Telangana High Court
Shaikhan vs The District Collector, Karimnagar on 22 March, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.25622, 25824, 25825, 25826 AND 25829 OF 2003 COMMON ORDER:
The present writ petitions were filed challenging the orders dated 24.10.2003 passed by the District Collector, Karimnagar (Respondent No. 1) vide proceedings No. F2/44/99; orders dated 26.10.2003 passed vide proceedings No. F2/44/99 by the District Revenue Officer, Karimnagar (Respondent No. 3); and the implementation orders issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar Mandal (Respondent No. 5 herein) vide proceedings No. B1/5837/2003 dated 22.11.2003 as they are illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the order dated 04.11.1999 passed by this Court in W.P. 12002 of 1999 and also contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Record of Rights Regulations 1358 Fasli.
2. Heard Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. V. Rohith, learned counsel for the Petitioners in all the writ petitions and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the official respondents and also Mr. K.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondents.
2
KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch
3. Facts of the case:
i) The lis involved in the present writ petitions has its genesis in the alleged false declarations made by the Petitioners herein and their family members in the year 1975 under the then existing land ceiling laws.
ii) According to the Petitioners, their forefather one Mr. Shaik Saleh (for convenience 'Shaik Saleh I') had migrated to India from Yemen during the Nizam Rule. The said Shaik Saleh I had acquired a large extent of land and passed away in the year 1920 leaving behind Mr. Shaikhan, Mr. Shaik Salam, Mr. Shaik Ali and Mr. Shaik Mahmood.
iii) Mr. Shaikhan acquired 1200 acres of land in various villages including Rekurthi village and after his death all the properties were divided between his brothers and other family members of Mr. Shaik Saleh I. All the family members of Shaik Saleh I, including the Petitioners herein, had filed their declarations in the year 1975 regarding the extents of lands owned by them under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. It is from these declarations that the whole dispute relating to the Rekurthi village arose.
iv) The Petitioners claim that they are the owners and possessors of land in various survey numbers in Rekurthi village. They also claim that the revenue 3 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch records, rightly, reflect their names and they can dispose/alienate their lands.The extent of lands claimed by them in the present writ petitions are extracted in the table below:
Names of the Writ Petition Name of the unofficial Number Petitioners Extent of land claimed Respondents Ac. 2-34 Gts. in Sy. No. W.P.No.25622/03 Shaikhan and 6; Ac. 2-12 Gts. in Sy.
Shaik Abu Baker Syamakuri Bhumaiah No. 207 W.P.No.25824/03 Shaikhan and Bathini Rajamallu Ac. 0-38 Gts. in Sy. No. Shaik Abu Baker represented by his 44. LRs. Ac. 3-03 Gts. in Sy. No. 50, Ac. 9-30 Gts. in Sy. Shaikhan,,Shaik Chindam Pedda No. 45, Ac. 0-30 Gts. in Abu Baker and Bhoomaiah & others, W.P.No.25825/03 Sy. No. 216 and Ac. 1- Shaika Bee rep. by their LRs. 32 Gts. in Sy. No. 20. Ac. 9-28 Gts. in Sy. No. 18, Ac. 2-09 Gts. in Sy. Shaikhan, Shaik No. 26, Ac. 1-28 Gts. in W.P.No.25826/03 Abu Baker and Sayed Khan and Sy. No. 27, Ac. 88-21 Halima Bee others Gts. in Sy. No. 194 and Ac. 0-32 Gts. in Sy. No. 184. Ac.2-05 Gts. in Sy. No. 157 and Ac. 0-12 Gts. in W.P.No.25829/03 Sultana Bee Durgam Rajaiah Sy. No. 160.
v) However, in the year 1996, one Smt. ShaikaSaleeha Bee filed a petition before the District Collector, Karimnagar stating that Shaik Saleh (son of Shaikhan and grandson of the migrant Shaik Saleh I) had filed false declarations and committed irregularities contrary to the land ceiling laws. 4
KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch Acting on the said petition, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar (hereinafter 'the R.D.O.) addressed a letter bearing No.J/6871/96 dated 09.12.96 requesting the Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar not to entertain any registrations pertaining to the lands owned by the Petitioners herein and their family members till the enquiry is completed. The Joint Sub-Registrar, however, replied vide letter Lr. No. 654/96 stating that in light of the orders of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh he has to allow registrations. In view of the Joint Sub-Registrar's reply, letter bearing No.J/6871/96 dated 09.12.96 issued by the R.D.O. Karimnagar was rescinded.
vi) One D. Rajalingam and others filed W.P. No. 8454 of 1997 before this Court seeking a declaration that the non-completion of enquiry against the Petitioners herein and proceeding with the registration of properties as illegal, arbitrary and improper. This Court vide order dated 30.04.1997 directed the Joint Sub-Registrar to implement the directions in letter bearing No. J/6871/96 dated 09.12.96 and not register any lands of the Petitioners herein till the enquiry is completed. The Court also directed the R.D.O. Karimnagar to complete the enquiry within three months from the date of receipt of the order copy.
5
KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch
vii) Against the order dated 30.04.97 passed in W.P. No. 8454 of 1997, an appeal W.A. 612 of 1997 was preferred by one Shaik Abubakar who is the son of Shaik Saleh. A Division Bench of this Court, with the consent of the Counsels appearing, vide order dated 11.06.1997 framed the following issues to be decided for the resolution of disputes:
"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we agree with the consensus at the bar that the following issues alone will firmly decide the controversy between the parties:
1) Whether the property in question belonged to the estate the father of the appellant and he thus had the right of disposition of the same;
2) Whether, if the land belonged to the father of the appellant, it was subjected to any proceeding under the relevant Land Ceiling Act and found surplus and thus stood acquired by dint statute by the Government of the state; and
3) Whether the appellant has inherited land in question and acquired the right of disposition."
viii) The Court held that if the answers to the questions are in the affirmative, then the appellant therein (including the Petitioners herein) can transfer the lands and if the answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there is no right to dispose of the properties. Further, the Court directed the Joint Collector any other person not below the rank of Joint Collector, nominated by the District Collector, to conduct an enquiry within three months by issuing notice to the interested parties.
6
KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch
ix) Pursuant to the order dated 11.06.1997 in W.A. 612 of 1997, Mr. B.R. Meena, I.A.S., the then District Collector, Karimnagar conducted and prepared a detailed enquiry report. In the said enquiry report, the enquiry officer gave a detailed account of the declarations made by the Petitioners herein and their family members and answered all the three questions framed in the order dated 11.06.1997 in W.A. 612 of 1997. The enquiry report stated that the Petitioners herein and their family members were involved in fraudulent and illegal declarations and their names were illegally entered into in the revenue records.
x) After the enquiry was conducted and the report was prepared by Mr. B.R. Meena, no further action was taken. Aggrieved that their names were not incorporated in the revenue records and the names of the Petitioners herein and their family members were not deleted, some people filed W.P. Nos. 2880 of 1999, 9527 of 1999, 14947 of 1999, 15014 of 1999, 9782 of 1999, 12002 of 1999, 12006 of 1999 and 14692 of 1999. In all these writ petitions, orders were passed by this Court directing the respondent authorities to act on the representations.
xi) Referring to the orders passed in W.P. Nos. 2880 of 1999, 9527 of 1999, 14947 of 1999, 15014 of 1999, 9782 of 1999, 12002 of 1999, 12006 of 1999 and 14692 of 1999, the District Collector, Karimnagar issued a hearing 7 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch notice dated 08.09.1999 and fixed 20.09.1999 as the date of hearing and directed the Petitioners herein and their family members to be present before the Joint Collector, Karimnagar.
xii) According to the Petitioners, they had filed written statements and were heard through their counsel by the Joint Collector, who reserved the matters for orders on 30.09.2002. However, no orders were passed till 2003. Further, according to the Petitioners herein, the Joint Collector who heard the matters was transferred and the orders were passed by the D.R.O. Karimnagar.
xiii) Referring to, inter alia, the orders passed in W.P. 8454 of 2021, orders passed in W.A. No. 612 of 1997, orders passed in W.P. No.9527 of 1999 and other related cases, the District Collector, Karimnagar passed the impugned orders dated 24.10.2003. In the said orders, the District Collector confirmed the findings of the enquiry officer (Mr. B.R. Meena) and citing G.O. Ms. No. 77 Rev. Dept. dated 02.01.1968 delegated the power to the D.R.O. Karimnagar to pass orders and implement the findings of the enquiry report by directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar to take action.
xiv) Pursuant to the order dated 24.10.2003, the D.R.O. Karimnagar passed detailed order and referred to all the complaints against the Petitioners herein and their family members. The D.R.O. Karimnagar concluded that the names of the Petitioners herein were entered into the revenue records 8 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch irregularly, illegally and without any administrative sanction. Further, the D.R.O. Karimnagar directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar to take action take action in light of Mr. B.R. Meena's findings pursuant to the order dated 11.06.1997 in W.A. No. 612 of 1997.
xv) While things stood thus, W.P. No. 24485 of 2003 was filed by Shaikhan, who is also a Petitioner herein, challenging the impugned orders dated 24.10.2003 and 26.10.2003. This Court passed an interim order dated 20.11.2003 in W.P.M.P. No. 30821 of 2003 and stayed the impugned orders dated 24.10.2003 and 26.10.2003. However, it is relevant to note that W.P. No. 24485 of 2003 was disposed off vide order dated 06.08.2010 as the parties entered into a compromise.
xvi) While W.P. No. 24485 of 2003 was pending, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar issued the impugned order vide proceedings No. B1/5837 dated 22.11.2003. In the said order, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar discussed in detail the then existing revenue records and ordered rectification of the entries in pahanies of Rekurthi village.
xvii) After the order dated 22.11.2003 was passed, the present writ petitions were filed and interim orders dated 09.12.2003 were granted and the impugned orders were stayed.
9
KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch xviii) No action was taken to implement the enquiry report of Mr. B.R. Meena, order dated 24.10.2003, order dated 26.10.2003 and order dated 22.11.2003. Aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities, W.P. No. 25199 of 2010 was filed by one D. Rajalingam seeking a direction to take action and implement the findings of the enquiry report prepared by Mr. B.R. Meena.
xix) Learned single judge of this Court dismissed W.P. No. 25199 of 2010 vide order dated 07.09.2012 and held as follows:
"For all practical purposes, the District Collector exhibited his cynicism and even while being the head of the District administration, expressed his helplessness. If that is the state of affairs, no one can help him. The petitioners cannot be said to have suffered any detriment on account of the report. Further, no positive action was indicated in the report. Therefore, the question of requiring any authority to take any action does not arise."
xx) Therefore, no action was directed to be taken by this Court in W.P. No. 25199 of 2010. Since then, the present writ petitions are pending and no action is taken by the authorities. Therefore, this Court has to resolve the pending disputes panning over two decades.
10
KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch
4. Contentions of the Petitioners:
i) No action was taken pursuant to the enquiry conducted in furtherance of the orders in W.A. 612 of 1999 and the same was also held by this Court in the order passed in W.P. No. 25199 of 2010.
ii) The enquiry report was not furnished and no notice was issued regarding the conclusion of the enquiry.
iii) A fresh enquiry was undertaken by the Joint Collector, Karimnagar pursuant to the orders in W.P. Nos. 2880 of 1999, 9527 of 1999, 14947 of 1999, 15014 of 1999, 9782 of 1999, 12002 of 1999, 12006 of 1999 and 14692 of 1999. The Joint Collector, Karimnagar heard the parties including the Petitioners herein and reserved the matters. However, the said Joint Collector, Karimnagar transferred.
iv) The District Collector, Karimnagar, vide the impugned order dated 24.10.2003 delegated the matters to the D.R.O. Karimnagar which is against the order dated 11.06.1997 in W.A. 612 of 1999 wherein this Court specifically directed the District Collector to pass the orders.
v) The D.R.O. Karimnagar, passed the impugned order dated 26.10.2003 without issuing any show cause notices to the Petitioners herein and without 11 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch verifying the records and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar to take action.
vi) Similarly, Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar passed the impugned order dated 22.11.2003 without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing.
vii) The Respondents cannot invoke the of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Record of Rights Regulations 1358 Fasli (hereinafter 'R.O.R. Regulations, 1358 Fasli') as the same were repealed after the enactment of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 (hereinafter 'Pass Books Act, 1971').
viii) Even if the R.O.R, Regulations, 1358 Fasli are applicable, they cannot be invoked after a delay of 43 years. Reliance was placed on B. Sitaram Reddy v. Joint Collector, Mahbubnagar1.
ix) The Respondents cannot seek rectification of revenue records after a lapse of 43 years. Regulation 15(2) of the R.O.R. Regulations, 1358 Fasli provides that the Collector at his own motion or on the application of a party can call and examine records. However, the collector shall examine such power within a reasonable time depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. 1 . (2006) 5 ALT 573.
12
KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch Reliance was placed on Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy2, Collector v. D. Narsing Rao3 and Prathap Jungle Resorts Private Limited. v. Joint Collector4.
x) Therefore, the Petitioners herein seek to quash the impugned orders.
5. Contentions of Respondent No. 1 (District Collector, Karimnagar)
i) The names of the Petitioners herein and their family members were illegally and fraudulently entered into the revenue records. Therefore, an enquiry was conducted by the District Collector himself pursuant to the orders in W.A. No. 612 of 1997. Unfortunately, no action was taken to implement the said enquiry report.
ii) During the enquiry by Mr. B.R. Meena, all the relevant parties were served notices and were provided the opportunity to submit their arguments. All the available material and the objections of parties were considered and examined in detail.
iii) There is no scope of any other enquiry by any other officer as Mr. B.R. Meena had conducted a detailed enquiry. Only the findings of the enquiry report are to be implemented.
2 . (2003) 7 SCC 667 3 . (2015) 3 SCC 695 4 . 2008 (4) ALT 794.
13
KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch
iv) The impugned orders were passed to implement the findings of the enquiry report.
v) Law of limitation does not apply to rectification/changes in the revenue records. Records which were entered illegally without following the procedure will be deemed invalid and limitation does not apply. Further, law of limitation does not apply to applications seeking rectification of R.O.R. records. Reliance was placed on Sakuru v. Tanaji5 and K. Venkataiah v. K. Venkateshwar Rao6.
vi) The impugned orders were passed in accordance with the provisions of the R.O.R. Regulations and the said regulations were followed while implementing the orders of the District Collector and the D.R.O.
vii) Therefore, dismissal of the writ petition was sought.
6. Contentions of the unofficial Respondents
i) The Petitioners are estopped from raising the contention of delay of 43 years as the enquiry was conducted pursuant to the consent order passed in W.A. 612 of 1997.
ii) A detailed enquiry was conducted in which the Petitioners herein participated. The enquiry report clearly noted that the Petitioners herein and 5 . AIR 1985 SC 1278 6 . AIR 1978 SC 166 14 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch their family members made fraudulent declarations and also illegal entries were made in the revenue records.
iii) The Petitioners cannot contend that the Joint Collector conducted another enquiry. The impugned proceedings dated 24.10.2003, 26.10.2003 and 22.11.2003 were only consequential orders to implement the findings of the enquiry conducted by Mr. B.R. Meena.
iv) Law of limitation is not applicable in case of correction of revenue records. Further, a person who has taken benefit under a fraudulent action cannot take shelter under the law of limitation.
v) The contention that R.O.R. Regulations become inoperative after the enactment of the Pass Books Act, 1971 is incorrect as the revenue entries were prepared under the R.O.R Regulations, 1385 Fasli and the pahanies were not prepared under the Pass Books Act, 1971.
vi) Therefore, dismissal of the writ petition was sought.
7. Findings of the Court
i) Based on the Contentions of the parties, the following issues are to be decided by this Court:
15
KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch A. Whether revenue records were sought to be rectified under the repealed R.O.R. Regulations, 1358 Fasli and whether proceedings for such rectification are not maintainable.
B. Whether the District Collector had power to rectify/correct revenue records after a lapse of 43 years.
C. Whether the impugned orders were passed without issuing notices, without hearing the Petitioners and by an authority not competent to pass such orders.
ii) Issue (A):
a) The Petitioner contended that the rectification of entries sought by the unofficial Respondents is under Regulation 15(2) of the R.O.R. Regulations, 1358 Fasli which were repealed and the impugned orders could not have been passed under a law which is not in force. Further, it was contended that even if the R.O.R. Regulations, 1358 Fasli are applicable, revenue records cannot be altered/corrected after a considerable lapse of time.
b) Prima facie, the Petitioners are barred from raising the contention that the Collector was not competent to conduct enquiry and order rectification of revenue records. The said enquiry was conducted and the impugned orders were passed in furtherance of the consent order in W.A. 612 of 1997. The Petitioner cannot contend that the enquiry was conducted suo moto as it was this Court 16 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch that framed three questions to be enquired into by the District Collector. The Petitioners having consented to the enquiry cannot raise that the enquiry was conducted under the repealed R.O.R. Regulations 1358 Fasli.
c) In any case, though Section 13 of the Pass Books Act, 1971 repealed the R.O.R. Regulations 1385 Fasli were repealed by the Pass Books Act, 1971, it does not mean that the District Collector had no power to entertain complaints regarding the alteration/correction of revenue records, suo moto call for records and pass appropriate orders.
d) It is not the Petitioners' case that the District Collector had no power to pass orders correcting/rectifying the revenue records and entertain complaints/applications seeking rectifications/corrections of the revenue records. Their contention is that Regulation 15(2) of the R.O.R. Regulations 1358 Fasli was quoted by the Collector. According to this Court, misquoting a provision does not affect the validity of the proceedings and consequential orders, if the authority was competent to conduct such proceedings and pass such orders.
e) In other words, though the impugned orders of the District Collector referred to Regulation 15(2) it does not invalidate the entire proceedings, as the District Collector had similar powers under the Pass Books Act, 1971, which replaced the R.O.R. Regulations 1358 Fasli. To further clarify, Regulation 15 of 17 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch the R.O.R. Regulations 1358 Fasli and Section 9 of the Pass Books Act, 1971 are extracted below:
"Regulation 15. Appeal (1) Any person affected by an order made on an application for rectification under sub-section (3) of section 4, or by an order made under sub-section (4) or an entry certified under sub-section (6) of section 6 or by the division of a survey number into sub-divisions or the assessment of such sub-divisions under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 9 may, within a period of one month from the date of communication to the party of such order, certification, division or assessment, appeal to such officer as may be empowered by Government in this behalf and the decision of such officer on such appeal shall be final.
(2) The Collector may of his own motion or on the application of a party call for and examine any records made under section 4 or section 6 and pass such orders as he may think fit:
Provided that no order which would adversely affect any person shall be passed except after hearing that person."
"Section 9. Revision The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order 18 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this Section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation."
f) From the above provisions, it is clear that both Regulation 15(2) of the R.O.R. Regulations 1358 Fasli and Section 9 of the Pass Books Act, 1971 vest power in the Collector to examine the revenue records and pass appropriate orders to rectify the revenue records. After being repealed, Regulation 15(2) of the R.O.R. Regulations 1358 Fasli was replaced by a similar provision under Section 9 of the Pass Books Act, 1971. Therefore, the District Collector, Karimnagar was competent under the Pass Books Act, 1971, which was in force, to take action and order rectification of revenue records. Merely because a provision was misquoted by the District Collector, Karimnagar does not invalidate the entire proceedings as the Collector was, otherwise, competent under Section 9 of the Pass Books Act, 1971.
iii) Issue (B)
a) The other argument advanced by the Petitioners was that revenue records cannot be rectified after a lapse of considerable period of time. Given the facts of the case and the order passed in W.A. No. 612 of 1997, the contention of the Petitioners cannot be accepted. As mentioned above, the 19 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch Petitioners themselves gave their consent for the enquiry before the Division Bench in W.A. No. 612 of 1997. They never raised the issue of 'considerable lapse of time' before this Court in W.A. No.612 of 1997. Admittedly, they had participated in the enquiry conducted by the Joint Collector, Karimnagar. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot contend that revenue records cannot be altered after significant lapse of time.
b) It is a settled legal position that where limitation is not prescribed, the authorities should act within a reasonable period of time. To that extent, this Court is in agreement with the judgments cited by the Petitioners. However, where allegations of fraud exist which are to be investigated and circumstances warrant such investigation, the Court can direct an enquiry even after lapse of time, if the authorities act immediately after the detection and discovery of such fraud.
c) It is to be noted that fraud unravels everything and goes to the root of the issues involved. A person cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraudulent actions on the ground that significant amount of time is lapsed.
d) In Dehri Rohtas Light Rly. Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur7, the Supreme Court held that where manifest illegality exists, a claim cannot be 7 (1992) 2 SCC 598 20 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch dismissed only on the ground of delay. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:
"13. The rule which says that the Court may not enquire into belated and stale claim is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion. Each case must depend upon its own facts. It will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how delay arose. The principle on which the relief to the party on the grounds of laches or delay is denied is that the rights which have accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The real test to determine delay in such cases is that the petitioner should come to the writ court before a parallel right is created and that the lapse of time is not attributable to any laches or negligence. The test is not as to physical running of time. Where the circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. The decision in Tilokchand case [(1969) 1 SCC 110 : (1969) 2 SCR 824] relied on is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. The levy if based on the net profits of the railway undertaking was beyond the authority and the illegal nature of the same has been questioned though belatedly in the pending proceedings after the pronouncement of the High Court in the matter relating to the subsequent years. That being the case, the claim of the appellant cannot be turned down on the sole ground of delay. We are of the opinion that the High Court was wrong in dismissing the writ petition in limine and refusing to grant the relief sought for. We however agree that the suit has been rightly dismissed."21
KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch
e) Dealing with similar set of facts, a Division Bench of this Court in Lambadi Pedda Bhadru v. Mohd. Ali Hussain8 held that the Collector has the power under the Pass Books Act, 1971 to exercise suo motu powers of revision where allegations of fraud exist. In the said case, it was contended by the respondent authorities that the name of people in actual possession of lands were deleted and names of other persons were entered fraudulently into the revenue records. The Court therein referring to several decisions held that the allegation of fraud cannot remain uninvestigated and public interest requires enquiry into such allegations. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted below:
"77. Be it as it may, allegations of fraud cannot remain uninvestigated. Public interest requires a detailed and unbiased enquiry into such allegations.
78. The Privy Council in Satish Chandra Chatterfi v. Kumar Satish Kantha Roy AIR 1923 PC 73, laid down as under:
"Charges of fraud and collusion like those contained in the plaint in this case must, no doubt, be proved by those who make them - proved by established facts or inferences legitimately drawn from those facts taken together as a whole. Suspicions and surmises and conjecture are not permissible substitutes for those facts or those inferences, but that by no means requires that every puzzling artifice or contrivance resorted to by one accused of fraud must necessarily be completely unravelled and cleared up and made plain before a verdict can be 8 . 2003(4)ALT611 22 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch properly found against him. If this were not so, many a clever and dextrous knave would escape."
79. In our considered opinion, the above principle will apply not only to the Courts of law but also to the statutory authorities, which, like the recording authority, appellate authority or revisional authority under the ROR Act, are conferred with the power to record evidence by applying certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure including the power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to receive evidence and affidavits. The recording authority and other authorities under the provisions of ROR Act are conferred with power to decide the disputes by following the prescribed procedure and invoking the power under Section 10 of the ROR Act read with the relevant rules framed thereunder. The Recording Authority, appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have jurisdiction not only to examine a witness on oath, but also to require the discovery and production of documents, etc., in order to decide the issues that arise for consideration before them.
80. Thus, we have no doubt in our mind that the revisional authority is entitled to make an enquiry into the allegations of fraud and collusion like those contained in the additional affidavit placed before us by the learned Advocate-General. The additional material, whose details are mentioned in the additional affidavit, is alleged to have been unearthed after disposal of the writ petitions. It is thus clear that this material was evidently not in possession and available to the revisional authority when the law was set in motion for setting aside the entries made in the record of rights pursuant to the order dated 19- 5-1982. This Court being not only a Court of law but also a Court of equity cannot shut its eyes and ignore the contents of the 23 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch affidavit and material containing serious allegations of fraud and terminate the proceedings once for all by quashing the impugned order of the Joint Collector. The authorities cannot be deprived of their jurisdiction to go into the allegations of fraud and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.
81. The Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra) observed:
"No Court or Tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim." (Emphasis is of ours).
82. For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to leave the matter open for the competent authority to make an enquiry into the allegations of fraud for which purpose the authority is clothed with the jurisdiction to record evidence and require the discovery and production of documents etc. It shall be open for the Joint Collector to record the evidence of the parties in order to enable the Government to plead and establish the fraud and misrepresentation."
f) The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma9 had to deal with a case where the respondent authorities questioned the authenticity of patta after a lapse of twenty-seven years. The Court therein held as follows:
"18. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue exercised the power under Section 38-B after an 9 (1995) Supp.(3) SCC 249.24
KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch unreasonable lapse of time, though from the date of the grant of patta by the Tehsildar is of 27 years. It is true that from the date of the alleged grant of patta 27 years did pass. But its authenticity and correctness was shrouded with suspicious features. The records of the Tehsildar were destroyed. Who is to get the benefit? Who was responsible for it? The reasons are not far to seek. They are self- evident. So we hold that the exercise of revisional power under Section 38-B by the Board of Revenue was legal and valid and it brooked no delay, after it had come to the Board's knowledge. That apart as held by the Board of Revenue, the order passed by the Tehsildar without confirmation by the Board is non est. A non est order is a void order and it confers no title and its validity can be questioned or invalidity be set up in any proceeding or at any stage."
g) Therefore, it is clear from the above decisions that in cases where serious allegations of fraudulent activities exist, the Courts can direct enquiry and investigation into the same.
h) In the present case, allegations of fraud were discovered only after the enquiry conducted pursuant to the order in W.A. 612 of 1997. Mr. B.R. Meena who conducted the enquiry and came to know about the alleged fraudulent and illegal entries made in the revenue records by the Petitioners and their family members. The said enquiry report was never challenged by the Petitioners herein. While concluding the enquiry report, Mr. B.R. Meena made the following observation:
25
KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch "In the plethora of Ceiling cases, pertaining to family members and relatives of the father of the appellant, a suggestion of fraud was hinted at by the Authorised officer, only in the issue of Sajida being a minor in CC No. 1673/75 and only this ceiling case was sought to be re-opened on 16 11-1992. The magnitude and the complex anatomy of fraud in these batch. of ceiling cases is only revealed and comprehended now for the first time after the Hon'ble High Court provided the opportunity by framing three crucial questions for conducting enquiry, which provided an opportunity to look at the holistic picture by putting all the cases together, rather than examining each case in isolation. While the Answer to question No 1 is not a confident affirmative, it is submitted that the Answer to question No.2 and 3 are answered in the negative. While a portion of the property of the father of the appellant, after having been subjected to statute of ceiling laws should have been stood acquired by the Government. because of the discrepancies described above, though, the Estate had been very large, he has gone scot free at the hands of ceiling law, which has led to the continued indignation and loss of confidence in the efficacy of law among the general public."
i) From the above extract, it is clear that the entire alleged fraud was discovered only in the year 1997. Unfortunately, no action was taken till orders were passed inW.P. Nos. 2880 of 1999, 9527 of 1999, 14947 of 1999, 15014 of 1999, 9782 of 1999, 12002 of 1999, 12006 of 1999 and 14692 of 1999. In the year 1999, again show cause notices were served and parties were heard before passing the impugned orders.26
KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch
j) Ultimately, the findings of the enquiry report of 1997 were implemented by passing the impugned orders in the year 2003. The present writ petitions were filed in 2003 and the matters have been pending since then in light of the interim orders dated 09.12.2003. While there was delay on the part of authorities to implement the enquiry report, this Court does not find that significant time had lapsed since the alleged fraud was detected and discovered and action was taken pursuant to it.
k) This Court cannot accept the contention that revenue entries cannot be altered solely on the ground of delay as serious irregularities and fraudulent activities were committed as per the enquiry report of 1997.
iv) Issue (C)
a) Petitioners herein have challenged the impugned orders on the ground that no notices were served before passing the said impugned orders and the impugned orders were passed by the D.R.O. Karimnagar who had not heard the parties and is also not the competent authority to pass orders. There is no substance and force in the said contentions of the Petitioners.
b) It is relevant to note that the impugned orders were passed to implement the enquiry report of Mr. B.R. Meena. A bare perusal of the impugned orders clearly show that they were passed to take action pursuant to 27 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch the enquiry report prepared after the orders passed in W.A. No. 612 of 1997. The said report clearly mentions that a public notification dated 16.07.1997 was issued by the then District Collector, Karimnagar regarding the enquiry. Since, the said orders were consequential to the main enquiry report, no question of issuing notices arises as a public notification was already issued before the enquiry was undertaken. Admittedly, the Petitioners have not challenged the findings of the enquiry report.
c) In any case, again notice dated 08.09.1999 was issued to the Petitioners and their family members by the Joint Collector, Karimnagar before the impugned orders were passed. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the Petitioners were not issued any notice.
d) The Petitioners also contended that the impugned orders were passed by the D.R.O. Karimnagar and not by the Joint Collector, Karimnagar. This according to the Petitioners is against the order passed in W.A. No. 612 of 1997. As stated above, the Court in W.A. No. 612 of 1997 directed the Joint Collector or any other officer not below the Joint Collector, nominated by the District Collector to conduct enquiry. It was the then District Collector, being above the rank of Joint Collector, who conducted the enquiry. It is to be noted that the Court in W.A. No. 612 of 1997 directed the District Collector/Joint Collector only to conduct enquiry. There was no specific direction that orders shall be 28 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch passed by the same authority who conducted the enquiry. Therefore, according to this Court, the order in W.A. No. 612 of 1997 was complied with.
e) As stated above, impugned order dated 24.10.2003 was passed to implement the findings of the enquiry report of Mr. B.R. Meena. The said impugned order was passed by order of the District Collector, who being the competent authority directed the D.R.O. Karimnagar and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar to take action. Therefore, the D.R.O. Karimnagar and Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar, were competent to pass orders dated 26.10.2003 and 22.11.2003 respectively and take action in light of the impugned order dated 24.10.2003.
f) Another contention raised by the Petitioners was that the impugned orders could not have been passed as proceedings before the Joint Collector, Karimnagar were already pending pursuant to the orders passed in the W.P. Nos. 2880 of 1999, 9527 of 1999, 14947 of 1999, 15014 of 1999, 9782 of 1999, 12002 of 1999, 12006 of 1999 and 14692 of 1999.
g) It needs to be clarified that no fresh enquiry/proceeding was conducted. The Petitioners' argument that fresh enquiry and hearing was conducted by the Joint Collector, Karimnagar and the same is pending for orders is misconceived. A perusal of the order in W.P. No. 9527 of 1999 clearly shows that no fresh/new enquiry was ordered by this Court. The Court therein 29 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch only directed the respondent authorities (including the District Collector) therein to act on the representation, if not already acted. The order in W.P. No. 9527 of 1999 is extracted below:
"Rule nisi. Revenue took notice for respondents 1 to 7. Learned Government Pleader for writ petition was heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
Notice to respondent No.8 at this stage is not necessary since I am not granting any relief. Hence notice to respondent No.8 in dispensed with.
The petitioners submitted applications on 16.7.1997, 18.5.1998 and subsequently also on 25.1.1999 to the respondents 2 and 3 to correct the entries in the revenue records including the pahanipatricks and also KhasraPahani (1954-55) from the year 1351 Fasli (1942 AD) in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.186, admeasuring Ac.17.35 guntas situated at Rekurthi village, Karimnagar mandal. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents 2 and 3 have not yet taken any steps to consider the applications. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider and dispose of theabove applications of the petitioners, if not already done, within a period of three months. from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (emphasis added) No costs."
h) As the enquiry was already conducted pursuant to order passed in W.A. 612 of 1997, no question of fresh enquiry arises. Further, the impugned orders took into consideration the orders passed in the abovementioned writ 30 KL,J W.P. No.25622 of 2003 & batch petitions of 1999. The contention of the Petitioners that fresh enquiry was undertaken by the Joint Collector, Karimnagar and the same is pending cannot be accepted.
i) Therefore, the impugned orders dated 24.10.2003, 26.10.2003 and 22.11.2003 are valid and are upheld.
8. Conclusion
i) In light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders cannot be set aside. Respondent No.5 i.e., Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar is hereby directed to implement the proceedings dated 22.11.2003 within two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
ii) The present Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petitions stand closed.
____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 22nd March, 2022 Mgr