Telangana High Court

Thakur Laxman Singh, Warangal Dt. vs Dist. Collector, Warangal And 4 Ot on 16 July, 2024

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

                   WRIT PETITION No.17046 of 2012

O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

"...to issue an order or a direction more particularly a writ of certiorari by calling for the records in respect of the show cause notice in Rc.No.E/87/2011 dated 15.05.2012 and quash the same..."

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. The case of the petitioners is that they are the members of the

undivided Hindu joint family. They owned and possessed agricultural

lands in Nellutla, Lingala Ghanpur, Kallem, Yeshwanthapur,

Kilashipuram and Machupahad of Warangal District and they have

filed declarations under Section 8(1) of the A.P./Telangana Land

Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural) Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter called

brevity, 'the Act') before the primary Tribunal. The Additional

Divisional Officer (LR) Warangal-II passed orders under Section 9 of the

Act on 23.04.1997 and declared that the petitioners are having lands in

excess of ceiling limits to the extent of equivalent to 34.9353 Standard

Holding (SH) as on 01.01.1975 and directed to surrender the said land

as surplus land. Questioning the said order, the petitioners have

preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal vide

L.R.A.No.1884 of 1977. The appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal in

part holding that the lands covered by residential houses, cattle sheds, JSR, J

vaagu, port kharab are liable to be excluded from the holding of the

petitioners/declarants, however, remanded the matter in respect of the

lands in Sy.Nos.153, 191, 193, 202, 204, 205, 207 to 211 and 212/2,

which are under submergence of the tank water and rejected the claim

of the petitioners relating to examination of lands covered by tank

submergence from the holding by its order dated 06.06.1979.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed appeal i.e.,

LRA.No.90 of 1980 before Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal.

The appellate Tribunal after considering the contentions of the

respective parties and considering the documentary evidence on record

allowed the appeal holding that the lands covered under the Tank

submergence are exempted from the holding of the declarants, by its

order dated 20.03.1981. Pursuant to the said order, Primary Tribunal

re-determined the holding of the declarants and excluded the lands

covered under the tank submergence, by its order dated 08.05.1981.

Subsequently, the primary Tribunal corrected the clerical error with

regard to the land in Sy.No.247 of Kallam village and the said land was

excluded from the holding, by its order dated 14.11.1983 and the above

said orders have become final.

2.2. While things stood thus, respondent No.2 issued notice dated

11.01.2005 basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.4 to stop

the construction activity and also issued directions to the Sub

Registrar, Jangaon, to stop the registrations in Sy.Nos.153, 191, 193, JSR, J

202, 204, 207 to 211 and 212/2 situated at Nellutla (v) of Lingala

Ghanpur Mandal, without issuing any notice to the petitioners.

Questioning the same, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.2386 of 2005

before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and the

same was allowed and set aside notice dated 11.01.2005 issued by

respondent No.2 by its order dated 16.12.2010, and the said order has

become final.

2.3. The petitioner further stated that respondent No.2 issued show-

cause notice once again on 25.03.2011, basing on the complaint of

respondent No.4 alleging that why the construction activities should

not be stopped. Pursuant to the same, petitioners have submitted

explanation on 30.03.2011. However, respondent No.2 has not passed

any order. It is also stated that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have

submitted representations on 01.04.2011 and 15.03.2012 respectively

alleging that the petitioners have filed wrong declaration and got

exception on false grounds and escaped from surrender of surplus

lands. Pursuant to the said representations, respondent No.2 directed

respondent No.3 to submit a report. Accordingly, respondent No.3

submitted a report to respondent No.2 without issuing any notice to the

petitioners. Basing on the said alleged report, respondent No.2 had

issued show-cause notice dated 16.04.2012 directing the petitioners to

submit explanation as to why the ceiling Case No.1747, 1852 and

1986/Jng/1975 should not be reopened under Section 22(1) of the Act JSR, J

and Rule 16 of A.P./Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural

Holdings) Rules, 1974 (brevity 'Rules'). Pursuant to the same, the

petitioners have submitted detailed explanation on 04.05.2012 denying

the allegations made therein and requested him to drop the

proceedings. Respondent No.2, without considering the explanation

submitted by petitioners, issued the impugned order/notice dated

15.05.2012 reopening the Ceiling Case No.1747, 1852 and

1986/Jng/1975 after lapse of more than 32 years especially, without

assigning any reasons.

3. Heard Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned senior counsel, representing

Sri Ashok Reddy Kanothala, learned counsel for the petitioners,

Sri Sridhar Reddy Pottigari, learned Special Government Pleader

appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Bommagani Prabhakar,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. In spite of

service of notice, respondent No.5 has not chosen to enter appearance.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that

respondent No.2 is not having authority or jurisdiction to reopen the

case after a long period of 32 years basing on the alleged

representations dated 01.04.2011 and 15.03.2012 made by unofficial

respondents, who are political leaders. He further submits that the

Appellate Tribunal, Warangal, allowed the appeal vide L.R.A.No.90 of

1980 on 20.03.1981 after considering the contentions of the respective

parties and after due verification of the documentary evidence on JSR, J

record held that the lands covered under tank submergence are

exempted from the holding of the declarants and the said judgement

has become final. The respondent authorities have not questioned the

said judgement before any Court of law. Hence, respondent No.2 is not

having jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings afresh to review the

orders of the appellate Tribunal.

4.1. He further contended that respondent No.2 issued the impugned

order/notice dated 15.05.2012 invoking the powers conferred under the

provisions of Section 22 (1) of the Act and Rule 16 of the Rules, though

the said provisions are not applicable. He also contended that

pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 25.03.2011 issued by

respondent No.2, the petitioners have submitted explanation on

30.03.2011 and respondent No.2 has not passed any order. Once

again, respondent No.2 issued another show-cause notice on

16.04.2012 basing on the representations made by unofficial

respondent Nos.4 and 5 with the very same allegations. Pursuant to

the said show cause notice, the petitioners have submitted detailed

explanation denying the allegations made therein on 04.05.2012.

Respondent No.2, without considering the said explanation, issued

impugned order/notice dated 15.05.2012, by reopening the Land

Ceiling Case No.1747, 1852 and 1986/Jng/75 which was concluded in

the year 1981, without assigning any reasons, simply stating that the

explanation submitted by the petitioners was not found convincing and JSR, J

the impugned notice/order passed by respondent No.2 is gross

violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to law.

4.2. Learned senior counsel further contended that as on the date of

submission of the declaration, the subject lands were covered by tank

submergence. Hence, the unofficial respondents are not entitled to

make allegations that the petitioners wrongly availed the benefits under

the provisions of the Act, and they are utilizing the said land for other

purpose, after lapse of more than 32 years. The unofficial respondents

or the respondent authorities are not entitled to contend that the

petitioners have to use the said land for the very same purpose. He

further submits that the subject land and surrounding lands were

presently covered with residential houses and residential colonies.

4.3. He further contended that the provision of Section 9(A) of the

amended Act, is also not applicable for reopening of the case by the

Tribunal, as the petitioners have not played any fraud, mis-

representation or suppressed the facts before the primary authority or

appellate authority while submitting their declarations. Respondent

No.2 initiated the proceedings basing on the alleged complaint

submitted by the unofficial respondents. He also contended that

appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal on 20.03.1981 vide LRA.No.90 of

1980, after considering material evidence on record. Hence, the

impugned proceeding issued by respondent No.2 is contrary to law and

without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside.

JSR, J

5. Per contra, Sri Bommagani Prabhakar, learned counsel, submits

that the petitioners have availed the benefits on the ground that the

subject lands covered by tank submergence and the petitioners are

converting the said lands into house sites and using for commercial

purpose and also alienating the same to third parties. The intention of

the Act is that excess ceiling lands have to be distributed to the weaker

sections and needy people. The unofficial respondents have submitted

representation to the respondent authorities to conduct enquiry and

take appropriate steps as per the provisions of the Act, especially the

petitioners are not entitled for exclusion of the subject lands from their

holding. He further submits that as per Section 9(A) of the Act, no time

limit is prescribed to initiate the proceedings. Hence, respondent No.2

has rightly initiated the proceedings.

5.1. He also contended that the petitioners filed this writ petition

questioning the impugned order/notice dated 15.05.2012 issued by

respondent No.2 and the same is not maintainable under law and they

are entitled to raise all the grounds before respondent No.2.

6. Learned Special Government Pleader reiterated the very same

submissions made by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent

No.4. He further contended that when element of fraud brought to

notice of the authorities, they are entitled to initiate proceeding under

the Act and no time limit is prescribed. He submits that Section 22(1)

and Rule 16 of the Rules are not applicable. However, as per Section JSR, J

9-A of the Act, respondent No.2 is having jurisdiction to initiate

proceedings. The petitioners are entitled to raise all the grounds before

the primary Tribunal by participating in the enquiry and they are not

entitled the relief as sought in the writ petition.

6.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following

judgments.

1. Digambar Rao and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1.

2. Union of India and others v. Ramesh Gandhi 2.

3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Rajendra Singh and others 3.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective

parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals

that the petitioners have filed declaration as per the provisions of the

Act in Ceiling Case No.1747, 1852 and 1986/Jng/1975. The Land

Reforms Tribunal determined and held that the petitioners/declarants

are having excess land to the extent equivalent to 34.9353 standard

holding as on 01.01.1975 and passed order on 23.04.1977. Aggrieved

by the said order, the petitioners have filed appeal vide L.R.A.No.1884

of 1977 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal.

2001 SCC OnLine AP 865 = (2001) 6 ALT 226 (FB)

(2012) 1 SCC 476

(2000) 3 SCC 581 JSR, J

8. That the appellate Tribunal allowed the above said appeal in

L.R.A.No.1884 of 1977 in part holding that the lands covered by

houses, cattle shed in Sy.Nos.188 and 199, the land covered by Vaagu

(stream), pote kharab and alienations made by the declarants prior to

the enactment and also the lands which are in possession of the

protected tenants are exempted from the holding of the declarants.

Insofar as the issue with regard to submergence of the tank to an

extent of 2.329 standard holding in Sy.Nos.153, 191, 193, 202, 204,

205, 207 to 211 and 212/2 was remitted to Primary Tribunal for

reconsideration, by its order, dated 06.06.1979. Thereafter, the

primary Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioners in respect of the

above said extent of Standard Holding 2.329 covered by tank

submergence, by its order dated 15.04.1980.

9. Aggrieved by the above said order dated 15.04.1980 the

petitioners have filed appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate

Tribunal, Warangal, vide L.R.A.No.90 of 1980 and the appellate

Tribunal after considering the contentions of the respective parties and

due verification of the documentary evidence on record allowed the

appeal holding that the declarants are entitled for exclusion of the land

covered under tank submergence from their holding, by its order dated

20.03.1981. Pursuant to the same, the primary Tribunal re-determined

the standard holding of the petitioners by its order dated 08.05.1981

and corrected clerical errors by its order dated 14.11.1983. The record JSR, J

further discloses that the above said orders passed by the appellate

Tribunal dated 15.04.1980 and consequential orders passed by the

Primary Tribunal dated 08.05.1981 and 14.11.1983 have become final.

10. Pursuant to a complaint submitted by respondent No.4,

respondent No.2-RDO issued notice/order vide Proc.No. E/1118/2014,

dated 11.01.2005 directing the petitioners to stop the construction and

also issued a direction to the sub-register to stop the registration of

documents in Sy.Nos.153, 191, 193, 202, 204, 207 to 211 and 212/2

situated at Nellutla (v) of Lingala Ghanpur Mandal. Questioning the

same, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.2386 of 2005 and erstwhile

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, allowed the same on

16.12.2010 and set aside the impugned order dated 11.01.2005 and

further observed that however, the said order does not preclude the

respondent authorities from taking appropriate legal action as per law.

11. It further reveals from the record that respondent No.2 had

issued show cause notice dated 25.03.2011, basing upon the

complaint/representation submitted by respondent No.4 dated

20.01.2011, directing the petitioners to submit explanation as to why

registration/conversion/ construction activities should not be stopped/

prohibited in the subject property stating that the petitioners have filed

a wrong declaration and got exemption on false grounds and escaped

from surrender of ceiling surplus lands. Pursuant to the same, the

petitioners have submitted explanation on 30.03.2011, however, JSR, J

respondent No.2 had not passed any order. On the other hand,

respondent No.2 had issued another show-cause notice dated

16.04.2012 basing upon the complaint/representation of respondent

Nos.4 and 5 dated 15.03.2012 and 01.04.2011 respectively on the very

same allegations and directed the petitioners to submit the explanation

within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why the

ceiling case should not be reopened under Section 22(1) of the Act and

Rule 16 of the Rules. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners have

submitted detailed explanation on 04.05.2012 denying the allegations

and requested respondent No.2 to drop the proceedings. Respondent

No.2 without considering any of the grounds raised in the explanation

submitted by the petitioners and without giving any reasons, much less

valid reasons issued the impugned order/notice dated 15.05.2012

simply stating that the "explanation of the petitioner was not found

convincing" and reopened the land celling case No. 1747, 1852 and

1986/Jng/75 and posted for hearing on 26.05.2012 and directed the

petitioners to appear before him along with records.

12. Admittedly, the provision of Section 22(i) and Rule 16 of the A.P.

Land Reforms Act is not applicable for reopening of the case. The

learned Special Government Pleader during the course of arguments

fairly submitted that the above said provision is not applicable.

However, as per the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act, respondent

No.2-Tribunal is having power to reopen the matter. It is settled JSR, J

principle of law that mere quoting of the wrong provision is not a

ground to set aside the proceedings.

13. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.2 himself

without forming an opinion and without giving any reasons, as to how

the proceedings required reopening, passed the cryptic impugned

order/notice dated 15.05.2012 and re-opened the land ceiling case

proceedings, which was concluded in the year 1981 i.e., after lapse of

nearly 32 years, without considering the explanation submitted by the

petitioners dated 14.05.2012 to the show-cause notice dated

16.04.2012. It is also relevant to mention here that once respondent

No.2 issued show-cause notice and invited the objections/explanation,

ought to have considered the same by giving reasons. The issuance of

the show-cause notice and inviting explanation/objections from the

parties is not an empty formality. Hence, the impugned order/notice

issued by respondent No.2 dated 15.05.2012 is gross violation of the

principles of natural justice.

14. It is also relevant to place on record that the reasons are heart

and soul of the order passed by the authority. Non-recording of reasons

could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the

affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper

administration of justice.

JSR, J

15. In Guridial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab 4, the Hon'ble Apex

Court held as under:

"... "Reasons" are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions..."

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of

India 5, while emphasizing the importance of recording of reasons for

decisions by the Administrative authorities and Tribunals observed that

"administrative process will best be vindicated by clarity in its exercise".

Thus, further observed "the orderly functioning of the process of review

requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted

be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained."

17. In the case of Mc.Dermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard

Co. Ltd. and others 6, the Apex Court clarified the rationality behind

providing of reasons and stated the principle as follows:

"... Reason is a ground or motive for a belief or a course of action, a statement in justification or explanation of belief or action. it is in this sense that the award must state reasons for the amount awarded. The rationale of the requirement of reasons is that reasons assure that the arbitrator has not acted capriciously. Reasons reveal the grounds on which the Arbitrator reached the conclusion which adversely affects the interests of a party. The contractual stipulation of reasons means, as held in Poyser and Mills' Arbitration in Re, 'proper adequate reasons'.

(1979) 2 SCC 368,

(1990) 4 SCC 594

(2006) SLT 345 = 2006 (5) ALT 1.3 (DN SC) JSR, J

Such reasons shall not only be intelligible but shall be a reason connected with the case which the Court can see is proper.

Contradictory reasons are equal to lack of reasons..."

18. In Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election

Commissioner, New Delhi and others 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that the respondents cannot make their case by filing counter

affidavit before the Court without giving any reasons in the impugned

order and the same is not permissible under law.

19. In Digambar Rao and another (1 Supra), the Full Bench of

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and in Union of

India and others (2 Supra), United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (3

Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that any party obtained a

decree/judgment by playing fraud can be challenged in a Court even in

collateral proceedings and period of limitation is not applicable and the