Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Yerraballi Chandraiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 30 December, 2003
ORDER
1. Heard Sri Kesava Rao the learned Counsel representing the appellants and the Government Pleader for Land Ceiling. The learned Counsel representing the appellants had raised the following substantial question of law to be decided in the present Second Appeal.
2. Whether the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to cancel the patta made in favour of the plaintiffs under Rule 15 of the Laoni Rules, 1950, when Rule 19 thereof empowers the District Collector alone to cancel the assignments when conditions of the grant are violated ? Both the Counsel made elaborate submissions relating to this aspect. The Appellate Court had only framed the point for consideration at para 5 as hereunder:
Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court is justified and whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possessory title ? As can be seen from the Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court certain documents were also filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code.
3. The appellants herein, who are the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.94 of 1976 on the file of Ist Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit land treating the orders of the Board of Revenue as void and non-existent and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The appellants - plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint, referred to at para 2 of the Judgment of the Original Court as follows:
It was pleaded that "the plaintiffs are the natural brothers and were originally natives of Uppula village of Huzurabad Taluq of Karimnagar District. They migrated to Chalvai village of Mulug Taluq in or about 1340 Fasli. They shifted in the year 1945 to Koyaguda Yellapuram and as that village was un-inhabited they settled at Eturnagaram, which is less than two miles from Koyaguda Yellapuram, after occupying the lands of Koyaguda Yellapuram which are detailed in the schedule. Since, 1945 the plaintiffs are in actual possession of the lands detailed intheschedule. Theybrought a major portion of the suit land under cultivation at huge expense and are using the balance area which is not cultivable as pasture land for their cattle. On the basis of the actual and physical possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands, patta was granted in their favour after due enquiry in the year 1951. At no point of time the rights of the plaintiffs to the suit lands was questioned and on the other hand the same was confirmed by granting patta to them. Thus, the plaintiffs have become the absolute owners and actual possessors of the suit lands by virtue of their long standing possession and also by virtue of the patta granted to them and interest of the defendant if any, in the suit lands has been extinguished by lapse of time.
4. In the year 1969, revision survey was introduced in the village and in all the records of the said revision survey the suit lands have been shown as patta lands of plaintiffs. At the instance of some political rivals, of the plaintiffs, the defendant has initiated proceedings to cancel the pattas granted to the plaintiffs on some flimsy and non-existent grounds. The Board of Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh has passed orders on 20.5.1974 cancelling the pattas of the plaintiffs to the suit lands. The said orders are void and without jurisdiction and they have no binding force and are to be treated as non-existent.
5. The validity of the said orders has been challenged in Writ proceedings and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by an order dated 2-4-1976 passed in W.A.No. 203 of 1976 has been pleased to direct the plaintiffs to establish their title to the suit lands in a competent civil Court. Plaintiffs got a legal notice issued under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code to the defendant on 23.4.1976, which was received by District Collector, Warangal on 24.4.1976, but no reply is received from the defendant. As the plaintiffs are jointly enjoying the usufructs of the suit lands they are entitled to bring this suit jointly against the defendant.
6. The respondent - defendant filed the written statement pleading as hereunder:
"It was pleaded that "an extent of 669-16 Acres situated in Yellapurand Koyaguda villages was assigned by the collector of Warangal under Special Laoni Rules in 1951 in the name of 25 assignees of whom three are the plaintiffs herein. They were not in occupation of the lands before the assignment and the assignment was not made on the basis of their physical possession. The plaintiffs are not residents of Koyaguda , Yellapur and have not been in possession of the suit lands since 1945 and it is not true that they have brought a major part of the lands under cultivation at huge expense.
7. The assignment in favour of 25 assignees including the plaintiffs was invalid as there was a thick forest growth over the lands except in a few acres and the same was not auctioned prior to assignment and it was irregular as the assignees were non-residents. The assignees have also failed to bring the assigned land under cultivation within three years of the assignment. It was further pleaded that the Board of Revenue has validly cancelled the pattas granted to the plaintiffs and others on the above grounds. Plaintiffs never assumed possession and cultivated the lands except over Ac. 10-20 guntas in the year 1974-75. It is not true that they are paying land revenue from 1945 on wards. The plaintiffs have not become absolute owners of the suit lands extinguishing the defendant's rights.
8. The plaintiffs are out of possession for a large part of the lands and they are also no longer owners of the lands. The suit for declaration without the relief of possession is not maintainable. The plaintiffs have to value the suit for possession of all the lands except Ac.10-20 guntas cultivated by them; and also for declaration that the orders of the Board of Revenue canceling their patta as void.
9. The market value of the lands mentioned in the plaint is very low. The lands after clearing them of the Forest growth will at least cost of Rs.1000/- per acre. "
On the respective pleadings of the parties, the Court of first instance had settled the following issues.
i. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit lands since the year 1945 and whether the patta of the same was granted to the plaintiffs in the year 1951 on the basis of such possession ?
ii.Whether the plaintiffs have not brought the suit lands under cultivation and whether the cancellation of the patta of the suit lands is justified on that ground?
iii. Whether the justification for the cancellation of patta of the suit lands pleaded in para 3 of the plaint are true and valid ?
iv Whether the plaintiffs have no possession over the suit lands and if so whether the suit in its present form without praying for possession is not maintainable ?
v. Whether the market value of the suit land is Rs.1000/- per acre as pleaded by the defendant ?
vi. To what relief ?
10. On behalf of the appellants -plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Ex-A1 to A62 were marked. On behalf of the respondent - defendants none had been examined. The Court of first instance had arrived at a conclusion that the procedure prescribed under Rule 19 of the Laoni Rules was not followed before canceling the pattas and even otherwise, the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to cancel the pattas and it is only the District Collector who can cancel such pattas. The other oral and documentary evidence had also been dealt with in detail.
Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the defendant in the suit, the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Collector, Warangal preferred A.S.No.23 of 1988 on the file of Additional District Judge, Warangal and in asmuch as the Judgment and Decree of the court of first instance had been reversed by appellate Court the present Appeal is preferred.
11. As can be seen from the Judgment in which the point for consideration had been framed by the appellate Court, it can be definitely said that it was not in conformity with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No doubt, this principle in all cases may not be mandatory provided all the aspects had been well considered by the appellate Court.
As can be seen from the nature of the relief prayed for, the said relief, in fact had been prayed for but the appellate Court on an erroneous impression that such relief was not prayed for in the suit, had dismissed the application for receiving additional evidence. Apart from this aspect of the matter, Rules 15 and 19 of the Laoni Rules 1950, read as follows:
Rule - 15 No lands in the special areas notified under Section 58-A of A.P.Telangana Area Land Revenue Act, shall be assigned except in accordance with the following rules:-
a) The object of the special laoni is to make land available in certain areas to such landless persons of agricultural and backward classes as maybe notified from time to time, and who have not sufficient means to purchase land either at the ordinary laoni auctions or otherwise. The selection of the most deserving applicant should be made by the Tahsildar after due publicity in the village or at the place fixed for the allotment proceedings.
b) Special laoni, proceedings may ordinarily take place twice a year in the; months of April and September, and may also take place at other times when the Tahsildar is visiting the locality.
Rule 19: The allotee of the land shall prepare the land for cultivation within three years of being placed in possession and commence cultivation of the land thereafter. The pattadar may be rejected by the order of the Collector for breach of any of the above conditions:
Provided that he has been served with a notice calling upon him to comply with the conditions which he has violated and he fails to comply with it within three months of the date of service thereof. If land has been transferred in contravention of the conditions, the Collector may eject the transferee.
12. In view of the fact that the appellate Court had not adverted to all the aspects in proper perspective and also taking into consideration the findings recorded in detail by the Court of first instance, the following additional issue is framed:
"Whether the Board of Revenue has authority and jurisdiction to make the orders in question in the light of the provisions under Rule 15 and 19 of the Laoni Rules, 1950?"
13. It is no doubt true that certain findings had been recorded, in this regard. Inasmuch as some additional documents were also filed at the appellate stage and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Court of first instance shall receive the additional documents filed by the appellants if they choose to do so and also permit the parties to let in further evidence if any, on the additional issue and decide the matter afresh on merits after affording opportunity to both the parties. In the light of the above, the Judgment and Decree of the appellate Court are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to Court of first instance for the purpose indicated above.