Telangana High Court
M.Lingam vs Govt.Of A.P on 22 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.2973 of 2008
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" ... to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders of the 3rd respondent made in proceedings No.E1/5417/1998 dated 4.10.2005 and the consequential orders passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.E1/6353/2007 dated 04.01.2007, declare the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, ..."
2. Heard Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have purchased the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.20.29 gts. covered by Sy.No.12 situated at Niredavelly Village, Keshampet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, in the year 1984 through registered sale deeds by paying valuable sale consideration and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property and their names were mutated in the revenue records. He further submits that the petitioners' vendor namely Venkat Rao was in possession and cultivating the said lands since 1945 and his name was recorded in the revenue records as pattadar from the year 1954-55. He also submits that Venkat Rao donated Ac.6.00 gts. of land in favour of A.P.Bhoodan Yagna Board and 2 JSR, J W.P.No.2973 of 2008 the said Board in turn donated the lands to Lingaiah and Jangaiah and protective tenant certificate was issued in favouor of one Gondamoni Jangaiah and Venkat Rao and they were was shown as owners and pattadars of the said lands.
3.1. While things stood thus, respondent No.3 had issued notice vide No.E1/5417/1998 dated 17.04.2000 exercising the powers conferred under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, 'the Act') basing upon the reports of respondent No.4 dated 28.09.1990 and Revenue Divisional Officer, Manabubnagar, dated 28.04.1995, alleging that the subject land owned by the petitioners belongs to the Government Shikam land and the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation and they are liable to be evicted there from. In response to the same, the petitioners have submitted explanation. Respondent No.3 without considering the said explanation had passed eviction order under Section 6 of the Act on 04.10.2005.
3.2. Aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.27463 of 2005 and this Court while disposing the said writ petition on 03.09.2007 directed the petitioners to approach the appellate authority and granted status quo for a period of six weeks. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed appeal under Section 10 of the Act before respondent No.2 and raised several grounds contending that the subject 3 JSR, J W.P.No.2973 of 2008 land is a private patta land and not a government land and the petitioners' vendor name was reflected as a pattadar in the revenue records from 1954-55 and further contended that respondent No.3 without properly verifying the records passed the eviction order. Learned counsel further contended that the appellate authority without considering the grounds raised by the petitioners simply confirmed the order of respondent No.3, without giving any reasons, by its order dated 04.01.2007. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 confirming the order of respondent No.3 is contrary to the law. 3.3. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the petitioners have been in possession of the subject property since 1984 and their vendor is in possession of the property from 1945 and they acquire the title by way of adverse possession. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 without approaching the competent civil Court by establishing their title over the subject property they are not entitled to initiate summary proceedings under the provisions of the Act against the petitioners.
3.4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:
1. Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala 4 JSR, J W.P.No.2973 of 2008 Krishna Rao and another 1
2. Kaikhosrou (chick) Kavasji Framji v. Union of India and another 2
3. Shantha Sriram Constructions Private Limited vs. The State of Telangana and others 3
4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the petitioners' vendor is not having any right, interest or title over the subject property and he had encroached the government land.
Admittedly, the subject land is a Shikam (tank bed) land and the same was recorded in the revenue records including Sethwar. When the petitioners' vendor is not having any title over the property, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any rights basing on the alleged registered sale deeds and the petitioners have not produced any iota of evidence that the nature of property is private patta land. Respondent No.3 after following due procedure, after verification of the records and after considering the contentions of both parties rightly passed the eviction order dated 04.10.2005 under the provisions of the Act and the same was rightly confirmed by respondent No.2 and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. If the petitioners are claiming title over the property basing upon adverse 1 (1982) 2 SCC 134 2 (2019) 20 SCC 705 3 2021 (3) ALD 683 5 JSR, J W.P.No.2973 of 2008 possession, they have to approach the competent civil Court. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled any relief as sought in the writ petition.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioners are claiming rights over the subject property to an extent of Ac.20.29 gts. basing upon the registered sale deeds executed by Venkat Rao in the year 1984. Respondent No.3 initiated the proceedings under the Act and issued notice under Section 7 of the Act directing the petitioners to submit explanation as to why they should not be evicted from the subject property on the ground that the subject property belonging to the government and it is a Shikam land (tank bed). It further reveals from the record that the petitioners have filed explanation/counter through their counsel on 14.12.2000. Respondent No.3 after considering the same passed the eviction order, dated 04.10.2005, wherein it is stated that the petitioners' vendor is illegally occupied the tank bed land in Sy.No.12 admeasuring Ac.20.29 gts. and his name was erroneously entered in the Kasra pahani for the year 1954- 55 and tanks and tank bed lands are required to be protected for the public interest and the petitioners are not entitled to claim any right or title by way of adverse possession against the government land. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners have filed appeal before respondent 6 JSR, J W.P.No.2973 of 2008 No.2 and the same was dismissed by its order dated 04.01.2007.
6. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 clearly shows that he extracted the memorandum of grounds raised by the petitioners in the appeal and also the order of respondent No.3 and simply dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of respondent No.3 without giving any reasons. It is relevant to place on record that the appellate authority while exercising the quasi judicial powers conferred under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, ought to have considered the grounds raised by the parties in appeal and ought to have give reasons. In the case on hand, respondent No.2 without considering the grounds raised by the petitioners simply dismissed the appeal and the same is contrary to the law.
7. It is very much relevant to place on record that the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s.Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed 4, specifically held that quasi judicial authority or administrative authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers. Hence, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is clear violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to law.
4 2010 (9) SCC 496 7 JSR, J W.P.No.2973 of 2008
8. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the summary proceedings under the Act cannot be invoked for eviction of unauthorized occupant of the Government property when the occupant raises bonafide claim about his right over the property and long standing possession and such dispute must be adjudicated by the civil Court.
9. In the case on hand, whether the petitioners are entitled to claim possession and title over the subject property by way of adverse possession or respondent No.3 is entitled to initiate summary proceedings without establishing their title over the subject property by approaching the competent civil Court, these issues also can be gone into by the appellate authority. It is already stated supra that the appellate authority, without considering the contentions of the petitioners in the appeal and without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under law, dismissed the appeal.
10. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 dated 04.01.2007 is liable to be set aside, accordingly, set aside and respondent No.2 is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioners including personal hearing, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, respondent No.4 is 8 JSR, J W.P.No.2973 of 2008 directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 22.01.2024 mar