land Reforms Appellate
Tribunal in the year 1977, it is submitted that they are unrelated and
unknown to the forest department. However, he relied upon the findings
therein that the subject land was admittedly in the possession of the
forest department only. It is submitted that when the Divisional Forest
Officer proposed to notify the subject land under Section 4 of the
A.P.Forest Act, the petitioners approached the Hon'ble High Court in
W.P.No.30573/1997 for a direction to acquire the land and pay
compensation for the same. It is stated that the High Court has disposed
of the writ petition without declaring or confirming the right of the
petitioners over the subject land but only directing the authorities to
initiate notification proceedings and adjudicate the claims of the
petitioners within four months. It is submitted that in compliance with
the directions of this Court, the Government has issued G.O.No.1, dated
04.01.1999 under Section 4 of the A.P.Forest Act and thereafter issued a
Gazette Notification dated 28.09.1999 under Section 6 of the A.P.Forest
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
Act and in English version, it was correctly classified as 'Poramboku'
while in the Telugu version, it was incorrectly classified as 'Patta Land'.
21. It is submitted that thereafter, the preliminary Valuation
Certificate of the erstwhile Forest Officer proposing to pay Rs.1 Crore
as compensation to the alleged pattadars was issued and the subsequent
correspondence between the District Collector, Divisional Forest Officer
and the Mandal Revenue Officer was in complete disregard to all the
earlier proceedings and without taking into account the true facts. It is
stated that in compliance with the directions of this Court in
W.P.Nos.21771/2008 and 1980/2009 dated 27.02.2009 and in
W.P.No.9526/2009 dated 04.12.2009, the Forest Settlement Officer
considered the claims of the petitioners. However, after considering all
the facts, he rightly rejected them vide orders dated 23.04.2010 and
03.06.2010. Further, the Lr.No.B/1163/2011, dated 09.04.2021 of the
Tahsildar, Maheswaram, addressed to the District Collector, Ranga
Reddy District is referred to in support of the above allegations.
22. It is submitted that the petitioners are making false and frivolous
claims over the subject land and that the Forest Department is in the
final process of issuing the final notification under Section 15 of the
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
Forest Act declaring the subject land as Reserve Forest. Thus, he prayed
for dismissal of the writ petition as devoid of merits.
23. The reply of the petitioners to the counters of Respondents
No.5 and 6 respectively: The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit to
the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5 denying the contentions
and assertions made therein that the revenue records relied upon by the
petitioners are incorrect and submitted that the Khasra Pahani which was
prepared in the year 1954-55, following due process of law, mandates
the presumption of its correctness. As regards the reliance by the
respondents on the entries in Sethwar, it is stated that the document
placed on record is only a Nakal/copy and hence cannot be relied upon
without the original copy being available for verification. It is stated that
the respondents never, at any point of time from 1967 and at any stage
of the previous Writ Petitions between 1997 to 2009 have disputed the
claim/title of the petitioners. Further, detailed reply is given to each of
the contentions raised in the counter affidavit of respondent No.5.
24. In addition to the above, the petitioners have filed reply
affidavits dated 13.12.2021 and 23.06.2022 respectively to the counter
affidavits filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and submitted that
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
contentions raised therein by the respondents are not only contrary to
record but are raised for the first time since 1967 only to deny the
petitioners their rightful compensation. It is submitted that for the first
time, the allegation is made by the respondent No.6 that the father of
Mr. Mohd. Sirajuddin was working in the Revenue Department and that
the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 was prepared by him with the collusion of
the then Patwari. It is submitted that these allegations made by the
respondents are baseless and that it is not correct that the father of Khaja
Moinuddin i.e., Mohd Sirajuddin, S/o.Wajeed Ali worked as Tahsildar
of Shabad and Ibrahimpatnam Taluq of the then Hyderabad District
during the regime of H.E.H Nizams's period. It is further stated that
apparently the original record prior to the Khasra Pahani for the year
1954-55 is not available and therefore, the respondents cannot say that
the Khasra Pahani is manipulated or fraudulent. The petitioners further
relied upon the letter issued by the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram
dt.23.11.2000 to the effect that he had verified the revenue records with
effect from 1954-55 to the latest year and found that the lands are patta
lands and it is stated that the lands are called as patelgiri kancha and in
the Pahanis from 1962-63 also, the names of the predecessors of the
petitioners were shown as pattadars and possessors. It is further stated
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
that the Government of Telangana, after conducting survey and on
inspection of records, has issued pahanies recording the names of the
petitioners as pattadars and possessors. It is further submitted that in the
Writ Petition filed by a third party for allotment of land and claiming
similarly situated land as Government land, the respondents have taken
a plea before the Court that the land was patta land. Therefore, it is
submitted that the respondents cannot take a different stand in the case
of the petitioners, only to defeat the claim of the petitioners.
25. Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the respondents have advanced their arguments in detail and have
also filed written arguments along with copies of judgments on which
they have placed reliance upon in support of their contentions.
26. Case Law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners:
(1) Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another Vs. D.Narsing
Rao and others 1.
(2) State of Andhra Pradesh through Principal Secretary and others
Vs. Pratap Karan and others 2.
(2015) 3 SCC 695
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
(3) Shikharchand Jain Vs. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and
others 3.
(4) Joint Collector, R.R. District, Hyderabad and others Vs. Syed
Ahmed Hasan and others 4.
(5) D.B.Basnett (D) Through Lrs Vs. Collector East District,
Gangtok, Sikkim and another 5.
(6) Vidya Devi Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others 6.
(7) Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others
Vs. State of Haryana and others 7.
(8) Pratap Karan and others Vs. Govt. of A.P. rep. by Principal
Secretary, Revenue Department and others 8.
(9) Kishore Samrite Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 9.
(10) Chavalli Anilaja and others Vs. Collector, Ranga Reddy
District and others 10.
(11) Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi and another 11.
(2016) 2 SCC 82
(1974) 1 SCC 675
2011 (4) ALD 262 (DB)
AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1389
Civil Appeal Nos.6061 of 2020 dt.08.01.2020
(2014) 14 SCC 127
A.S.No.274 of 2007 dt.19.12.2011
(2013) 2 SCC 398
2017 (3) ALD 491
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
(12) Jai Mangal Oraon Vs. Mira Nayak (Smt) and others 12.
27. The Case Law relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondents:
(1) Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs.
Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited 13.
(2) Narender Vs. Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat
Buildings, Hyderabad and others 14.
(3) K.S.B. Ali Vs. The State of A.P., rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others 15.
(4) Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatra Private Trust Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh 16.
(5) Vishwa Vijay Bharati Vs. Fakhrul Hassan and others 17.
(6) Partap Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others
Vs. Shiv Ram (Dead) through Legal Representatives 18.
(7) State of A.P. and another Vs. T.Suryachandra Rao 19.
(1978) 1 SCC 405
(2000) 5 SCC 141
(2020) 19 SCC 681
2003 SCC OnLine AP 717 : (2003) 5 ALD 448
2006 SCC OnLine AP 1399
2022 SCC OnLine AP 660
(1976) 3 SCC 642
(2020) 11 SCC 242
(2005) 6 SCC 149
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
(8) Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees Association Vs.
Aditya Pratap Bhanj Dev and others 20.
(9) Prahlad Pradhan and others Vs. Sonu Kumhar and others 21.
(10) Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag Vs. Arun
Kumar Bhardwaj (Dead) Thr. LRs. And others 22.
(11) State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Kumaon Stone Crusher 23.
28. Clarifications required by the Court:- During the course of
study of the file, this Court was of the opinion that clarification was
required on the following questions for proper adjudication of the Case:
(1) What is Nakkal Sethwar and Supplementary Sethwar?
(2) And how did it transition into Khasra Pahani, the entries in the
revenue records in respect of subject land?
(3) Whether there was any evidence in favour of the contention of
the respondents that the father of the petitioners worked as
Tahsildar of Shabad Taluk and Ibrahimpatnam Taluk?
29. In respect of these questions, the counsel for both the parties
advanced the following arguments in support of their contentions:
2001 SCC OnLine AP 988 : (2001) 6 ALD 582 (FB)
(2019) 10 SCC 259
2021 SCC OnLine SC 868
(2018) 14 SCC 537
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
Petitioners' contentions: With regard to Nakal Sethwar,
supplementary Sethwar and how did it transition into Khasra
Pahani and the entries in the revenue records in respect of
subject land it is submitted as follows:
(a) The document, Sethwar has its origin in Hyderabad
Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. It is prepared in terms of Section 54 to
76 of the said Act dealing with Khalsa lands after following the
procedure specified therein. This Hon'ble Court in
G.Satyanarayana v. Government of A.P. (2014) 4 ALD 354 at
pgs.28, 29, 30, 32 (COPY ENCLOSED) explained about the
statutory basis and the procedure in preparation of Sethwar.
(b) The Respondent has not produced the original Sethwar
or supplementary Sethwar. What is placed on record is only a
Nakkal i.e., copy. The Nakkal Sethwar produced shows that it is of
the year 1339 F i.e., of the year 1929 (Ref. pg. 2 para 2 of
Respondent No. 6 Counter). This document even if taken to be
true is of the Nizam's regime. Nothing is stated by the official
Respondents as to what has transpired during the Nizam's regime
or after 1929. The next material on record to show the ownership
of the property is Khasra Pahani prepared in the year 1954.
(c) The Khasra Pahani clearly records the names of the
ancestors of the Petitioners as the Pattadars. The Khasra Pahani
is prepared nearly 25 years after the alleged Sethwar. The
statutory basis of Khasra Pahani is traceable to Section 4 of
Hyderabad Record of Rights in land Regulation 1358 F i.e., 1948.
The said Regulation provides for detailed enquiry procedure,
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
consideration of objections and subsequent notification of the
lands before a Khasra Pahani is prepared. Under Section 13 of
the Regulation there is a presumption in favour of correctness of
the entries until the contrary is proved.
(d) A judgment of this Honourable Court in Vellanki Gopal
Reddy and Others Vs. Chenchu Venkaiah 1967 (2) An. W.R. 233
= 1968 (1) ALT 48 (pp. 4 and 5) (COPY ENCLOSED) has
explained the origin, scope and process of preparation of Khasra
Pahani and its legal binding nature. The process of preparation
of Khasra involves detailed enquiry, consideration of objections
and notification of the lands/entries. Considering the said process
involved in preparation of Khasra Pahani it is held that the
KhasraPahani is document of title as referred in:
1. G. Satyanarayana Vs. Government of A.P., reported in
(2014) 4 ALD 354;
2. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Vs. Narasinga
Rao and Others, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 695;
3. Shikandar Chand Jain Vs. Digambar Jain, reported in
(1974) 1 SCC 675;
4. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy v. Sayed Ahmed Hasan,
reported in (2011) 4 ALD 262
(e) The Respondents without placing any material on
record disputed the correctness of Khasra Pahani. Such a plea
cannot be countenanced. The entire revenue record from the
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
Khasra till date records the name of Petitioners or their
predecessors as Pattadars. The latest entries in Dharani also
show the names of Petitioners as Pattadars.
(f) In view of the above, the claim of Respondents on the
basis of Nakkal Sethwar of the year 1929 cannot be a basis to
claim the property. The subsequent Khasra prepared by following
the due process and the revenue records ever since 1954 are
conclusive evidence of title in favour of the Petitioners.
3. For the first time in this Writ Petition, in a dispute
pending since last 6 decades, the respondents introduced a vague
and false factual plea that grandfather of the Petitioners worked
as Tahasildar of Shabad and Ibrahimpatnam Taluks during the
regime of Nizams'.
(a) The falsity of this plea is apparent from the fact that the
Respondents have not chosen to disclose the period when he
worked in the said Taluks as Tahasildar.
(b) The Petitioners, in their reply have specifically denied
this allegation and clearly stated that no member of their family
worked as Tahasildar. The respondents have not chosen to place
any record nor the alleged Punchnama of the Mandal Girdawar
who claimed to have reported about the petitioners' grandfather
being a Tahasildar during Nizams' regime. This is clearly a false
story cooked for the purpose of this case.
(c) If the father of the Petitioner, Mohd.Sirajuddin worked
as Tahasildar during Nizams' regime as contented by the
Respondents and if he has resorted to any mischief there would
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
have been material of the Nizams' regime to show that
Mohd.Sirajuddin was the owner of the lands in question. No such
material is placed on record. In fact, the respondents are relying
on Nakkal of Sethwar of 1929 to claim the property.
(d) The foremost document relied by Petitioners is Khasra
Pahani of the year 1954-55 i.e., after the Nizams' regime. Hence,
it is apparent that the vague allegation that grandfather of the
Petitioners was a Tahasildar is introduced as a false plea to
mislead this Honourable Court.
30. Respondents contentions:-
The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that Sethwar means Survey Records and the word Nakal
denotes a copy. It is submitted that the Survey of Land in the year 1954-
55 has resulted in the passing of Record of Rights Act 1958 and
subsequently, the entries are made yearly in Pahanies. He also referred
to the judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in
the case of G.Satyanarayana Vs. The Government of Andhra
Pradesh (cited supra) to explain the entries made in the Khasra Pahani.
31. Preliminary Objection: At the outset, the respondents have
raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ
petition on the ground that there was an efficacious alternative remedy
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
of statutory appeal provided under Section 13 of the Forest Act against
the order of the Forest Settlement Officer under Section 10 of the
Telangana Forest Act, 1967 to be filed within a period of 60 days from
the date of the order. It is submitted that a petition under Article 226
cannot be filed after a lapse of 6 years even if it is taken from the date of
knowledge of the order and hence the writ petition is not maintainable.
In support of his contention that where an alternative remedy of
Statutory appeal is provided under the respective Act, the High Court
should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution
of India, the learned counsel for the respondents had relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant
Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline
Consumer Health Care Limited (cited supra).
32. It is further submitted that a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot be entertained if it involves complicated
and disputed questions of fact, particularly where the title of the
property is under dispute. He placed reliance upon the following
decisions in support of this contention:
(1) Narender Vs. Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat
Buildings, Hyderabad and others (cited supra);
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
(2) K.S.B. Ali Vs. The State of A.P., rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others (cited supra);
(3) Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatra Private Trust
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (cited supra).
33. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand,
submitted that the said objection is not sustainable for the following
reasons:
Alternative Remedy:
1. It is contented on behalf of Respondents that under
Section 13 of Forest Act the Petitioners have a remedy by way of
Suit before the District Court against an order passed by the
Forest Settlement Officer rejecting the claim.
2. It is also contended that the case involves serious
disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated in the
Writ Petition.
3. Both these reasons are not sustainable, the so called
disputed question of facts are the invention of Respondents for
the first time in the Counter Affidavits. Even the disputed
questions of facts are figments of Respondents imagination and
there is no material to support the same. The allegations relating
to the factual disputes are introduced only for the sake of raising
the plea that Writ is not maintainable. Since the factual
allegation in the counter are without any basis, the same may be
ignored.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
4. The impugned order is questioned on the basis of
admitted facts on record i.e., the order passed by Primary
Authority under Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural
Holdings) Act, 1973 and the Appellate order passed by Land
Reforms Appellate Tribunal. It is well settled that existence of an
alternative remedy is not a bar or act as fetter against the High
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
Constitution of India. It is only a self-imposed restriction when
the Writ Jurisdiction can be exercised by the constitutional
courts in spite of alternative remedy is elucidated in various
authoritative pronouncements. One such situation is when the
challenge is based on undisputed facts. Kindly consider the
following Judgements;
a. Shivram Poddar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Central
Centre II, Calcutta and another, AIR 1964 SC 1095 at Para 11;
b. Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Mumbai and others, 1998 (8) SCC 1 at Paras 15 and 16;
c. Radha Raman Samanta Vs. Bank of India and others
2004 (1) SCC 605 at Paras 13 to 16;
d. Chennai Port Trust Vs. Chennai Port Trust Industrial
Employees Canteen Works Welfare Association and others, 2018
(6) SCC 202 at Paras 15 to 21;
e. Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh and others, 2021 (6) SCC 771 at Para 27.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
f. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now state of Telangana) Vs.
A.P State Wakf Board and others, 2022 SCC online SC 159 at
Para 113.
34. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on
record, this Court finds that the title of the petitioners was never
disputed by the respondents until the impugned orders were passed in
the year 2010. As seen from the record from the year 1967 onwards, the
respondent forest officials have initiated steps to notify the subject land
as forest land and the revenue department also confirmed the stand of
the petitioners that it was patta land. It appears that initially the
petitioners could not produce the documents of their patta over the
subject land. Subsequently, they have relied upon the entries in Khasra
Pahani prepared in the year 1954-55 to substantiate their claim. The
proceedings of the forest department are based on the entries in the
revenue records and the revenue officials, in their reports, time and
again have confirmed that the land is patta land and that it was in the
possession of the forest department. When the Forest Settlement Officer
seeks to take a different stand from the earlier position, he is duty bound
to put the affected parties i.e., petitioners herein on notice. Further, in
the earlier proceedings, the Forest Settlement Officer had already
quantified the compensation and therefore, if any contrary decision was
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
to be taken, it was incumbent upon the respondents to do so only after
issuing notices to the respective parties. Further, it is not evident from
record as to the provision of law under which the impugned proceedings
have been issued. Presumably it is under Section 10 of the Telangana
Forest Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Forest Settlement Officer has become functus officio after
passing of the quantification order dated 29.07.2000. Therefore, the
impugned order is challenged as ex-facie illegal and as not sustainable.
Therefore, in view of this challenge to the legality of the order as well as
the violation of the principles of natural justice, this writ petition is
maintainable. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for both
the parties are dealt with as under:
In the case of Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care
Limited (cited supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the
question as to whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought to entertain a
challenge to the assessment order on the sole ground that the statutory
remedy of appeal against that order stood forceclosed by the law of
limitation?
It was held that:
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
Where a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives
a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute
must only be availed of. Though an Act cannot bar and curtail remedy
under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution, the constitutional court
would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the
provisions of the Act and would exercise its jurisdiction consistent
with the provisions of the enactment. To put it differently, the fact that
the High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, does not mean that it can disregard the substantive
provisions of a statute and pass orders which can be settled only
through a mechanism prescribed by the statute.
Therefore it can be seen that this judgment is not applicable to the
case before this Court as the facts are distinguishable and the decision is
based on the peculiar facts of the said case.
In the case of Narender Vs. Secretary, Municipal
Administration (cited supra) the single judge of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh was dealing with a title dispute between an individual
and Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and it was in these
circumstances that it was held that it cannot be resolved in a proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similar is the case in the
cases of K.S.B. Ali & Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatra
Private Trust (cited supra). Therefore, these decisions are not
applicable to the case on hand.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
35. On the other hand, in the decisions relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, it was held as under:
a. Shivram Poddar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Central
Centre II, Calcutta and another (cited supra):
Para 11: We may observe that we have proceeded to
decide this case on the footing that the business of the firm
was discontinued on the dissolution of the firm. It is
however necessary once more to observe, as we did in C.
A. Abraham's case, (1961) 2 SCR 765: (AIR 1961 SC 609)
that the Income-tax provides a complete machinery for
assessment of tax, and for relief in respect of improper or
erroneous orders made by the revenue authorities. It is for
the revenue authorities to ascertain the facts applicable to
a particular situation, and to grant appropriate relief in the
matter of assessment of tax. Resort to the High Court in
exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on
recognised by the Constitution in matters relating to
assessment, levy and collection of income-tax may be
permitted only when questions of infringement of
fundamental rights arise, or where on undisputed facts the
taxing authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction
which they do not possess. In attempting to by pass the
provisions of the Income-tax by inviting the High Court to
decide questions which are primarily within the jurisdiction
of the Revenue Authorities, the party approaching the
Court has often to ask the Court to make assumptions of
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
facts which remain to be investigated by the Revenue
Authorities.
b. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now state of Telangana) Vs.
A.P State Wakf Board and others (cited supra):
Para 113. This Court in a judgment reported as
Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. 62 examined the
question of maintainability of a writ petition before the
High Court even when there was an alternative remedy
available under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
This Court held as under:
*25. In this background, it becomes necessary for this
Court, to dwell on the "rule of alternate remedy" and its
judicial exposition. In Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of
Trade Marks [Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade
Marks. (1998) 8 SCC 1], a two-judge Bench of this Court
after reviewing the case law on this point, noted: (SCC pp.
9-10, paras 14-15)
"............"
27. The principles of law which emerge are that:
27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution
to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement
of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well.
27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise
where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the
enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of
the Constitution: (b) there has been a violation of the
principles of natural justice: (c) the order or proceedings
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a
legislation is challenged.
27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the
High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a
writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious
alternate remedy is provided by law.
27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right
or liability. resort must be had to that particular statutory
remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of
statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion.
27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of
fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a
writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of
the view that the nature of the controversy requires the
exercise of its writ jurisdiction. such a view would not
readily be interfered with."
c. Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Mumbai and others (cited supra):
Para 15: Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a
discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition.
But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain
restrictions one of which is that if an effective and
efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative
remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to
operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely,
where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement
of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been
a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the
order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the
vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-
law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic
whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the
evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold
the field.
Para 20: Much water has since flown under the
bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these
decisions which, though old, continue to hold the field with
the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court
in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies,
is not affected, specially in a case where the authority
against whom the writ is filed is shown to have had no
jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without
any legal foundation.
Para 21: That being so, the High Court was not
justified in dismissing the writ petition at the initial stage
without examining the contention that the show-cause
notice issued to the appellant was wholly without
jurisdiction and that the Registrar, in the circumstances of
the case, was not justified in acting as the "Tribunal".
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
d. Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh and others (cited supra):
Para 26: Following the dictum of this Court in
Whirlpoof, in Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn.
Ltd.1, this Court noted that: (Harbanstal Sahnia case'?,
SCC p. 110, para 7)
"7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that
the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was
available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition
filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed is
concerned, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of
writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is
a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an
appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative
remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ
jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the
writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental
rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural
justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly
without jurisdiction or the vires of on Act is challenged.
(See Whiripool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marist.) The
present case attracts applicability of the first two
contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the appellants
dealership, which is their bread and butter, came to be
terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In
such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have
been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
driving them to the need of initiating arbitration
proceedings."(emphasis supplied)
Para 27: The principles of law which emerge are
that:
27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution
to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement
of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well.
27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to
entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on
the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate
remedy is available to the aggrieved person.
27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise
where : (a) the writ petition has been filed for the
enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part Ill of
the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the
principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings
are wholly without jurisdiction; or (a) the vires of a
legislation is challenged.
27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the
High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a
writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious
alternate remedy is provided by law.
27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right
or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory
remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion.
27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of
fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a
writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of
the view that the nature of the controversy requires the
exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not
readily be interfered with.
e. Chennai Port Trust Vs. Chennai Port Trust Industrial
Employees Canteen Works Welfare Association and others
(cited supra):
Para 20: We are, however, not impressed by the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
(Chennai Port Trust) when he contended that the writ court
should not have entertained the writ petition and instead
the respondent (writ petitioner Association) should have
been granted liberty to approach the Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute
raised by them in the writ petition.
Para 21: In the first place, the writ court having
entertained the writ petition and granted relief on merits,
this objection has lost its significance now; second, the
appellate court also having gone into the merits of the case
and affirmed the order of the writ court on merits, it is too
late to entertain such submission, which is technical in
nature; and third, the findings on merits have been
recorded by the two courts on the basis of undisputed
facts/documents requiring no trial on facts.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
36. In view of the above decisions, it is clear that the availability of
alternative remedy will not bar the High Courts from entertaining a Writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and hence it is
held that this writ petition is maintainable.
37. As regards the other contentions of the respondents that fraud
vitiates all, this Court finds that the respondents have relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of vishwa Vijay Bharathi
(cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
Para 14: It is true that the entries in the revenue record
ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts
should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness.
But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not
forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is
real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of
what the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is open to
the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud
and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found
a claim to possessory title.
38. This decision was referred to in the judgment of Pratap Singh
(cited supra) to hold as under:
Para 25: The presumption of truth attached to the revenue
record can be rebutted if such entry was made fraudulently or
surreptitiously (Vishwa Vijay Bharati case) or where such entry
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
has not been made by following the prescribed procedure
(Bhimappa Channappa Kapali v. Bhimappa Satyappa
Kamagouda). Even in Guru Amarjit Singh, where thirty years' old
lease deed was produced, this Court had not accepted the proof of
the relationship between landowner and tenant in absence of
receipt of payment of rent.
Para 26: Therefore, we find that the presumption of truth
attached to the record- of-rights can be rebutted only if there is a
fraud in the entry or the entry was surreptitiously made or that
prescribed procedure was not followed. It will not be proper to rely
on the oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption as the
credibility of oral evidence vis-à-vis documentary evidence is at a
much weaker level.
39. The learned counsel for the respondent had further relied upon
the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of T.Suryachandra Rao
(cited supra) for the proposition that fraud vitiates everything. However,
in the present case, except for an allegation of fraudulent entries in the
Khasra Pahani in the year 1954-55, made by the father of the petitioner
Moinuddin, who was alleged to be the Tahsildar of Ibrahimpatnam
Taluk, no evidence is brought on record to substantiate the allegation
particularly in the light of the assertion of the petitioners that none of
their ancestors worked as Tahsildar of Ibrahimpatham Taluk leave alone
the father of the petitioner. It is settled law that the burden is on the
party making the allegation of fraud to prove it and in this case, the
Government has failed to do so. Therefore, the allegation is baseless and
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
reliance on these judgments about the maintainability of the writ petition
is misplaced.
40. Further it is to be noticed that the allegation of fraud is not made
in the impugned order but is made in the counter affidavits of
respondents No.5 & 6 but not in the impugned orders. It is settled law as
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill
(cited supra) that an order has to stand on the strength of what is stated
therein and it can be supplemented or supplanted by the contentions in
the counter affidavits. Therefore, the allegations have no legs to stand in
the present writ petition.
41. Another objection raised by the respondents is with regard to
delay in challenging the impugned order. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the said orders were never communicated to the
petitioners and even though they were brought on record during the
contempt proceedings, since the issue was before the Hon'ble Court, the
petitioners were pursuing the matter and only when the petitioners were
granted liberty to challenge the same vide orders dated 16.08.2021 in
contempt Appeal Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19 of 2021, the Writ petition
was filed immediately on September, 2021 and therefore, there is no
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
delay in challenging the orders. In view of these submissions, this Court
is satisfied that there is no delay in challenging the impugned orders
before this Court in this writ petition. The further objection of the
respondents that there are disputed questions of fact is also not
sustainable due to the above cited decisions.
42. As regards the merits of the case, the following questions arise
for consideration:
(1) Whether the stand of the respondents in the impugned order
has any basis?
(2) Whether the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 and the subsequent
revenue records decide the title of the land?
(3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief?
43. On the above issues, the stand of the respondents in the
impugned order dated 23.04.2010 is that the evidence produced by the
petitioners for claiming the land in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20, total
admeasuring 383 Acs., of Maheswaram Mandal and Village of Patelgiri
Reserve Forest Block which has been notified under Sections 4 & 6 of
A.P.Forest Act-1967, has been enquired and verified in context with
revenue records and found that the said land is covered under the Land
Ceiling Act and further it is declared as Surplus Land and hence, claim
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
is rejected. In the reference to the said order, there are no other
documents referred to except the claim petition of Sri.Mohd Sirajuddin,
S/o.Late Khaja Moinuddin and others dated 01.01.2010 addressed to
Secretary to Government received by Forest Settlement Officer,
Hyderabad. Therefore, there are no reports which have been considered
by the Officer to have come to conclusion that the said land is covered
under Land Ceiling Act and that it is declared as surplus land. Further,
from the impugned order dated 03.10.2010 which is subsequent to the
order 23.04.2010, there is reference only to the application of Sri.Mohd
Sirajuddin and the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh
in W.P.No.9526 of 2009, dated 04.12.2009 and the proceedings dated
23.04.2010 of the Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad. In the subject
matter of the order, the Forest Settlement Officer has referred to the
proclamations under Section 6 of A.P.Forest Act, 1967 for the proposed
forest block of Patelgiri forest block, which was published in Ranga
Reddy District Gazette dated 28.09.1999, in the notification the nature
of the land was recorded as 'Patta' in the English version and as
'Poramboke' in the Telugu Version. However, this Court finds that this
observation of the Forest Settlement Officer is in total contradiction to
the entries in the revenue records. In the papers filed along with the writ
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
petition as well as the counter affidavit, there is a reference to
correspondence between the Forest Department with the District
Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide Letter No.E5/2408/94, dated
19.10.2000 requesting to clarify whether the lands under notification are
Poramboke or Patta Lands and there is also reference to the report of the
Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram, vide letter dated 23.11.2000
submitted to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, stating that as
per the Kasara Pahani, Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20, admeasuring 383
Acs., of Maheshwaram (M) & (V), included in the forest block of
Patelgiri Forest block is recorded as 'Patta Lands' and Sri.Khaja
Mohinuddin is recorded as Pattedar and Sri.Khaja Mohinuddin,
Moinuddin, Kareemuddin and Habeebuddin are shown as occupants.
Therefore, this Court finds that the matter was verified in the context to
revenue records and it was found that the subject land is covered under
the proceedings of the Land Ceiling Act and declared as not forming the
holding of the pattedars vide proceedings of Land Reforms Tribunal,
Hyderabad, South Division vide C.C.No.2936, 3502, 3518, 3519, 2945,
2939, 2938, 2937, 2940, 2941, 2144/I/75, dated 06.04.1978. It is after
these observations, that the Forest Settlement Officer has concluded that
the claim of the petitioners has been rejected. Though there is no
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
direction in a proceedings dated 23.04.2010 advising the petitioners to
approach Civil Court for readdressal of their claim if any, in the order
dated 03.06.2010 it is mentioned that the proceedings dated 23.04.2010
were issued duly rejecting the claim and further, advising the petitioners
to approach Civil Court for readdressal of the claim. There is no
reference to any other documents considered before passing the
impugned orders. It is further noticed that on 07.09.2010 the Chief
Secretary has addressed a letter to the Special Chief Secretary to
Government, EFS&T Department, referring to the land dispute between
the Forest Department and Pattadars in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20 of
Maheswaram Village for examination and necessary action and in the
said note also, there is no reference to the proceedings dated 23.04.2010
and 03.06.2010. Further in the U.O.Note No.8375/LA(A2)/2011-1,
dated 05.03.2011 the original file bearing C.No.252/For.I/2010 was
called for and in the notes annexed thereto also there is no reference to
the proceedings dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010.
44. The Special Chief Secretary to Government, EFS&T
Department, in her letter dated 15.06.2010 has taken note of the contrary
stand of the Forest Settlement Officer by stating as under:
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
The petitioners also stated that the FSO in her letter
dated 08.01.2008 addressed to the District Collector, has
rightly indicated the procedure to be followed in finalizing the
process of acquisition, whereas, the same FSO in her letter
dated 06.06.2009 addressed to the Conservator of Forests,
requested the C.F. to give consent either for payment of cash
compensation or land to land because it is a patta land. The
petitioners further stated that the FSO has taken a 'U' turn
and totally changed her stand in her proceedings dated
23.04.2010 and issued orders that the same lands are ceiling
surplus lands and on the same grounds she rejected the claim
of the petitioners. Thus, the FSO is taking different stands
before different authorities. This is totally amblgoos and
contradictory to each other. The FSO cannot take two
different stands on the same issue. The basis for taking such
contradictory stand is not known. Taking this type of dual and
contradictory stand tantamount to misleading the fats to the
higher authorities which is more serious.
45. The learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on
the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of Prahlad Pradhan
(cited supra) and in the case of Prabhagiya (cited supra) in support of
his contention that mere entries in revenue records do not confer a title
to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. In the
case before this Court, the petitioners are relying upon the entries in the
Khasra Pahani prepared in the year 1954-55 and the entries in the
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
revenue records till date to claim their ownership and title over the
subject land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.Narsing Rao
& Others (cited supra), while considering the case of suomoto revision
power exercised by the authorities to correct khasra entries after long
lapse of time of 50 years, on the ground of fraud, has held that a specific
statement as to when the fraud was discovered by the State was essential
for it was a jurisdictional fact. It was observed that:
Para 13: Consequent to the merger of Hyderabad State with
India in 1948 the Jagirs were abolished by the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 Fasli.
"Khasra Pahani" is the basic record-of-rights prepared by the
Board of Revenue Andhra Pradesh in the year 1954-1955.It was
gazetted under Regulation 4 of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Record-
of-Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 F. As per regulation 13 any
entry in the said record-of-rights shal be presumed to be true until
the contraryis proved. The said regulation of 1358 F was in vogue
till it was repealed by the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass
Books Act, 1971, which came into force on 15.08.1978. In the 2nd
Education (1997) of The Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Aiyar (at
p.1053) "Khasra" is described as follows:
"Khasra, - Khasra is a register recording the incidents of a
tenure and is a historical record. Khasra would serve the purpose
of a deed of title, when there is no other title deed."
46. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered that the Khasra
Pahani is the basic record of rights and the entries therein shall be
presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. This aspect has further
been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Pratap Karan &
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
Others (cited supra) and it was observed that Khasra Pahani is a
document of title proved beyond doubt (because as per Regulation 13 of
1358 F, entries therein are presumed to be true). The presumption of
correctness of entries in Khasra Pahani has been upheld by the Apex
Court in the cases of Shikarchand Jain (cited supra) and by the
A.P.High Court in the case of Syed Ahmad Hasan and Others (cited
supra).
47. Further, this Court (A.P.High Court as it then was) in the case
of G. Satyanarayana (cited supra) has brought out in detail the
procedure adopted for preparation of Revenue Records in the then
combined state of Andhra Pradesh and with regard to preparation of
Khasra Pahani in the Telangana area, it has observed as under:
The Telangana Area Land Census Rules, 1954: These rules
were made under Section 97 of the Tenancy Act. Under these
Rules, land census, as defined by Rule 2(f) of the Rules, was taken
up by the Government. The important record i.e., Khasra Pahani is
a document prepared under these Rules. Rules 8 to 13 speak of
provisional Khasra Pahani and Rule 14 speaks of fair copy of
Khasra Pahani. The said record is an important record and entry
as pattadar in the same would confer absolute title over the land
occupied.
Para 5: In the absence of patta, revenue records form basis
for determining title. A-Register/Diglot, Ledger/Chitta in Andhra
Area and Sethwar, Supplementary Sethwar and WasoolBaqui in
Telangana Area are the basic settlement record which provide
basis for subsequent entries in the Village Accounts. Before
integration of revenue record, No. 1 and No. 2 Accounts (old), No.
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
3 Account, No. 10 Account and Register of Holdings in Andhra
Area and Pahanipatrika, Chowfasla, Faisal Patti and
KhasraPahani in Telangana Area are relevant Village Accounts for
determination of title. After integration of the Village Accounts
under the 1971 Act, (i) Printed Diglot or A-Register, (ii) Village
Account No. 1, (iii) Village Account No. 2, (iv) No. 3 Register and
(v) Village Account No. 4 Register of Holdings constitute relevant
record.
48. The decision on the validity of entries in the Khasra Pahani
was in the case of Vellanaki Gopal Reddy (cited supra) wherein the
revenue entries in the khasra Pahani in reference to Ibrahimpatnam
Taluk are referred to. The relevant paras are as under:
Para 4: The contention of the learned Advocate in respect of
the setwar and shunwai patraks has also no force, for shunwai
patrak is one that follows the entries in the bandobust viz., setwar.
When a settlement of a village or area takes place setwar is
prepared and thereafter a preliminary settlement record it
announced or notified with the object of calling for objections, if
any, from persons interested. That is in fact amounts to on the issue
of shunwai patrak. It is, after a particular time, namely, the time
fixed for considering the various objections of the persons
interested that setwar is finalised and it is considered to be the
settlement record for the area or village. Keeping this in view, the
lower Courts concluded that since the shunwai patrak contains
more particulars than setwar, shunwai patrak mutt have been
brought into being by interested persons. This reasoning, in my
view, cannot be assailed not only because it is reasonable to
presume that shunwai patrak would contain only those details
which are in the setwar and nothing more, but when it was
suggested to D.W.1 that this was brought into existence
subsequently, he denied it but admitted that except for this patrak
all other shunwai patraks had been destroyed by the communists.
Significance of such an admission cannot be lost and the inference
is that this document has been brought into existence. The last
point that has been urged with some force relates to the extracts of
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
the Record of Rights, Exhibits D-3 and D-4 produced by the
defendant. At this stage it may be stated that there was a Record of
Rights Act in force in the erstwhile Hyderabad State is 1346 Fasli.
Under that Act, the Record of Rights proceedings were only taken
in four Marathwada districts of the then Hyderabad State and the
records prepared for over a period of 18 years in those areas were
most discouraging. It is apparent from that that no Record of
Rights proceedings under that Act were in fact taken in the
Telangana Districts. The procedure adopted under that Act as well
as under the subsequent Act was to notify the application of the Act
to a particular village or area, then call for information, compile it,
prepare it and announce it by a notification after which objections
were to be filed at a particular time and the same was to become
final. When the work of preparing the Record of Rights was not
progressing well after the police action, another Regulation known
as "the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulation" (No.
LVIII of 1358 Fasli) was promulgated. Section 1 read with section
19 however saves proceedings which were in progress under the
old Act, which proceedings whether in progress or completed were
deemed under section 19 to have been taken under the present Act
and old Act was repealed, Under this Act also, a notification has to
be published and under section 4 as soon as may be after the issue
of a notification under subsection (4) of section 1 directing the
provisions of this Regulation to apply to a village or local area it is
incumbent to prepare and thereafter maintain for that village, or,
as the case may be, for every village included in that local area, a
record of rights in all lands belonging thereto and the said Record
of Rights should include the following particulars, viz.:
"(a) names of all persons who are holders, occupants, owners
or mortgagees of land or assignees of rent or revenue thereof:
(b) the nature and extent of the respective interests of such
persons and the conditions or liabilities (if any) attaching thereto;
(c) the rent or revenue (if any) payable by or to any of such
persons;
(d) such other particulars as my be prescribed:
Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in clause
(a) the names of tenants shall not be included in the Record of
Rights unless their tenancies are perptual tenancies or tenancies of
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
any such other description as Government may by notification
specify in this behalf either generally or for the purposes of any
specified village or of villages included in any specified area."
Para 5: After the Record of Rights is prepared and completed
in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 4, it is required to be
notified and published in the Jareeda under sub-section (2) and
sub-section (3) confers a right on any person affected by an entry
in such record to apply for rectification of such entry to such
officer as the Government may empower in that behalf within two
years from the date of the notification. The other provisions need
not concern me except for section 13, which states that an entry in
the Record of Rights and a certified entry in the register of
mutations shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved
or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefore. Pursuant to this
Regulation, there have been several notifications. The first
notification No. 54 is dated 7th October, 1953 under which several
talukas have been notified. This included Hyderabad East,
Ibrahimpatnam, Medchal etc. Nalgonda including Ramannapeth
and 15 other districts. After applying the Record of Rights
Regulation to these areas, under sub-section (4) of section 1,
another notification No. 54/A2/389/54, dated 24th August, 1955
was issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 intimating that the
Record of Rights has been prepared for the areas specified in the
schedule annexed thereto and it was that preparation of Record of
Rights of the said area was completed. Similarly, under sub-section
(4) of section 1 another notification No. 55/A2/389/54, dated 24th
August, 1955 was issued for other parts which included Hyderabad
West and Shahabad. Hyderabad East and villages in 17 other
districts. Similarly, notification. No. 109/A2/389/54-55, dated 16th
December 1955 was published under sub-section (1) of section 4
sub-section (2) of section 4.
49. Further, it is noticed that while issuing the proclamations under
Sections 4 & 6 of Forest Act, the respondents have mentioned the land
to be 'Patta Land' in Telugu Version and as 'Poramboke' in English
Version. Even in the notification issued in Ranga Reddy District
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
Gazette, it is mentioned as Patta Land. The respondents have not given
any reason for classifying the land as Poramboke land, contrary to the
entries in revenue records. Thus, there is no justification for the stand of
the respondents that the subject land is Government land.
50. As seen from the provisions of the Forest Act, the jurisdiction of
the Forest Settlement Officer is, to be satisfied about the claim of the
petitioners to be the pattadars on the basis of the revenue records and
also thereafter quantify the compensation. All along, the stand of the
revenue department has been that subject land was patta land. For the
first time in the impugned order, they have taken the stand that the
petitioners are not the owners of the land. Therefore, this Court finds
that the Forest Settlement Officer has travelled beyond his powers under
Sections 9 & 10 of the Forest Act.
51. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Madhan Lal Vs.
State of U.P., reported in AIR 1975 SC 2085, has held that a Forest
Settlement Officer adjudicating a claim under Indian Forest Act is not a
Court and that a party whose rights are affected must be given notice
and an opportunity of hearing. Section 8(ii) of Forest Act also provides
that the evidence under Sub-section (i) shall be recorded in the manner
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
required in the Code of Civil Procedure-1908 in appealable cases and
the Rules of procedure must be so construed so as to advance the Courts
of justice and bring on record all such evidence which the party intends
to place before it and if an order is passed by following the due
procedure under Section 10(i), only in such cases, orders are appealable
under Section 13 of the Forest Act. As seen from the proceedings of
Land Reforms Tribunal, dated 05.05.1997, the petitioners and others
have submitted their declarations under the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling and
Agricultural Land Holding Act, 1973 and on 11.04.1975, the
declarations were referred to the Tahsildar, under whose jurisdiction the
lands are situated, for local inspection and verification as required under
Rules 4 & 5 and a report was received from the Tahsildar which was
furnished to declarants and also to the authorities of the Government.
The Tribunal has taken note of the brief history of the case and as to
how the declarants have become the owners of the subject land and also
that 384.75 Acs., of land in Survey Nos.222/1 to 222/20 is under the
possession of the Forest Department and that the case is pending before
the Tahsildar for deletion of said area from the declarants holding. The
Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, in its order dated 16.02.1978, has
also considered that the said land is in the possession of the Forest
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
Department and in order to compute the surplus land in the hands of the
declarants, the said land was deleted while computing the holdings of
the appellants and the same has been given effect to by the Land
Reforms Tribunal by order 16.02.1978. In none of the proceedings is it
mentioned that the said land is Government land. Therefore, the findings
of the Forest Settlement Officer, in the impugned order that the land
under the possession of the Forest Department is surplus land or the
Government land is not sustainable. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that the findings of the Forest Settlement Officer are not based
on any evidence, leave alone revenue records, in favour of the
department. Therefore, the inference drawn by the Forest Settlement
Officer is clearly erroneous and therefore, cannot be sustained.
52. In view of all the above, it is clear that the entries in Khasra
Pahani prepared in the year 1954-55 are conclusive proof of title of the
respective lands and the respondents have not been able to bring on
record any evidence to prove otherwise except for the copy of the
Sethwar where the subject land is claimed to be recorded as Forest land.
The documents relied upon by the petitioners i.e., the correspondence
between the Revenue Officials as well as the Forest Officials over the
W.P.No.21103 of 2021
decades clearly establish the title of the petitioners over the subject land
till date i.e., the entries in the Dharani Portal as well. Therefore, the
ground/reason adopted by the respondents in the impugned orders dated
24.03.2010 and 03.06.2010 are devoid of merits and are accordingly set
aside. The respondents No.5 & 6 are thus directed to follow and comply
with the directions of this Court dated 04.12.2009 in W.P.No.9536/2021
and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four (4) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are
directed to recompute the compensation to be paid to the
petitioners/pattedars either in cash or in the form of alternate land and
pass such orders within the above period of four weeks.
53. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
54. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 20.11.2023
Svv/Bak
