Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T.C. Rajarathnam (Died) vs $ on 6 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION No.44992 OF 2018
% Dated 06.05.2022
#
T.C. Rajarathnam (died)
Resident of Chandragiri Village,
Chandragiri Mandal,
Chittoor District and two others ..... Petitioners
Vs.
$
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by Principal Secretary,
Revenue, Amaravati and five others ..Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 06.05.2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see
the fair copy of the Judgment?
MSM,J
wp_44992_2018
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
+ WRIT PETITION No.44992 OF 2018
% Dated 06.05.2022
#
T.C. Rajarathnam (died)
Resident of Chandragiri Village,
Chandragiri Mandal,
Chittoor District and two others ..... Petitioners
Vs.
$
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by Principal Secretary,
Revenue, Amaravati and five others ..Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Rama Mohan
^ Counsel for the respondent : Government Pleader for Revenue
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. AIR 1971 SC 2355
2. 1973 (1) An.W.R. 322
3. (2013) 3 SCC 182
4. (1956) 1 All E.R 855
5. (2007) 5 SCC 211
6. 1961 (2) An.W.R. 329
7. 2005 (2) ALT 62
8. 1999 (4) ALD 55
9. (1979) 4 SCC 642
10. 2008 (5) SCC 281
11. (1974) 3 SCC 318
12. (2010) 6 SCC 384
13. (2006) 3 SCC 224
14. AIR 1999 SC 3381
15. 1990 Crl.L.J 2149
16. (2010) 4 SCC 785
17. 2012 (10) SCC 734
MSM,J
wp_44992_2018
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.44992 of 2018
ORDER:
The long standing harassment of the mighty Government meted out to the original petitioner - T.C. Rajarathnam, who is a poor ryoth, depriving him from enjoying land of an extent of Ac.5-00 cents in S.No.78/2 (P) of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, though the litigation attained finality in the Hon‟ble Supreme Court lead to filing of this writ petition by the original petitioner - T.C. Rajarathnam, claiming writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the third respondent in including land of an extent of Ac.5-00 cents in S.No.78/2 (P) of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District from the list of properties prohibited from registration under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, by treating the same as Government land, despite granting patta under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, (for short „the Act‟) in favour of the original petitioner by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore, which is confirmed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in S.L.P.Nos.12594-12595 of 2016, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the law, so also to declare the rejection order of the fourth respondent dated Nil/09/2018 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, consequently, direct the sixth respondent to delete the subject land from the list of properties prohibited from registration under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908.
MSM,J wp_44992_2018 4 The case of the petitioners in brief is that Petitioner No.1/late T.C. Rajarathnam purchased land of an extent of Ac.5-00 cents in S.No.78/2 (P) of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District (hereinafter referred as „subject land) from one P. Padmanabhaiah through a registered sale deed in the year 1968 for valid consideration. The Estate of Mangalam Village was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Act. Petitioner No.1 submitted a claim under Section 11(a) of the Act before the then Settlement Officer, Nellore claiming ryotwari patta forr the land purchased by him. After conducting enquiry, examining the witnesses and verifying the records, the Settlement Officer, Nellore, granted ryotwari patta over the subject land in SR.No.13/11(a)81 CGR dated 19.09.1981.
The Director of Settlement, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has taken up suo-moto revision against grant of ryotwari patta under Section 5(2) of the Act, passed orders setting-aside the orders of the Settlement Officer, Nellore vide order in R.P.No.187/83 dated 20.08.1985.
Aggrieved by the order, Petitioner No.1 preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, A.P. Hyderabad, wherein the Commissioner set-aside the orders of Director of Survey and Settlements vide proceedings No.P3/2439/1985 dated 11.08.1985 and remanded the case to the Director of Settlements for fresh enquiry and disposal.
The Director of Settlements has again set-aside the orders of Settlement Officer, Nellore vide order dated 30.11.1991. The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, before whom revision was filed, has passed order vide Proc.No.P3/2104/92 MSM,J wp_44992_2018 5 dated 25.07.1994 duly allowing the revision and confirmed the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981. Since the orders of Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad, were not implemented by the District Collector, Chittoor, Petitioner No.1 filed W.P.No.25640 of 1995 before the High Court, the writ petition was disposed of on 17.11.1995 directing the Joint Collector, Chittoor to pass appropriate orders within two months.
Instead of implementing the orders passed by the Commissioner, the District Collector preferred W.P.No.5718 of 1997, which was allowed on 18.07.2000, setting-aside the orders of C.S.S. & L.R vide order dated 18.07.2000 and remanded the case to the Commissioner. The Commissioner of Appeals has taken up the remanded case for enquiry and confirmed the orders of Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981 vide order dated 30.05.2001.
In pursuance of the orders passed by the High Court in W.P.No.25640 of 1995 dated 17.11.1995, the District Collector, Chittoor issued instructions to the Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban in Ref.No.E1/2404/1992 dated 05.12.1996 to implement the orders of the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981, but the Tahsildar did not implement the orders. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner No.1 filed W.P.No.22970 of 2001 before the High Court to implement the orders of the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981. Parallel thereto, the District Collector, Chittoor also filed W.P.No.10566 of 2001 to quash the proceedings of Commissioner of Appeals in Proc.No.P3/1003/2000 dated 30.05.2001. The High Court at Hyderabad passed a common order in W.P.No.22970 of 2001 and W.P.No.10566 of 2001 dated 13.05.2003, whereby, W.P.No.10566 of MSM,J wp_44992_2018 6 2001 filed by the District Collector was dismissed and W.P.No.22970 of 2001 filed by Petitioner No.1 was allowed, confirming the orders of the Commissioner of Appeals, C.C.L.A, Hyderabad.
Thereupon, the District Collector filed W.A.No.1582 of 2003 against the orders in W.P.No.22970 of 2001 dated 13.05.2003 against Petitioner No.1, apart from filing another W.A.No.1644 of 2003 against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals on 18.09.2015, confirming the orders passed by the learned single Judge, holding that the grant of settlement patta dated 19.09.1981 has been accepted by the Court and the appellants are under legal obligation to effect necessary changes in the revenue records concerning the subject matter.
Instead of abiding by the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court, the District Collector, Chittoor preferred S.L.P.Nos.12594-12595/2016 before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court against W.A.Nos.1582 of 2003 and 1644 of 2003 dated 18.09.2005. The Division Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. As the respondents did not stop harassing Petitioner No.1 and did not implement the orders of this Court, Petitioner No.1 filed C.C.No.378 of 2016 and finally, the Tahsildar/Respondent No.6 implemented the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981 in the village accounts by acknowledged Petitioner No.1 as pattadar of the subject land. Though the orders of the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981 was implemented in all the village accounts in respect of the subject property in favour of Petitioner No.1, vide Khata No.642, the subject property was included in the list of properties prohibited MSM,J wp_44992_2018 7 from registration under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908, still presuming that the same is government land and vested with the Government, thereby virtually disabled Petitioner No.1 to deal with the subject property as per his wish.
It is contended that, Petitioner No.1 submitted a representation to the District Collector through Mee-Seva vide application No.TTA011800009702 dated 19.05.2018 with a request to the authority to delete the subject property from the list of properties prohibited from registration. The request of Petitioner No.1 was rejected on Ni./09/2019. It is contended that the rejection order of the Joint Collector/Respondent No.4 is perverse and without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on various grounds.
During pendency of the writ petition, Petitioner No.1 - T.C. Rajarathnam died and his legal representatives are brought on record as Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 as per the orders of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2021 dated 28.12.2021, as they are entitled to prosecute the proceedings, having succeeded the subject property.
The main grounds urged by Petitioner No.1 in the writ petition are that, when once the Hon‟ble Apex Court dismissed S.L.P.Nos.12594-12595/2016, confirming the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in W.A.Nos.1582 of 2003 and 1644 of 2003 dated 18.09.2005, wherein the order passed by Sri A.D.V.Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore in S.A.No.13/11(a)/81/CGR dated 19.09.1981 was upheld, inclusion of the land again in the list of properties prohibited from registration under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, is illegal, arbitrary and the respondents appears to have acted prejudicial to MSM,J wp_44992_2018 8 the interest of Petitioner No.1, even to implement the direction issued by various authorities. Though the respondents lost their long standing litigation in different Courts and authorities, including the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, subjecting Petitioner No.1 to harassment inventing a different story and inclusion of the subject land in the list of properties prohibited from registration under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 is without any basis. When once the patta was granted under Section 11(a) of the Act, Petitioner No.1 became the absolute owner of the property and the question of vesting the subject property on the government on the presumption that it is „Assessed Waste Dry‟ land in the pre-abolition record is nothing but flouting the orders of the Hon‟ble Apex Court and such conduct of the respondents is depreciable and thereby, the Endorsement of the Joint Collector/fourth respondent dated Nil/09/2018 in rejecting the request of Petitioner No.1 to delete the subject land from the list of properties prohibited from registration under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, is ex-facie illegal and arbitrary and requested to set-aside the same, while issuing a direction as claimed by Petitioner No.1.
Respondent No.3/Sri Hari Narayanan, District Collector, Chittoor, a senior I.A.S officer heading the entire district administration filed counter affidavit narrating the chequered history of the litigation regarding grant of patta in favour of Petitioner No.1 by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore under Section 11(a) of the Act. It is also contended that, for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act, the following conditions have to be fulfilled:
a. The land applied for, should be a ryoti land. b. The claimant should be a ryot.
MSM,J wp_44992_2018 9 c. The claimants should have been admitted into possession of the land prior to 01.07.1945 for agricultural purpose. It is contended that, in the present case, Petitioner No.1 has not satisfied the above three ingredients, but was granted ryotwari patta on belated claim petition against G.O.Ms.No.50 Revenue Department dated 16.01.1974. It is further contended that, grant of patta under Section 11(a) of the Act in favour of Petitioner No.1 is a grave error, as Petitioner No.1 is not a landholder and the landholder was not identified by the Settlement authorities. Post abolition documents are not valid documents for grant of ryotwari patta. There are many irregular orders issued by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore and the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued order on 25.04.1984 vide Memo No.486/J2/84-6, directing all the Collectors not to implement the orders of Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore, as the orders were issued by the Settlement Officer basing on post abolition agreement of sale. Therefore, the respondents are not under obligation to implement the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore. The third respondent further went on explaining the orders passed by various authorities and Courts, so also result of said litigations.
A strange contention is raised before this Court in second paragraph of Page No.4 of the counter affidavit of the third respondent that, connected S.R. file is already cancelled and the land was resumed to the Government on 30.12.1992 and at present, ryotwari patta granted in favour of T.C. Rajarathanam is not in force as the land was taken under Section 3(d) of the Estates Abolition Act, remains as AWD in the revenue records, technically.
MSM,J wp_44992_2018 10 The third respondent also admitted about implementation of the order mutating the name of Petitioner No.1 in the revenue records by the Tahsildar only to avoid punishment in C.C.No.378 of 2016. Therefore, mere mutation of the name of Petitioner No.1 in the revenue records would not confer any title to Petitioner No.1.
In obedience of the order of this Court in W.A.Nos.343 of 2015, 232 of 2012 and 353 of 2012 dated 23.12.2015, all the Government lands were categorized and notified in Annexure in Section 22-
A(1)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e) of the Registration Act, the present survey number is „Assessed Waste Dry‟ and included in the list of properties prohibited from registration, under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908. The specific contentions urged in the counter affidavit are specifically extracted hereunder for better appreciation of the case:
a. The then Settlement Officer, Nellore has granted ryotwari patta vide S.R.No.13/11(a)/1981, dt: 19.09.1981 basing agreement. This Settlement Officer has issued many irregular ryotwari pattas for communal lands. Hence Government has issued Memo No.486/J2/84-6, dt:
25.04.1984 and directed all the Collectors not to implement the orders of the Settlement Officer Sri A.D.V.Reddy.
b. The Government Memo is as follows "it has been brought to the notice of the Government by the some of the Collector and also a number of legislatures that Sri ADV Reddy retired Settlement officer has issued bogus settlement pattas both before and after his retirement. This has also been specially brought to the notice of the Government by the Collector's, Chittoor and Prakasam. There is thus the danger of valuable land going into the hands of unauthorized persons. The Director of Settlements has also cancelled such bogus pattas which were brought to notice in Prakasam District". The Commissioner Survey Settlement and Land records is requested to bring to the notice of all the collectors about the issue of bogus pattas by Sri A.D.V.Reddy and issue instructions to them not to implement the settlement pattas in village accounts. He may also issue necessary instructions to the Director of Settlements in this regard to get all bogus pattas cancelled at once and ensure that holders of such bogus pattas do not derive illegal benefit out of it.
MSM,J wp_44992_2018 11 c. In the present case, the then Settlement Officer relied on registered sale deed agreement and post abolition documents which are not valid for grant of ryotwari patta as per the provisions of E.A.Act, 1948."
The third respondent further submitted that, though the issue of Memo No.486/J2/84-6 dated 25.04.1984 was brought to the notice the authorities, for the first time in W.A.No.802 of 2002, W.A.No.1817 of 2005, W.A.No.731 of 2006 and W.P.No.8346 of 2002 dated 30.04.2011, the issue was submitted to the High Court and orders were passed in favour of the Government in Sy.No.46 to an extent of Ac.22-26 cents which is known as „Poolavanigunta‟ of Tirupati Urban Mandal. Therefore, believing that Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore mischievously granted patta under Section 11(a) of the Act in favour of the alleged allottees and those pattas were disbelieved and passed orders in favour of the Government. A disciplinary case was also pending against Sri A.D.V. Reddy. The Government issued memo directing the Collectors not to implement the orders passed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981. Later, vide G.O.Ms.No.1407 Revenue (F) Department dated 29.10.1986, a penalty of stoppage of pension @ 15% per month was imposed against Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore, for his misconduct and entertaining applications/claim petitions and their disposal without following the rules and instructions while working as Settlement Officer, Nellore. Therefore, based on such order of an officer who is found guilty for misconduct i.e Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore, this Court cannot issue a direction to delete the property from the list of prohibited properties and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
MSM,J wp_44992_2018 12 During hearing, Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel reiterated the contentions urged in the affidavit, while submitting that the chequered history regarding issue of patta under Section 11(a) of the Act, which ended in favour of Petitioner No.1 is sufficient to conclude that Petitioner No.1 became owner of the property, in view of the patta granted in his favour under Section 11(a) of the Act. Even the order passed by various authorities, learned single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court and finally due to dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, the order dated 19.09.1981 passed by Sri A.D.V Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore attained finality. But, the revenue authorities with adamancy did not implement the order dated 19.09.1981 and made Petitioner No.1 to roam around the courts to file one petition after the other. Even, after issue of direction by the High Court, the respondents did not implement the order, but only when contempt case was filed, the respondent/Tahsildar implemented the order mutating the name of Petitioner No.1 in all revenue records. The revenue authorities abused their power, at the instance of political bigwigs and again started another round of litigation by including the land in the list of prohibited properties from registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Though, Petitioner No.1 filed an application in an authorized mode by paying requisite fee, the fourth respondent/Joint Collector passed the rejection order dated Nil/09/2018 impugned in the writ petition, without any basis and without recording any reasons. Therefore, the inaction of the respondents is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and motivated to harass Petitioner No.1 to deprive him from enjoying the property.
MSM,J wp_44992_2018 13 It is further contended that the respondents raised a specific plea with regard to the legality of the order dated 19.09.1981. Hence, the legality of the order dated 19.09.1981 passed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore, is germane for deciding the real issue, since the patta granted by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer was confirmed even in the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while dismissing S.L.P.Nos.12594-12595/2016. Therefore, various pleas raised by the third respondent/District Collector regarding validity of the patta issued under Section 11(a) of the Act by the Settlement Officer, Nellore is irrelevant for deciding the real controversy in this petition and appears to have made an allegation with an intent to prejudice the Court and requested to set-aside the impugned endorsement i.e. rejection order of the fourth respondent/Joint Collector dated Nil/09/2018, while declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary.
Sri G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue vehemently contended that, Sri A.D.V Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore committed various irregularities and suffered from penalty in departmental enquiry initiated against him for the irregularities committed by him, while entertaining claims/petitions under Estates Abolition Act and issue of pattas in their favour, which attained finality, the government also issued Memo No.486/J2/84-6 dated 25.04.1984 not to implement the orders issued by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, which remained unchallenged. Apart from that, the proceedings issued granting ryotwari patta in favour of Petitioner No.1 were cancelled and the land was resumed to the government, since it is classified as „Assessed Waste Dry‟. Hence, the subject land is a government land and therefore, inclusion of the same in the MSM,J wp_44992_2018 14 prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act is in accordance with law and no irregularity is committed, thereby, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point that need be answered by this Court is as follows:
"Whether inclusion of Ac.5-00 cents in Sy.No.78/2 (P) of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Mandal, Chittoor District in the list of properties prohibited from registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, treating the same as government land, where patta granted in favour of this petitioner under Section 11-A of the Estates Abolition Act, as confirmed by the Apex Court is illegal. If not, whether the rejection order of the fourth respondent/Joint Collector dated Nil/09/2018 rejecting the request of this petitioner be declared as illegal, arbitrary and whether a direction be given to the respondents delete the property from the list of prohibited properties?"
P O I N T:
The chequered history narrated above regarding the litigation for issue of patta under Section 11(a) of the Act in favour of Petitioner No.1 by sriA.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore and finally confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1582 & 1644 of 2003 and affirmed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, while dismissing S.L.P Nos.12594-12595 of 2016 is not in quarrel.
Filing of writ petition challenging the inaction of the respondents in implementation of the patta issued in favour of MSM,J wp_44992_2018 15 Petitioner No.1 under Section 11(a) of the Act and orders passed thereon, including the contempt case filed by Petitioner No.1 in C.C.No.378 of 2018, implementation of the same, mutating the name of petitioner No.1 in the revenue records is also equally not in dispute.
The only dispute is with regard to validity of the patta issued by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore; impact of the Government Memo No.486/J2/84-6 dated 25.04.1984, directing the District Collectors not to implement the orders of the Settlement Officer, Nellore and imposition of punishment on the Settlement Officer in the departmental enquiry finding him guilty for the misconduct are to be examined by this Court while deciding the legality of the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned endorsement.
Patta granted in faovur of Petitioner No.1 under Section 11(a) of the Act is admitted by the third respondent in his counter affidavit. The allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are even not disputed specifically in the counter affidavit. Granting of patta in favour of Petitioner No.1 by the Settlement Officer, Nellore, its confirmation by the Division Bench of the High Court in W.A.Nos.1582 of 2003 and 1644 of 2003 dated 18.09.2005 and affirmation by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.12594-12595/2016 is sufficient to confer title on Petitioner No.1 for the subject property admeasuring Ac.5-00 in S.No.78/2 (P) of Mangalam Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, thereby, Petitioner No.1 became the owner of the property. For the first time, the respondents raised a contention that the patta granted in favour of Petitioner No.1 by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, MSM,J wp_44992_2018 16 Nellore and in favour of other claimants cannot be implemented, as the said Settlement Officer played fraud. If really, Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore granted any patta contrary to the law or without following rules and provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder, nothing prevented the third respondent or any of the other respondents to raise such plea before the learned single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court or before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. It is not known whether the respondents raised such plea or not. Even assuming for a moment that, without conceding that such plea was raised before the authorities under the Estates Abolition Act and in the writ petitions filed before the learned single Judge and Writ Appeals filed before the Division Bench of the High Court, so also Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court, such plea was negated and the order passed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore was confirmed. When once the respondents raised such plea and got rejected, it is not open to the respondents to raise the same contention in the present writ petition about the legality of the patta granted in favour of Petitioner No.1 by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore in the third or fourth round of litigation, since the issue was already decided.
Assuming for a moment that, no such plea was raised before the authorities under the Estates Abolition Act or before the High Court or Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the respondents are debarred from raising such issue for the first time in the present petition, by applying the principle of Constructive Res judicata i.e. to Explanation IV to Section 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code.
MSM,J wp_44992_2018 17 Therefore, examining the issue with reference to the plea of irregularities committed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore in issuing pattas in any angle, more particularly, raising such plea before the authorities and turned down by the authorities and the Court or if failed to raise such contention before the authorities and High Court and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the respondents are debarred from raising such contention for the first time in the writ petition, in view of the bar under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code.
One of contention of the parties before this Court is that, the language employed under Section 9 or Section 11 of the Estates Abolition Act, indicates that the authorities are required to pass an order, but not a judgment, but whereas, under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, only in case of previous judgment, the principle of res judicata is applicable. It is true that the word "decision" is used in the said sub-section and not "judgment". The definition of "judgment" given in Section 2 of Civil Procedure Code means the statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. The word "decision" is not defined in the Act at one time, a distinction was sought to be made between the word "decision" appearing in Section 64-A of the Estates Abolition Act and the word "judgment" as is used in the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that while the word "judgment" includes the reasons or grounds therefor, the "decision" may not include the reasons or grounds given therefor. Even in the case of judgment, it is now settled that "the previous decision on a matter in issue also operates as res judicata; the reasons for the decision are not res judicata.(vide Mathura Prasad vs. Dossibai1). In view of the decision, therefore, any distinction 1 AIR 1971 SC 2355 MSM,J wp_44992_2018 18 sought to be made between the two terms "decision" and "judgment" on the ground of reasons would not now be correct. The Legislature had never intended that the reasons or grounds on which a decision proceeds should be binding. It is the issues decided that would be binding upon the parties. The same meaning to the word "decision" is attributed as given to the term "judgment". Section 9 does not contain any provision on the lines of Explanation 4 to Section II, Civil Procedure Code. Even a decision of the Tribunal before whom a ground of attack or defence might and ought to have been raised in an enquiry under Section 9 of the Act is not raised, even then it would be deemed that it was a matter which would be directly and substantially in issue and the decision would operate even in regard to such matters as constructive res judicata and it will be open to the Tribunal to consider such matter again in a separate enquiry under Section 9.
In W.P.No.656 of 1966 dated 02.07.1968, the High Court had an occasion to consider this very question and held that, "There is no warrant for the arguments that under Section 9(6) it is only the decision which is expressly given that is binding. Any judgment given under Section 9(1) read with Section 9(4) is binding upon the parties will not be permitted to dispute its correctness before a Court of law and in the other case, it is binding upon the parties even in a subsequent proceeding before the Tribunal or the Assistant Settlement Officer". The said decision was carried in appeal and the judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide order in W.A.No.48 of 1970 dated 30.08.1971. Thus, the principles of constructive res judicata can be invoked under Section 9(6) in so far as this Court is concerned is now well settled.
MSM,J wp_44992_2018 19 In the instant case also, the order was passed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore under Section 11 of the Estates Abolition Act, but not a judgment. Even then, the principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata are applicable, in view of the law laid down by the Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Sri A. Padmanabha Swamy Varu2. Hence, by applying the principle laid down in the above judgment, it is not open to the respondents/Government to raise any pleas which were already considered and decided in different rounds of litigation. Even assuming for a moment that, if any such plea was raised, still the respondents are debarred from raising such plea by applying the principle of constructive res judicata, in view of Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the contentions whatever raised regarding the validity of the order dated 19.09.1981 passed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore needs no further consideration for adjudication of the issue before this Court. No order bears a label of its being valid or invalid on its forehead. Any one affected by any such order ought to seek redressal against the same within the period permissible for doing so (vide Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla vs. Hargovind Jasraj and another3) In Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council4. The following are the observations regarding the necessity of recourse to the Court for getting the invalidity of an order established:
"An order, even if not made in good faith is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders.
2 1973 (1) An.W.R 322 3 (2013) 3 SCC 182 4 (1956) 1 All ER 855 MSM,J wp_44992_2018 20 This must be equally true even where the brand of invalidity is plainly visible : for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the court. The necessity of recourse to the court has been pointed put repeatedly in the House of Lords and Privy Council without distinction between patent and latent defects."
In Pune Municipal Corporation v. State of Maharashtra and Ors5 , the Hon‟ble Apex Court discussed the need for determination of invalidity of an order for public purposes:
"36. It is well settled that no order can be ignored altogether unless a finding is recorded that it was illegal, void or not in consonance with law. As Prof. Wade states: "The principle must be equally true even where the 'brand of invalidity' is plainly visible:
for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the Court".
"The truth of the matter is that the court will invalidate an order only if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and circumstances. The order may be hypothetically a nullity, but the Court may refuse to quash it because of the plaintiff's lack of standing, because he does not deserve a discretionary remedy, because he has waived his rights, or for some other legal reason. In any such case the 'void' order remains effective and is, in reality, valid. It follows that an order may be void for one purpose and valid for another, and that it may be void against one person but valid against another."
In view of the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, it is settled law that, no invalidity be attached on the face of the order. Merely because the order was passed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore, a casual invalidity cannot be attached to such an order. Apart from that, the Government issued Memo No.486/J2/84-6 dated 25.04.1984 invalidating the orders of Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore, directing the District Collectors not to implement the orders passed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore, who was punished for his misconduct in the departmental enquiry. But, such memo is without notice to Petitioner No.1 and such instructions are not binding on Petitioner No.1. Therefore, Memo No.486/J2/84-6 dated 25.04.1984 whatever 5 (2007) 5 SCC 211 MSM,J wp_44992_2018 21 issued by the Government without notice to Petitioner No.1 directing the Collectors not to implement the orders of the Settlement Officer, Nellore is illegal, arbitrary and on such basis, the respondents cannot deny the relief to Petitioner No.1.
The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 is a welfare legislation, intended to acquire the rights of landholders in estates and other settlements, to divest them with all rights and vest all rights in cultivable lands in ryots in accordance with the principles laid down in the Act. Any violation of the provisions of the Act in granting of patta in violation of the provisions of the Act would amount to fraud on the statutes. So as to dispel any such criticism that in the case of implementation of the Act, unscrupulous persons were given patta, the legislature has reserved the power to revise any orders, acts or proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer or Settlement Officer in the Directorate. Such exercise of Revisional power under Section 5(2) of the Act is not subject to law of limitation and therefore, it is well settled that, in the absence of any provision prescribing limitation, the authorities have to exercise power within a reasonable time. Therefore, the main reason for vesting of power on the Settlement Officer is only to see that, no fraud be perpetuated. But, in the present facts of the case, the attempts were made by the Government to revise the order of Director of Settlement, ultimately the decision of Director of Settlements was turned down by the High Court and finally the matter was decided by the Supreme Court, now the issue cannot be re-opened by this Court to unsettle the settled decision and rights of the landholder.
MSM,J wp_44992_2018 22 When a patta was granted by the Settlement Officer in favour of the ryoth for the ryothi land, it is nothing but conferring title on the ryoth. Therefore, passing an order under Section 11(a) of the Act is only confirmation of the title to the ryothi, thereby he became the owner of the land and entitled to deal with the property as per his wish and will.
Section 11 of the Act is intended only for conversion of title to the ryoth, as defined in the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act. It does not allow the Government to acquire ryothi land and then allot it to grant the same or assign the land thus acquired to anyone, the government chooses. The Settlement Officer is not under obligation to consider the nature or character of the land under Section 15 og the Act when an application under Section 11 of the Act is filed for issue of ryotwari patta. In Venkata Subba Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh6, this Court held that, Section 11 envisages the issue of a ryotwari patta to a ryot in regard to lands which were included in his holding or ought to have been included. But the section does not mention as to who should grant the patta. It is well settled law that enquiry under Section 11 of the Act is only a summary enquiry and the authorities discharging the duties under the Act have no jurisdiction to declare the title to the property. In other words, no finality can be attached to any order passed by the authorities concerned under the Act and at best the said order has to be confined for the purposes of the Act and it cannot be stated that the judgment is in Rem. When a dispute arises between the contesting parties, the civil Court alone is competent to adjudicate the dispute irrespective of the decision of the authorities under Section 11 of the 6 1961 (2) An.W.R 329 MSM,J wp_44992_2018 23 Act. When once ryotwari patta is granted under Section 11(a) of the Act by the Settlement Officer after conducting enquiry, the right of the government to assign the land would automatically cease. (vide Duvvur Raja Gopala Reddy vs. District Collector7. Thus, from the law settled by this Court, when once patta is granted, the land will vest on the ryoth, but not on the government and it is final, subject to the revisions.
An identical issue came up for consideration before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Neerupaka Rama Krishna vs. Director of Settlements8, wherein the Court decided the issue relating to the validity of the patta granted under Section 11 of the Act and obligation of the State Government to implement the same. The facts in the above case before the High Court were that, writ petition questioning the show cause notice dated 28.02.1998 issued by the Director of Settlements in purported exercise of suo motu powers of revision proposing to cancel the order dated 27.05.1962 passed by the Additional Settlement Officer granting ryotwari patta under Section 11 of the Act on the ground that the said order is irregular, held as under:
"2. On an earlier occasion when the revenue authorities refused to implement the said order dated 27-5-1962, the petitioner herein filed WP No.10773 of 1996 for a direction to implement the said order. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on merits by an order dated 16-8-1996 upholding the validity of the order dated 27-5-1962 and the District Collector was directed to implement the same. Pursuant to the said directions of this Court on instructions from the District Collector, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Venkatagiri implemented the order dated 27-5-1962 on 26-9-1996 by making the necessary changes in the revenue records. The order passed in \VP No. 10773 of 1996 had become final as no writ appeal was filed against the same. Despite the said order passed by this Court, the first respondent has issued the impugned show-cause notice dated 28-2-1998.
3. In the face of the categorical findings recorded by this Court in \VP No.10773 of 1996 upholding the validity of the order dated 27-5-
7 2005 (2) ALT 62 8 1999 (4) ALD 55 MSM,J wp_44992_2018 24 1962, it docs not admit of any doubt that the first respondent has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in issuing the impugned show- cause notice dated 28-2-1998. The order passed in WP No. 10773 of 1996 clearly operates as res judicata. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue however contends that WP No. 10773 of 1996 was concerned with the issue of Pattadar Pass Book to the petitioner and the same has no bearing on the validity of the order dated 27-5- 1962. I am unable to agree with this submission. In the order dated 16-8-1996 passed in WP No.10773 of 1996 this Court has elaborately considered the self-same objections with regard to the truth and validity of the order dated 27-5-1962 and negatived the same and upheld the validity of the order dated 27-5-1962. It was therefore not open to the first respondent to reagitate the same question once again. That apart, there is absolutely no justification for the exercise of suo motu powers of revision by the first respondent after the lapse of more than 36 years. The writ petition is therefore allowed and the impugned show-cause notice is quashed. No costs." The principle laid down in the above judgment has a direct application to the present facts of the case, since the orders passed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore attained finality consequent upon dismissal of Special Leave Petitions filed by the Government before the hon‟ble Apex Court, against the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Even after attaining finality, the petitioner filed another W.P. No.22970 of 2001 seeking a direction to implement the order of the Settlement Officer. This Court passed an order directing the revenue authorities to implement the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Nellore in favour of Petitioner No.1. Despite the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. No.22970 of 2001 the respondents did not implement the order. Thereupon, C.C.No. 378 of 2016 was filed and the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Nellore was implemented by the Tahsildar. But the explanation now offered by the respondents is that, in view of the threat of contempt, the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981 is implemented, but not intended to implement the order. The contention of the respondents is nothing but browbeating the orders passed by this Court, including the Apex Court. This attitude of the revenue officials may lead to anarchy in MSM,J wp_44992_2018 25 its administration which leads to unsettle the settled rights of the parties and such practice is depreciable.
One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that, the patta was granted in favour of Petitioner No.1 by the Settlement Officer, Nellore, but as the connected S.R file was already cancelled, the land was resumed to the Government on 30.12.1992. Thus, the land is vested on the government, since it is classified as „Assessed Waste Dry‟ in the adangals and other revenue records. This contention directly amounts to disagreeing with the orders passed by the learned single Judge, Division Bench of the High Court and the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Such attitude of the revenue authorities is nothing but harassment of a citizen in all possible ways to deprive Petitioner No.1 from enjoying his property and it is in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such plea is not open and such contemptuous conduct of the revenue authorities is to be taken note by the courts to punish them appropriately by initiating contempt proceedings for flouting the orders passed by the learned single Judge, Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon‟ble Apex Court.
Fortunately, though the proceedings have attained finality in favour of Petitioner No.1 in various round of litigation, he underwent lot of turmoil, since the respondents made him roam around the Courts by filing different petitions. The respondents harassed Petitioner No.1 by abuse of their official position at the instance of third parties who are interested in the land, since the land is forming part of Tirupati Urban Mandal, which is in prime area. As Petitioner No.1 is no more, unless such harassment to Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 is MSM,J wp_44992_2018 26 put to an end by passing appropriate order, it would be difficult for the petitioners to enjoy the property as per their wish and will. Inclusion of the property in the adagnal and R.S.R as „Assessed Waste Dry‟ without issuing any notice and without passing any order is another administrative illegality committed by the respondents with an intent to deprive Petitioner No.1 from enjoying his rights over the property, as per the order dated Nil/09/2018 passed by Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Settlement Officer, Nellore under Section 11(a) of the Act.
Though the respondents lost all their cases at all levels up to Supreme Court, the respondents invented a different story that the land is government land and amended the entries in the revenue records and classified the same as „Assessed Waste Dry‟. But the District Collector is dare enough to make an allegation in the second paragraph of Point No.5 of Page No.4 in the counter affidavit that the connected S.R file is already cancelled and land was resumed to the Government on 30.12.1992. The cancellation of patta by the Government without notice to Petitioner No.1 and resumption of land by the government is a serious illegality. In fact, such plea was not raised before any of the courts, including the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. Nos.12594-12595 of 2016 so also before the Division Bench of the High Court in W.A.Nos.1582 and 1644 of 2003. Therefore, it is not open to the respondents to raise such contention by applying the Doctrine of Res Judicata, as discussed in earlier paragraphs.
Curiously, in Paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, an allegation is made that, in obedience of the orders passed by this Court in W.A.Nos.343 of 2015, 232 of 2012 and 353 of 2012 dated 23.12.2015, all the Government lands were MSM,J wp_44992_2018 27 categorized and notified in Annexure under Section 22-A(1)(a), (b),
(c), (d), (e). Since the subject land is Assessed Dry Waste, the same is included in the Annexure in terms of the directions issued by the Full Bench of the High Court in the judgments referred above. This strange contention is to be rejected prima facie, as the direction of this Court is only to notify the lands belonging to the government in the annexure under Section 22-(1)(A) of the Registration Act and communicate to the Registrars having jurisdiction over the area, but not directed to notify other land under Section 22-A in the list of prohibited properties from registration. When once a patta was granted in favour of Petitioner No.1 under Section 11(a) of the Act, the government is not entitled to resume the land, since the finding regarding the ryothi land and the person in possession of agricultural land was a ryoth has attained finality in various orders referred above. In Duvvur Raja Gopala Reddy vs. District Collector (referred supra), the Court clarified that, when once ryotwari patta is granted under Section 11(a) of the Act by the Settlement Officer after conducting enquiry, the right of the government to assign the land would automatically cease. Thus, it means that the government has no right over such land and treatment of such land covered by an order under Section 11-A of the Estates Abolition Act cannot be resumed and claimed by the Government to include the property in the list of prohibited properties. Therefore, the atrocious action of the State and it‟s subordinates is depreciable and unless such conduct of the officials of the State is scuttled at the threshold, the Courts will become prairies to encourage such unscrupulous officials to perpetuate MSM,J wp_44992_2018 28 unnecessary litigation and responsible for burdening the judiciary unnecessarily by their illegal acts.
Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, deals with prohibition of registration of certain documents. A bare reading at the section makes it clear that, the prohibition contemplated by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of the section relates to the status of the executants of the document relating to the properties owned by Religious/ Charitable/ Endowment/ Wakf institutions. The said provision of Section 22-A(1)(c) pre-supposes the title of the institution over the land and merely prohibits registration of the documents executed by those without authority. Therefore under Section 22-A(1)(c) only the persons who can execute the documents of the properties of the institutions be only sent but not a list of properties belonging to such institutions.
In the instant case on record, the reason mentioned by the Joint Collector for inclusion of the property in the list of prohibited properties under the impugned order vide D.Dis.F8/Tpt U/22 Lands/191/18 dated Nil/09/2018 is as follows:
"The Tahsildar, Tirupati has construed that the request of the applicant for deletion of the land in Sy.No.78-2 measuring an extent of Ac.5-00 cents of Mangalam Village in Tirupati Urban Mandal from Section 22-A(1) list cannot be considered, as the land is not sub-divided.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati has also recommended that the application of Sri T.C. Rajaratham s/o Chenchu Pillai for deletion of land in Sy.No.78-2P measuring an extent of Ac.5-00 cents of Mangalam Village in Tirupati Urban Mandal from Section 22-A(1) List is liable for rejection.
A perusal of entire order, despite recommendations made by the Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, for deletion of the subject property from the list of prohibited properties, by MSM,J wp_44992_2018 29 considering the Govt. Memo.No.486/J2/84-6 dated 25.04.84 and Govt.Memo.No.395/J2/84-2 dated 28.05.84, the request of Petitioner No.1 was rejected. But, the purport of the memos was not known to the respondents. Even otherwise, when the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 19.09.1981 is affirmed by the Supreme Court, such memos will not come in the way of Petitioner No.1 to claim title over the property. Therefore, inclusion of the subject property in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(1) without specifying the clause is an illegality. When an application was made by the petitioner according to the procedure prescribed under law, the order passed by the District Collector must disclose the reasons for such conclusion. Procedure of non- disclosure of reasons is against the spirit of the Act and the Rules.
On more than one occasion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, held that the reasons are the heart beat of any decision.
In H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt v. Commr., Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department9 the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court emphasized the Latin Maxim "cessante ratione legis, cessat lex ipsa" which means, when the reason for a law ceases, the law itself ceases.
In M/s.Steel Authority of India Ltd., v. STO, Rourkela-I Circle & Ors10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court testing the correctness of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax against the assessment, at Paragraph 10, held that, Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless.
9 (1979) 4 SCC 642 10 2008 (5) SCC 281 MSM,J wp_44992_2018 30 In Woolcombers of India Ltd. vs. Workers Union11 the Hon‟ble Apex Court while considering an award under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act insisted on the need of giving reasons in support of conclusions in the award. The Court held that the very requirement of giving reason is to prevent unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching conclusions. The second principle is based on the jurisprudential doctrine that justice should not only be done, it should also appear to be done as well. The learned Judges said that, a just but unreasoned conclusion does not appear to be just to those who read the same. Reasoned and just conclusion on the other hand will also have the appearance of justice. The third ground is that such awards are subject to Article 136 of Constitution of India jurisdiction of the Court and in the absence of reasons, it is difficult for this Court to ascertain whether the decision is right or wrong.
What an order shall contain normally is not specified anywhere but the order must be reasoned one since the judgment or order in its final shape usually contains in addition to formal parts:-
(i) A preliminary or introductory part, showing the form of the application upon which it was made, the manner in which and the place at which, the writ or other originating process was served, the parties appearing any consent, waivers, undertakings or admissions given or made, so placed as to indicate whether they relate to the whole judgment or order or only part of it, and a reference to the evidence upon which the judgment or order, is based and
(ii) A substantive or mandatory part, containing the order made by the Court" as has been said in Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edition, Volume 26 P. 260). Thus, in view of the requirements of an order or judgment referred above, an order pronounced on the bench shall contain the reasoning 11 (1974) 3 SCC 318 MSM,J wp_44992_2018 31 since the judge speaks with authority by his judgment. The strength of a judgment lies in its reasoning and it should therefore be convincing. Clarity of exposition is always essential. Dignity, convincingness and clarity are exacting requirements but they are subservient to what, after all, is the main object of a judgment, which is not only to do but to seem to do justice. In addition to these cardinal qualities of a good judgment, there are the attributes of style, elegance and happy phrasing which are its embellishments.
In the words of Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Sabyasachi Mukharji, the requirement of a good judgment is reason. Judgment is of value on the strength of its reasons. The weight of a judgment, its binding character or its persuasive character depends on the presentation and articulation of reasons. Reason, therefore, is the soul and spirit of a good judgment. Equity, justice and good conscience are the hallmarks of judging. One who seeks to rely only on principles of law, and looks only for the decided cases to support the reasons to be given in a case or acts with bias or emotions, loses rationality in deciding the cases. The blind or strict adherence to the principles of law sometimes carries away a judge and deviates from the objectivity of judging issues brought before him. Justice M.M. Corbett, Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Africa, recommended a basic structural form for judgment writing, which is as follows:
"(i) Introduction section;
(ii) Setting out of the facts;
(iii) The law and the issues;
(iv) Applying the law to the facts;
(v) Determining the relief; including costs; and
(vi) Finally, the order of the Court."
Keeping in view various principles and observations including the definition of order and judgment, the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines for writing judgments and orders in Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat vs. Saheli Leasing and MSM,J wp_44992_2018 32 Industries Limited12 para No. 7 of the judgment and they are extracted hereunder:
"7. These guidelines are only illustrative in nature, not exhaustive and can further be elaborated looking to the need and requirement of a given case:-
(a) It should always be kept in mind that nothing should be written in the judgment/order, which may not be germane to the facts of the case; It should have a co-relation with the applicable law and facts.
The ratio decidendi should be clearly spelt out from the judgment/order.
(b) After preparing the draft, it is necessary to go through the same to find out, if anything, essential to be mentioned, has escaped discussion."
(c) The ultimate finished judgment/order should have sustained chronology, regard being had to the concept that it has readable, continued interest and one does not feel like parting or leaving it in the midway. To elaborate, it should have flow and perfect sequence of events, which would continue to generate interest in the reader.
(d) Appropriate care should be taken not to load it with all legal knowledge on the subject as citation of too many judgments creates more confusion rather than clarity. The foremost requirement is that leading judgments should be mentioned and the evolution that has taken place ever since the same were pronounced and thereafter, latest judgment, in which all previous judgments have been considered, should be mentioned. While writing judgment, psychology of the reader has also to be borne in mind, for the perception on that score is imperative.
(e) Language should not be rhetoric and should not reflect a contrived effort on the part of the author.
(f) After arguments are concluded, an endeavour should be made to pronounce the judgment at the earliest and in any case not beyond a period of three months. Keeping it pending for long time, sends a wrong signal to the litigants and the society.
(g) It should be avoided to give instances, which are likely to cause public agitation or to a particular society. Nothing should be reflected in the same which may hurt the feelings or emotions of any individual or society."
Therefore, a judgment or an order shall contain the above seven minimum requirements. When judgment is pronounced without reasoning, it is not a judgment in the eye of law for the reason that the requirement of reasoning by Authority is to convey the mind of the authority while deciding such an issue before the 12 (2010) 6 SCC 384 MSM,J wp_44992_2018 33 Court. The object of the Rule in making it incumbent upon the authority for determination and to cite reasons for the decision is to focus attention of the authority on the rival contentions which arise for determination and also to provide litigant parties opportunity in understanding the ground upon which the decision is founded with a view to enabling them to know the basis of the decision and if so considered appropriate and so advised, to avail the remedy available. (vide G. Amalorpavam and others v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai and others13). From a bare reading of the principle laid down in the above judgment, the requirement of recording of reasons is only to show that the Court had focused concentration on rival contentions and to provide litigant parties an opportunity of understanding the ground upon which the decision is founded. Even if it is an order under the provisions of the Act, still these basic requirements cannot be ignored by authorities. In such case, a judge/authority is required to apply his mind and give focused consideration to rival considerations raised by both parties. Such order or judgment without independent consideration is not legally sustainable since Courts do not act blindly or mechanically and pass orders or judgments. Courts/authorities ought to be cautious and only on being satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved despite being in admission, should proceed to pass judgments (vide Balraj Taneja and another v. Sunil Madan and another14). The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage, a decision without reasons is like grass without root, the requirement to record reasons is one of the principles of natural justice as well and where a statute required recording of 13 (2006) 3 SCC 224 14 AIR 1999 SC 3381 MSM,J wp_44992_2018 34 reasons in support of the order, it must be done by the authorities concerned as held by the Apex Court in S.M. Mukerji v. Union of India15. The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and the resultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all concerned in the justice administration system. Despite heavy quantum of cases in the Courts, in the view of Courts, it would neither be permissible nor possible to state as principle of law that while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly judgment of Courts in appeal before in High Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The Doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials, firstly; a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard, secondly; the concerned authority should follow fair and transparent procedure and lastly; the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matters by reasoned order or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by Courts in India and abroad (vide Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. M/s. Shukla and others16).
Even otherwise, it is the duty of the Court/authority to state its reasons on each issue by due application of mind, clarity of reasoning and focused consideration; a slipshod consideration or cryptic order or decree without due reflection on issues raised in the matter may render such decree unsustainable and therefore hasty adjudication must be avoided and each and every matter that comes to the Court must be examined with seriousness it deserves, as held 15 1990 Crl.L.J.2148 16 (2010) 4 SCC 785 MSM,J wp_44992_2018 35 by the Supreme Court in Board of Trustees of Martyr Memorial Trust and another v. Union of India and another17. From the principles laid down in the above judgments, the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent/Joint Collector is nothing but a slipshod one without focused consideration on the issues raised by petitioners. In such case, the same cannot be sustained, since the order passed by the administrative authorities must disclose the reasons. But the order impugned in the writ petition is bereft of any reasons. Therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside, as it is in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to law. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
In the result, writ petition is allowed declaring the action of the third respondent/District Collector in inclusion of the land to an extent of Ac5-00 in S.No.78/2 (P) of Mangalam village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, by treating the same as Government land as illegal and arbitrary; with the following directions:
(a) The rejection order dated Nil/09/2019 passed by the fourth respondent/Joint Collector is declared as illegal, arbitrary and the same is set-aside.
(b) Consequently, the sixth respondent/Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban Mandal is directed to delete the subject land in Sy.No.78/2 (P) to an extent of Ac.5-00 in Mangalam village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District from the list properties prohibited 17 2012 (10) SCC 734 MSM,J wp_44992_2018 36 from registration under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908;
It is needless to mention that, failure to comply with the above order may lead to serious consequences. No costs.
The miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 06.05.2022 Note:LR copy to be marked b/o SP