Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B Srinivasulu Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.30379 of 2023
Between:
B. Srinivasulu Reddy,
S/o.Adisesha Reddy,
Aged about 50 years,
Vidavaluru Post & Mandal,
SPSR Nellore District,
A.P-524318.
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
A.P. Secretariat Office, Velagapudi,
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh & 7 others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri L. Ravichander, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for Sri
Srinivas Bobbili.
Counsel for respondents 1 to 6 : G.P for Revenue
Counsel for respondents No7. : --
Counsel for respondent No.8 :Sri C. V. Mohan Reddy, Senior
Counsel appearing for Sri M.
Santosh Reddy.
ORDER
Dt: 23.02.2024 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) 2 HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.30379 of 2023 Heard Sri L. Ravichander, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Srinivas Bobbili, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents 1 to 6 and Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M. Santosh Reddy, appearing for respondent No.8.
2. Smt. Nagareddy Audemma is said to have settled an extent of Ac.1048.16 cents situated in Sy.Nos.547, 548, 553, 554, 561, 563 and 564 of Nellore Village on Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple, said to have been constructed by her in Kotha Kovvuru Village. This settlement is said to have been done by way of a Deed of Trust, registered as document No.2502 of 1905 on 07.12.1905. The Deed of Trust does not trace the title of Smt. N. Audemma except to state that the property was being donated by her. However, the averments in the writ petition state that these properties had been acquired by her father-in-law late Sri Sitarama Reddy, in the year 1878, from Kuppachi Linganna and others and by her father Sri B.Ranga Reddy, in the year 1879, from Kuppachi Kamayya and Smt. N. Audemma had become the owner of these lands under registered settlement deed dated 11.10.1878 and registered deeds of sale dated 07.02.1893 and 05.09.1893. 3
HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.30379 of 2023
3. Thereafter, Smt. N. Audemma is said to have executed a Will dated 21.07.1921 which was registered as Document No.8/1943 and another registered Will on 04.10.1942 under which she had appointed certain persons as 'Trustees' to administer the said property for the temple.
4. After enactment of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short, Inam Abolition Act), Sri Burla Ranga Reddy, a nephew of Smt. N. Audemma who had been appointed as Trustee, for the temple, had sought grant of Ryotwari Patta, under the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act, on the ground that the said land belonged to Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Vari Temple. At that stage, the Special Deputy Tahsildar/Inams, Kavali by orders dated 15.10.1977, rejected the said request, taking the view that the lands in question were Inam lands which had been categorized as grazing lands/Forest lands/Waste lands and had vested in the State on account of Section 2-A of the Inam Abolition Act. Aggrieved by the said order, Sri B. Ranga Reedy had moved further appeals and revisions and had availed of the appellate and revisional remedies available under the Inam Abolition Act and had also approached this Court, by way of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to vindicate his contention that the land belongs absolutely 4 HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.30379 of 2023 to Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy vari Temple. These proceedings, without going into the details, had culminated in an order dated 10.03.2023, passed by the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali holding that the land is Inam waste land which has vested for the State by virtue of Section 2-A of the Inam Abolition Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein, who is said to be the hereditary trustee of the said temple had approached the 3rd respondent-Commissioner of Appeals, by way of a Revision Petition under Section 14(2) of the Inam Abolition Act. This Revision was dismissed by the 3rd respondent-Commissioner of Appeals, by proceedings No.Sett.II (1)/195/2023 dated 06.11.2023 holding that the land is Inam land which is classified as Forest Poramboke/Waste Land/Grazing Land. Aggrieved by the said order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.
5. It may also be noted that the land in question, even while the proceedings under the Inam Abolition Act were pending, at various stages, had been handed over by the State of Andhra Pradesh to M/s. IFFCO Limited, who had thereupon transferred the property to the 8th respondent, which is a subsidiary of M/s. IFFCO limited.
5
HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.30379 of 2023
6. Sri L. Ravichander, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Srinivas Bobbili, learned counsel for the petitioner contends as follows:
a) The sale deeds and settlement deeds mentioned in the registered documents for the year 1878, 1893 and 1879 read with Trust Deed of 1905 clearly demonstrate that the land in question was the absolute personal property of Late Smt. Audemma and had become the absolute property of Sri Kodanada Ramswamy Vari Temple by way of the deed of Trust executed in 1905;
b) The land has been treated as the property of the temple right from 1905 till 1977 when the Special Deputy Tahsildar/Inam treated the land as Inam land and had held that the land had vested with the State by virtue of Section 2-A of the Inam Abolition Act.
c) The fact that the land was always treated as the absolute property of the temple can be seen from the proceedings under the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act and more specifically, the Land Reforms Tribunal and Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal which had declared that the temple is the owner and possessor of the subject property. 6
HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.30379 of 2023
d) A part of the land had been acquired for public purpose and compensation was also paid to the temple which shows that the land is the absolute property of the temple and the same was also recognized by the Government.
e) The Commissioner Endowments, had been approached by the hereditary trustee of the temple for selling away the land as it was not productive and the Commissioner of Endowments, after personally inspecting the lands, had recommended permission to sell the land, by way of public auction following the procedure prescribed under Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. This would also demonstrate that even the endowment Department, which had already registered the temple as an Endowment Institution, had recorded, in the Endowment register, that the land belongs to the temple.
f) The claim of the Revenue Authorities that the land was Inam land is based only on a stray entry in the R.S.R record in the year 1908. This record was also rectified by the year 1910 and as such, the basis on which the Revenue 7 HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.30379 of 2023 Authorities are treating the land as 'Inam Land' is clearly fallacious.
g) Even assuming that the land is held to be Inam land, the same would enure to the benefit of the temple as Section 4(2) of the Inam Abolition Act stipulates that all Inam lands held by an institution would become the property of the institution and ryotwari patta would have to be issued to the said institution irrespective of the extent of the land. Going by that standard, the land would continue to be the property of the temple.
h) The contention of the respondent -revenue authorities that the land is not amenable for cultivation and should be treated as grazing land/waste land is not based on any record and in the absence of any such empirical findings, there can be no question of the land vesting with the State under Section 2-A of the Inam Abolition Act.
7. The learned Advocate General, appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M. Santosh Reddy, learned counsel for the 8th respondent have raised similar pleas, which are as follows: 8
HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.30379 of 2023
a) The land in question, as recorded in the resettlement register, in the year 1908, shows that it is Inam and Sri Addanki Tatacharyulu as well as Kuppacchi Venkatesam and Chekkirala Seshaiah were registered as Inamdars with title 1537 and 1722 which shows that the land was Inam land;
b) The Deed of Trust of 1905, relied upon by the petitioners, itself describes the property in question as Inam land with patta NO.1722 given in the name of Kuppacchi Ramaswamy and others;
c) The settlement deeds and sale deeds of the year 1878, 1893 etc., relied upon by the petitioner have not seen the light of the day and there is every possibility that the said documents have not been produced because the said documents could reveal that the land, in question, is Inam land;
d) Sri B. Ranga Reddy had approached the Special Deputy Tahsiladar/Inam, for grant of Ryotwari Patta, under the Inam Abolition Act which demonstrates that even the petitioner/his predecessor trustee had treated the land as Inam land and not as patta land;9
HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.30379 of 2023
e) The proceedings of the Commissioner-Endowments, under which permission for sale of about Ac.900.00 cents of land had been given, and relied upon by the petitioner, would also go to show that the land in question was barren waste land;
f) The classification of the land in revenue records, was that the land was forest land/ grazing land/waste land etc and the said classification has not been disputed by the petitioners.
8. Both the learned Advocate General as well as Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy would contend that the above facts are sufficient to demonstrate that the lands in question are Inam lands which are classified as grazing land or forest poramboke etc, amounting to land meeting the description set out in Section 2A of the Inam abolition Act and as such, the property would stand vested in the State.
9. Consideration of the Court:
The contention on the part of the petitioner is that the land in question was the absolute property of late N. Audemma and had been transferred to the temple by way of Deed of Trust, in the year 1905. The stand of the respondent on the other hand is that the 10 HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.30379 of 2023 land was Inam land, which had been categorized as Grazing Land/Forest Land/Waste Land and would vest with the State by virtue of Section 2A of the Inam Abolition Act.
10. This dispute can be resolved in two stages. Firstly, by deciding whether the land is Inam land or absolute property of the temple and secondly, by determining whether the said land is Grazing Land/Forest Land/Waste Land which would vest with the State, under the provisions of Section 2A of the Inam Abolition Act. POINT NO.1:
11. The authorities right from 1977 and more specifically the 4th respondent-R.D.O and the 3rd respondent-Commissioner of Appeals in their orders dated 10.03.2023 and 06.11.2023 have held that the lands in question are Inam lands which are categorized as Grazing Land/Forest Land/Waste Land due to which the land would stand vested in the State under Section 2-A of the Inam Abolition Act.
12. In view of the objections and grounds raised by the petitioner, it would also be necessary for this Court to go into this question, on the basis of record available before this Court.
13. The Special Deputy Tahsildar/Inam in his proceedings dated 15.10.1977, had recorded the nature of the land as Forest Poramboke/Grazing and Waste land. The same has not been 11 HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.30379 of 2023 disputed by the petitioner earlier. However, the petitioner now contends that the land in question is not Inam land but was the absolute property of Smt. N. Audemma.
14. This contention of the petitioner is belied by the fact that Sri B. Ranga Reddy had approached the authorities under the Inam Abolition Act obviously on account of the fact that all the disputing parties had understood that the said land was Inam land.
15. The sheet anchor of the case built up by the petitioner is the Deed of Trust of the year 1905. In this deed of Trust, the property in question has been described, in the schedule annexed to the Deed of Trust, as Inam land bearing patta No.1722 of Sri Kuppacchi Rama Swamy and others. In the face of this description of the property in the Deed of Trust, this land would have to be held to be Inam land.
16. Coming to the second question as to whether the land stands vested in the State, by virtue of Section 2-A of the Inam Abolition Act, it is necessary to notice Section 2-A and Section 4(2) of the Inam Abolition Act.
Section 2-A of the Inam Abolition Act reads as follows:
Section2-A. Transfer to, and vesting in the Government of all communal lands, porambokes etc. in Inam lands:-12
HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.30379 of 2023 Notwithstanding anything contained, in this Act all communal lands and porambokes, grazing lands, waste lands, forest lands, mines and quarries, tanks, tank-beds and irrigation works, streams and rivers, fisheries and ferries in the inam lands shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances.
Section 4(2) of the Inam Abolition Act reads as follows:
4. Conversion of Inam lands into ryotwari lands:-
(2) in the case of inam-land in an inam village__
(a) If such a land is held by any institution on the date of commencement of this Act, such institution shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land;
(b) ..........
17. In view of the above provisions, any Inam Land held by an institution, upon the Inam Abolition Land coming into force, would have to be converted into ryotwari land for which the institution is to be given a ryotwari patta. However, if the said land is also waste land, the same would stand vested in the State by virtue of Section 2-A of the Inam Abolition Act and the institution would lose its right over the said land.
18. In view of the above consideration of the submissions made by both sides, the said land is Inam land. The remaining issue before this Court is whether the said land is to be treated as grazing land, forest land or waste land. The record of the authorities right 13 HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.30379 of 2023 from the very inception has been that the said lands are either grazing lands or poramboke lands which would mean that the said lands would vest with the State, under Section 2-A of the Inam Abolition Act.
19. Sri L. Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Bhan and Others vs. Financial Commissioner and1contended that entries in revenue records would not create any title, right or interest in the land. While there is no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition, the fact remains that the revenue entries are not being relied upon for the purpose of demonstrating title over the land. The classification of land in the revenue records is being relied upon to demonstrate that the nature of the said land is grazing land/forest land/waste land. In such circumstances, the said Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not be applicable to the facts of the case.
20. The entries in the revenue record, classifying these lands as Poramboke/Grazing lands/Waste lands has not been disputed throughout the proceedings before various authorities from 1977 till date. The inspection of the lands, by the Commissioner Endowments, prior to grant of leave to auction the 1 (2007) 6 SCC 186 14 HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.30379 of 2023 properties, also supports the case of the respondents that the land had not been brought under cultivation.
21. Consequently, it will have to be held that the land in question is Inam land which has been classified as poramboke/grazing land/ waste land/forest land and, by virtue of section 2 -A of the Inam Abolition Act, vests in the State.
22. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J RJS 15 HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.30379 of 2023 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 30379 of 2023 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 23.02.2024 RJS