Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Chapati Ramachandra Reddy S/O Pulla ... vs The Government Of A.P. Rep. By Its ... on 4 March, 2014
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION No.16778 of 2007
04-03-2014
Chapati Ramachandra Reddy s/o Pulla Reddy and another....Petitioners
The Government of A.P. rep. by its District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District
and others..... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners:Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 and 5:G.P for Land Acquisition and G.P
for Roads and Buildings
Counsel for the fourth respondent:Sri C.Venkata Yadav :
<Gist :
>Head Note:
?Cases referred:
1 2011 (2) ALT 2
2 2011 (2) ALD 48
3 2009 (3) ALT 419
4 2013 (2) ALD 575
5 2012 (6) ALD 260
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION No.16778 of 2007
Dated 04th March, 2014
O R D E R:
This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed, seeking the following relief:
"To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamaus declaring the action of the respondents herein in attempting to lay a Ring Road through the lands in an extent of Ac.0.86 cents in Sy.No.291/2A/1, Ac.1-43 cents in Sy.No.291/2A & 2B, Ac.0-05 cents in Sy.No.293/1A and Ac.0-14 cents in Sy.No. 294/2A respectively situated at Pulivendula Village fields, Pulivendula Taluq, Kadapa District, belong to the petitioners herein as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the procedure envisaged under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein after referred to as the Act, 1894 and violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to take possession of the lands in an extent of Ac.0-86 cents Sy.No.291/2A/1, Ac.1-43 cents in Sy.No.291/2A &2B, Ac.0-05 cents in Sy.No.293/1A and Ac.0-14 cents in Sy.No.294/2A respectively situated at Pulivendula Village fields, Pulivendula Taluq, Kadapa District belongs to the petitioners, without payment of compensation and pass such other order or orders."
2. Briefly stated, the pleaded case of the petitioner is, as under:
By way of registered sale deeds dated 31.12.1989 and 15.12.1993, petitioners purchased the lands admeasuring Ac.5-60 cents in S.No.291/2/A/1, Ac.1-60 cents out of Ac.5-00 cents in Sy.No.291/2/A2, Ac.0-14 cents in Sy.No.293/1A and Ac.0-30 cents in Sy.No.294/2 situated at Pulivendula Village fields, Pulivendula Taluq, Kadapa District. Petitioners have planted Neem, Mango and Teak trees and the yield of the same is their livelihood and the respondents 2 and 3 have also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the said lands in favour of the petitioners. With the apprehension that the respondents would form a Ring Road through the subject lands without recourse to law, petitioners earlier filed W.P.No.7366/2006 before this Court and this Court disposed of the same vide order dated 17.04.2006, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners without recourse to law, and in the event if the same is required, it would be open to the respondents to proceed as per law. Assailing the action of the respondents in treating the subject lands as assigned lands, offering to pay the compensation as per G.O.Ms.No.1307 (Assignment-I) Department, dated 23.12.1993 and contending that the subject lands are private lands and that the petitioners' lands need to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, it is pleaded that on the requisition made by the Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Pulivendula, for acquisition of Ac. 27-84 cents in Sy.Nos.8/2 etc., situated at Pulivendula Village for formation of Ring Road, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pulivendula, submitted the draft declaration and draft notification and the draft declaration proposals and the award for the patta lands was passed following the due procedure and D.K.T lands were resumed and have been given possession to the Roads & Buildings Department physically on 08.11.2006. Counter further states that in respect of the said D.K.T lands, ex-gratia is payable as per G.O.Ms.No.1307 (Assignment-I) Department dated 23.12.1993 subject to eligibility. It is further stated that since the petitioners purchased the assigned lands which is forbidden under Section 3 (2) and (3) of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, they are not entitled for any compensation.
4. A counter is filed by the fourth respondent-Municipality stating that neither it is concerned with the lands acquired nor with the execution of work.
5. A reply to the counter of respondents 1 to 3 is filed by the writ petitioners stating that the subject lands are private patta lands and not assigned lands.
6. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and Sri C.Venkata Yadav, learned counsel for the fourth respondent/Municipality.
7. Contentions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri:
Petitioners purchased the subject lands through registered sale deeds baring Document Nos.2561 and 2172 dated 31.12.1989 and 15.12.1993 respectively, and the respondents 2 and 3 issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners for the subject lands. Instead of following the due process of law as envisaged by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the respondent authorities issued notice to the petitioners vide reference No.E/299/2006 dated 28.10.2006, which is interpolated as 14.11.2006. When the petitioners through the second respondent tried to appraise of the nature of property as private patta lands but not assigned lands, the second respondent refused to consider their request and refused to mark their presence, but simply received the photostat copies of the registered sale deeds and pattadar passbooks. To their utter surprise, the petitioners received notice in Ref.No.lE/888/2006, dated 07.11.2006, wherein it was observed that neither the petitioners appeared before the second respondent nor produced any record. The subject lands are private patta lands and not assigned lands and that the lands have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the predecessors of the petitioners since 1915 and the encumbrance issued by the Registrar, Pulivendula clearly discloses the nature of the property. Respondents herein purposefully categorised the subject lands as assigned lands only at the instance of the local political leaders.
The second respondent except stating that the subject lands are assigned lands failed to furnish the particulars of D-Form pattas. Action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. There were several transactions since 1915 and from the date of pre-independence land has been transferred several times from one person to another for valuable consideration by way of registered sale deeds. Respondents except stating that the subject lands were originally classified as Assessed Waste as per R.S.R and assigned to landless poor persons and that the petitioners have purchased the assigned lands, utterly failed to furnish the particulars as to when the subject lands were classified as Assessed Waste and when and in whose name the assignment was granted and in whose name the land was initially alienated contrary to the terms and conditions of the alleged assignment. The procedure envisaged under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 cannot be pressed into service without putting the assignee on notice in whose name the assignment was granted and also the purchasers.
8. Contentions of the learned Government Pleader:
The subject lands are originally classified as Assessed Waste as per R.S.R and the lands were assigned to landless poor. Writ petitioners purchased the assigned lands by way of registered documents executed in the year 1989 and 1993. Writ petitioners were issued notice to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu on 06.11.2006 with relevant records to show their title over the lands in question and even though notice was served on the petitioners, they did not appear nor submitted any representation. As per the assignment conditions D.K.T lands shall not be sold to anybody and in violation of the assignment conditions writ petitioners purchased the D.K.T lands, as such, the transactions are null and void. Taking into consideration all the aspects, the lands have been resumed by invoking Condition No.17 of the D.K.T patta for the public purpose vide proceedings E/1126/2006 dated 08.11.2006 by the second respondent. Petitioners are not eligible for any relief since they purchased D.K.T lands and the lands were given possession to the requisition department i.e., Roads & Buildings Department, Pulivendula, physically on 08.11.2006 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pulivendula.
As per Section 3 (2) and (3) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the D.K.T lands shall not be sold to anybody nor shall be purchased by anybody and the purchaser of D.K.T lands is not entitled for any compensation.
9. In the light of the pleadings, submissions and contentions, now the points which fall for consideration of this Court in the present writ petition are, as to whether the respondent authorities are justified in invoking the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and whether they are justified in refusing to pay compensation to the petitioners under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
10. It is the case of the petitioners herein precisely that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject private property having purchased the same by way of registered sale deeds dated 31.12.1989 and 15.12.1993 and the revenue authorities have also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour after following the due procedure contemplated under the A.P Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and that the encumbrance certificate also shows that the lands are private patta lands and that invocation of the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 is impermissible in view of various transactions from the year 1915. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the subject lands are assigned lands and they were assigned in favour of landless poor and the lands were originally classified as Assessed Waste as per R.S.R and since the petitioners possess the same, they are not entitled for any compensation.
11. On instructions and directions of this Court, the record pertaining to the present subject matter is made available. In view of the interpolations in respect of the dates of show-cause notice as 14.11.2006 in the place of 28.11.2006 and passing the order of resumption on 07.11.2006 and asking the petitioners to appear on 27.11.2006 and in view of the recital in the final order dated 07.11.2006 asking to appear on 06.11.2006 by way of notice dated 28.10.2006, this Court is not inclined to give any sanctity and weight to the manner in which the said proceedings were conducted by the authorities and there is absolutely no clarity in the proceedings, as such, the proceedings are liable to be invalidated and cannot be relied upon. While dealing with the entries in R.S.R under Registration Act, this Court in MADIGA PAPANNA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 1 at paragraphs 4, 6 and 7, held as follows:
"4. A counter affidavit is filed by Respondent No. 3 wherein it is inter alia admitted that pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in favour of the Petitioner. It is further averred that the Petitioner has obtained the same by misleading the revenue authorities. Respondent No. 3 has maintained that the land in Sy. No. 174 is classified as 'Government AW' in Re-settlement Register (R.S.R.) of 1908 and the pattadar column was kept blank with dots. Except stating that the R.S.R. has described the land as 'Government AW', no other revenue record has been referred to in the counter affidavit nor has been produced by the Respondents at the time of hearing.
6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that since there is a dispute regarding title, the Petitioner will have to get his title declared by approaching the competent civil court.
7. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. In view of the settled legal position that mere entry in R.S.R. will not constitute proof of title and in the absence of any other revenue record showing the land as Government land, it cannot be said that there is a dispute regarding title. At any rate, mere registration of a conveyance deed does not create title in the transferee. If the Government feels that the property belongs to it, it can always avail appropriate remedy to assert its title and claim the property. Mere registration of the sale deed would not come in the way of the Government in asserting its right and availing appropriate remedy."
In the case of B.JAYA RAGHAVA NAIDU v. RAMA SUBBA REDDY2, this Court at paragraph 6, held as follows:
"From the facts noted above, while thee is overwhelming evidence in respect of the petitioners' plea that the lands are treated as private lands and registered transaction has taken place as far back as 1947 and revenue records such as pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioners' father, the stand of the respondents treating the property as Government land, cannot prima facie be appreciated. As held by this Court as noted above, mere entries in R.S.R or A-Register will not offer conclusive proof of ownership of the land. Therefore, I do not find any justification for respondent No.4 to refuse to receive the documents and register the same."
In the case of P.SURESH v. A.P. STATE3, this Court at paragraphs 7 and 9, held as follows:
"7. In the next sentence, it is averred that the registrations are held up by applying the prohibition contained under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 9 of 1997. The only basis pleaded by the respondents is the R.S.R. prepared by the Revenue Department and printed in the year 1909. It appears that the respondents have taken the state of affairs to remain the same for a century, notwithstanding the change of regimes and change of Governments.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and it is held that the land in Survey No. 602 shall be treated as patta land and the 3rd respondent shall entertain the sale deeds that may be presented by the petitioners, without reference to any prohibition contained under any enactment vis-a-vis the said land. There shall be no order as to costs."
In the case of GADDAM LINGAIAH v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA DISTRICT4, this Court at paragraphs 5 to 9, held as follows:
"5. Instances galore where the persons, who are recognized as rightful owners not only by being allowed to purchase under registered documents decades ago but also by issuing the pattadar passbooks, are being deprived of their right to transfer the properties by way of sale, mortgage etc. While the efforts of the official functionaries for protecting the Government properties always deserve to be appreciated, in the guise of such protection, they cannot be permitted to harass the innocent citizens by driving them to the courts again and again by styling the private lands as Government lands without any shred of evidence in support thereof.
6. If respondents 1 to 3 really felt that the property in question is the Government land, it defies any logic and reason as to why they have been keeping quiet without recovering the property from the petitioner. Far from doing so, the rights of the petitioner were well recognized by them by issuing pattadar passbooks as far back as the year 1994. This Court is unable to comprehend as to by merely preventing registration, will the Government gain anything? Except curtailing the right of a private party to enjoy the property as he likes, it results in nothing. Only at the time of registration, the revenue authorities appear to be preventing registration without doing anything further to safeguard and protect the so called Government properties and to recover the possession thereof. This attitude of the revenue officials being supported by the registering authorities is creating a situation where needless litigation is being promoted driving the citizens to resort to needless and frivolous litigation.
7. Time and again this Court has been holding that mere registration of the document will not create any title in the purchaser, unless such title is vested in the vendor himself. While preventing registrations on frivolous objections, Government is only denying itself of the revenue without doing anything else. As observed above, there are no instances where the possession of the properties, which are found to be in the Government list, is sought to be recovered by the revenue authorities. Not only that the litigants are vexed with this sort of litigation, but this Court feels that it is time that litigation of this nature is put an end to. Unless the Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh intervenes and finds a proper solution to this vexed problem, the litigation of this nature may continue unabated.
8. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any justification in respondent No. 5 refusing to register the document presented by the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned endorsement of respondent No. 5 and the order of respondent No. 4 confirming the said endorsement are set aside. The respondent shall pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner.
9. The Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to personally examine the issue and issue appropriate instructions to the Principal Secretaries of the Revenue and Stamps and Registration to work out the modalities strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 22-A of the Act to ensure that the revenue officials, such as Tahsildars, do not include the private properties in the Government list, unless the revenue record unambiguously shows that the properties belong to the Government, and the registering authorities do not refuse to entertain the documents simply on the basis of the list sent by the Tahsildars and other revenue officials."
In an unreported judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.27249 and 28393 of 2007, dated 16.02.2009, this Court held as under:
"...Be that as it may, when the Government itself incorporated conditions prohibiting alienation for the first time in the year 1954, it is just unimaginable as to how the same condition would operate for the assignments made two decades earlier thereto. Another aspect of the matter is that a purchaser of an assigned land virtually enjoys the possession adverse to the interest of the Government and with the expiry of thirty {30} years stipulated under the Limitation Act, 1963, he acquires ownership rights by way of prescription. The uncertainty prevailing about the nature of the assignment and the condition therefor is sought to be put against the assignees and the subsequent transferees, and the Revenue authorities are making attempt to turn the benefit of doubt in their favour. ..."
In the case of P.SRINIVASULU AND OTHERS v. SUB-REGISTRAR, RENIGUNTA, CHITTOR5, this Court at paragraph 15, held as under:
"15. The purpose and object of newly amended provision under Section 22-A, into the Registration Act, is to prevent transfer of land belonging to Government and Religious Institutions. At the same time, whenever there is a bona fide claim with regard to title and possession by any third party, such claim cannot be curtailed merely on the ground that such land belonging to either Government or Religious Institutions. The complicated questions with regard to title and possession cannot be gone into by the respondents by preventing transfer of lands in exercise of the power under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. When there is a bona fide claim by a private person in respect of immovable property of the Government or Religious Institution or any Local Body, covered by Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act, it is for such Government, Religious Institution of Local Body to approach competent forum or Court to establish their right. But the claim of the bona fide purchaser cannot be deprived of, by preventing transfer of lands making communications to the Registering Authorities. It is also to be noticed that the sale deeds were executed as early as in 1981, 1983 and 1985 and since last 31 years the father of the first petitioner and after his death the first petitioner are in continuous possession of the subject land. At this point of time, respondents cannot create any cloud on the title of the first petitioner either by disputing the validity of the resolution authorizing the Life Trustee to execution of sale deeds or on the ground that such sales were effected without prior approval of the Commissioner of Endowments."
12. In the R.S.R produced before this Court, at Column No.4 'G' is mentioned and at Column No.16 'dots' are given. As per the ratio laid down in the above referred judgments, the same cannot be the basis for holding that it is a Government assigned land. In the Assigned Land Register at Column indicating the name of the assignee against the survey No.291/2/A, name of one Sri Saireddi Veera Venkata Reddy is shown at Sl.No.47 and there is no mention as to when the land was assigned, as such, no inference can be drawn in favour of the respondent authorities and against the petitioners herein with regard to the nature of the land and as to when assignment was made. In '1-B' Register produced before this Court, Adangal clearly shows the names of the petitioners at Column No.4 and at Column No.3 patta number is also given. The encumbrance certificate filed along with the writ petition, in clear and unequivocal terms, shows the transactions right from the year 1943. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to the issuance of title deeds and pattadar passbooks by the revenue authorities under the provisions of A.P Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. In view of the above settled legal position and the voluminous evidence produced by the petitioners herein before this Court including the encumbrance certificate and the 1-B Register and the Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds issued by the revenue authorities under 1971 Act, this Court absolutely has no hesitation to reject the stand of the respondent authorities and to accept the case of the petitioners herein.
13. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the various entries in the revenue records and various transactions in respect of the subject lands, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents herein to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of the lands of the petitioners herein for payment of compensation in respect of the lands of the petitioners in an extent of Ac.0.86 cents in Sy.No.291/2A/1, Ac.1-43 cents in Sy.No.291/2A & 2B, Ac.0-05 cents in Sy.No.293/1A and Ac.0-14 cents in Sy.No. 294/2A respectively, situated at Pulivendula Village fields, Pulivendula Taluq, Kadapa District, as per law. The said exercise shall be finalised within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this Order. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. _________________ A.V.SESHA SAI,J Date: 04-03-2014