Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... vs C.V. Narasimha Rao And Ors. on 9 November, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(1)ALT516
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
ORDER P.S. Narayana, J.
1. This Court on 15-10-2003 while deciding C.R.P.No. 5613/2000, W.P.No. 1718/2001, W.P.No. 2669/97, Tr.A.S.No. 213/2002, W.A. Nos. 231 and 321 of 2001 observed, as far as W.A.Nos. 231 and 321 of 2001 are concerned, as hereunder:-
W.A.No. 231/2001 is filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mahabubnagar, against the order dated 24-3-2001 in Rev. Petition No. 1404/2000 in W.P.No. 12815/99. Likewise, W.A. No. 321/2001 is filed as against the order in W.P.No. 12815/99 dated 27-12-1999.
No doubt, in W.P.No. 12815/99, direction was given to initiate land acquisition proceedings. It is needless to say that these Writ Appeals cannot be disposed of at this stage on merits for the reason that the Appeal preferred by the Government is pending before the 2nd respondent in W.P.No. 1718/2001 and already a direction was issued to dispose of the matter expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months. Hence, liberty is given to the parties to make a mention after the disposal of the Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad.
Hence, no order need be passed at this stage in these Writ Appeals. Liberty is given to make a mention at the appropriate stage as specified supra.
Since representation was made that the State Government and the Local Body have been taking steps to question the dismissal of the Appeal by Commissioner of Appeals, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, which was said to be pending at that time, the aforesaid W.A.Nos. 231 and 321 of 2001, were being adjourned by this Bench. The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Mahabubnagar, filed W.P. No. 827/2005 questioning the order of the Commissioner of Appeals, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, made in proceedings No. V2/850/98, dated 7-4-2004, and a learned Judge of this Court while admitting the Writ Petition directed the same to be posted along with the connected Writ Appeals aforesaid and that is how all these 3 matters are coming up before this Court for final hearing.
2. At the outset, it may be observed that there is no serious controversy between the parties on the aspect that the result of the Writ Appeals would substantially depend upon the result in W.P.No. 827/2005. In view of the same, all these matters are being disposed of by this Court by a common Order.
3. Contentions of Sri Prakash Reddy:-
Sri Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 827/2005 and the appellant in the Writ Appeals made the following submissions:-
The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the different provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (in short here-in-after referred to as 'the Act') and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 (in short here-in-after referred to as 'the Rules') and would maintain that in the light of the admitted facts, it is clear that the land in question is non-agriculture and hence the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction at all to entertain such dispute inasmuch as the land in question for sufficiently a longer time had been a non-cultivable land or land on which the buildings have been in existence. The learned senior Counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the written arguments and also the grounds of Appeal and certain of the findings recorded by the 1st respondent in W.P.No. 827/2005 in the impugned Order and would contend that though this ground was not raised, specifically in clear terms inasmuch as from the facts it can be definitely taken that the land has been a non-cultivable land and it cannot be said to be an agricultural land at all, Section 9 of the Act would be attracted and hence in view of Section 24(2) of the Act read with Rule 18(2) of the Rules, Special Tribunal alone will have jurisdiction. The learned Counsel also pointed out that from facts it is clear that the land in question is being utilized for non-agricultural use even from 1942 and the dispute is in relation to Acs.2-02 gts. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 2(k) of the Act, Section 4(1)(c) of the Act, Section 23 of the Act, and would maintain that in view of the fact that the necessary ingredients to bring the dispute under Section 23 and Section 9 of the Act having been established though the want of jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to entertain the dispute had not been specifically raised, the said question may have to be considered and inasmuch as the 1st respondent had not considered this crucial question, touching the root of the matter, the impugned Order may have to be set aside, the matter may have to be remanded to the 1sr respondent for reconsideration again. The learned senior Counsel also explained the nature of relief prayed for in the Writ Petition. The learned senior Counsel narrated several factual details and had stressed on the aspect that when the land in question ceased to be agricultural land, the Tribunal alone should decide such question in the light of the different provisions of the Act, the scheme and the object of the Act and also the Rules framed there-under. The learned Counsel also made certain submissions relating to the meaning of personal cultivation, the vesting of the property and other ancillary questions. The learned senior Counsel also explained that after coming to know about the grant of certificate, the implead application was filed, the existence of the school and the park are well reflected from the pahanies and these being public documents, there cannot be any serious controversy relating to the existence of buildings on the land in question. The learned senior Counsel also pointed out that though there is some delay in preferring the appeal, an application for condonation of delay also was filed and in view of the fact that the appeal was admitted and stay had been granted, it can be taken that the delay had been condoned, even otherwise if from the date of knowledge, the same to be reckoned with, the delay is not inordinate. The learned senior Counsel also would contend that at any rate this is a fit matter which may have to be remitted to the 1st respondent in the Writ Petition aforesaid. The learned senior Counsel also would maintain that the result in the Writ Appeals would substantially depend upon the result of the Writ Petition.
4. Contentions of Sri Mahipathi Rao:-
Sri Mahipathi Rao, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents made elaborate submissions on the aspect of condonation of delay and the very appeal was preferred after a long lapse of 11 years and no separate application for condonation of delay as such had been filed and even otherwise, the delay had not been explained inasmuch as several conflicting affidavits were filed in relation thereto. The learned Counsel also explained that even if the knowledge of the District Development Officer to be taken, even then the delay is inordinate and had not been explained and such appeal, in fact, is incompetent. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on Ragho Singh v. Mohan Singh and A. Nagaiah and Ors. v. The Collector, Ranga Reddy District and Ors. 1988 (2) APLJ 454. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to the finality of the findings which had been recorded in the civil proceedings and would maintain that the Judgments of the Civil Courts may have to be given due regard and such Judgments may have to be given effect to. The learned Counsel also pointed out that on the plea of joint possession a suit for partition was filed wherein a Preliminary Decree was passed. The date of the Preliminary Decree and the observations made in the prior proceedings had been pointed out. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on a decision in Section Veera Reddy and Anr. v. Chetlapalli Chandraiah and Ors. 1995(2) ALT 172 (D.B.).. The learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents also had furnished the important dates of the case and the events while filing the suit O.S.No. 96/73 for partition and separate possession of Acs.2-02 gts. and the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2, District Collector and Zilla Parishad Secretary and the Appeal A.S.No. 93/74 on the file of District Judge, Mahaboobnagar and S.A.S.R.No. 33805/76 for condonation of delay and the order of Revenue Divisional officer in proceedings for occupancy rights certificate and the appeal to Collector and I. A.No. 198/80 for passing of final decree in pursuance of preliminary decree in O.S.No. 96/73, A.S.No. 60/82, C.M.A.No. 1010/84 and the withdrawal thereof, final decree made in I.A.No. 198/80, I.A.No. 110/96 in I.A.No. 198/80 in O.S. No. 96/73, order in C.M.A.No. 42/96, order in I.A.No. 110/96 in I.A.No. 198/80 in O.S. No. 96/73, the filing of W.P.No. 2669/97, E.P.No. 21/97, the grounds in C.R.P. No. 4345/98 and the order made therein and W.P.No. 12815/99 being allowed by this Court and the Review petition No. 1404/2000, C.R.P.No. 3261/99, C.R.P.No. 5613/2000, W.P.No. 2669/97, Appeal filed by the Zilla Parishad before the Collector, Mahaboobnagar and the Appeal being made over to the Commissioner of Land Revenue in W.P.No. 17473/88 and the further details relating to W.P.No. 827/2005 being filed and also the Writ Appeals referred to supra being filed as against the order made in W.P.No. 12815/99 and also the Review W.P.M.P.No. 1404/2000. The learned Counsel also would maintain that inasmuch as the value of the property as stated by the opposite party to be taken into consideration, the said question need not be again decided and in view of the long pendency of these litigations, specific directions can be given in the Writ Appeals to straightaway pay such value of the property as compensation to the successful parties.
5. Heard the Counsel on record and also perused the material on record.
W.P.No. 827 of 2005:-
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mahaboobnagar, filed W.P. No. 827/2005 praying for an order or direction, more particularly, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to call for records relating to and connected with the proceedings of the 1st respondent in proceedings No. V2/850/98, dated 7-4-2004, and to set aside the same and pass such other suitable orders. The impugned order was made by the Commissioner of Appeals, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad. Writ of Mandamus literally means a command and it differs from the Writs of Prohibition or Certiorari in its demand for some activity on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed. Mandamus is a command issued to direct any person, Government, Corporation, inferior Court to which a particular specified thing which appertains to the Office and which is in the nature of a public duty. It may be true that when the Tribunal declined to consider the aspects, which the Tribunal is bound to consider according to law, a Writ of Mandamus may be issued commanding the Tribunal to proceed according to law. In State of Bihar v. Ganguly AIR 1958 SC 1018 it was held that Mandamus is available against any public authority including administrative and local bodies, whereas prohibition and certiorari will lie only against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. A Wit of Certiorari may be issued whenever any body of persons (i) having legal authority, (ii) to determine questions affecting rights of subjects, (iii) having the duty to act judicially, and (iv) act in excess of their legal authority. The under -noted decisions of the Apex Court may usefully be referred to in this context:-
Province of Bombay v. Khusaldas (1950) SCR 621, Basappa v. Nagappa ; and Hari Vishnu v. Ahmad .
It is needless to say that the issuance of either Writ of Mandamus or Writ of Certiorari is discretionary. The object of Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordinarily is the enforcement and not establishment of a right or title. The under-noted decisions of the Apex Court may be glanced at:-
Thakur Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1955 SC 504 and Union of India v. Verma .
The general principles relating to the issuance of Writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the distinguishing features of Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Certiorari need not detain this Court any further but however it is suffice to point out that it would have been appropriate to pray for a Writ of Certiorari instead of praying for a Writ of Mandamus in W.P.No. 827/2005.
7. The 1st respondent in the impugned Order while concluding observed as hereunder:-
The appellant has filed the present appeal against the orders of the R.D.O. Nagarkurnool dated 20-7-1977 before the Collector, Mahabubnagar on 19-8-1988. There is inordinate delay or more or less one decade in filing the appeal. The appellant has stated that he came to know of the grant of ORC only when the respondents have revealed the grant of ORC in the Civil Court. Then the appellant has obtained certified copies of ORC and preferred appeal before the Collector, Mahabubnagar. There is no delay in preferring the appeal, as appeal has been preferred in time. It is seen from the R.D.O.'s file that the Secretary, Z.P., Mahabubnagar/Dy. Chief Executive Officer filed an affidavit and petition u/O 1R 10 C.P.C. r/which Section 151 on -3-1980 before the R.D.O. to implead him as respondent in the case. The filing of petition by the appellant to implead him as party in the proceedings before the R.D.O. would indicate the appellant having knowledge about the claim of respondents for granting ORC. Thus the averment made by appellant that he came to know the order of the R.D.O. only when the respondents revealed in the Civil Court is not acceptable. Under Section 24(1) of the Act appeal from the orders Under Section 10 may be filed within 30 days from the date of the decision. The appellant has not filed petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons caused for inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The Counsel for respondent has contended that the law of limitation is applicable and without condonation of delay petition the numbering of appeal is without jurisdiction and nullity. The inordinate delay in filing the appeal having knowledge of the impugned proceedings without condonation petition cannot be condoned.
From the perusal of the record it is found one Smt. C. Ramulamma R-4 herein filed an appeal against the order of the R.D.O. Nagarkurnool dated 20-7-1977 Under Section 24(1) of the Act before the Collector, Mahabubnagar who allowed the appeal in terms of compromise vide his proc case No. Ex.B-2/2/78, dated 4-8-1980. Thus the order passed by the R.D.O. dated 20-7-1977 stood merged with the order passed by Collector-Appellate Authority dated 4-8-1980. As such the order of the R.D.O. dated 20-7-1977 cannot be questioned again Under Section 24(1) of the Act by the appellant which is not in existence on allowing of appeal by Collector vide proceedings dt. 4-8-1980. In view of the above the present appeal filed by the appellant against the orders of R.D.O. dated 20-7-1977 Under Section 24 (1) of the Act before the Appellate Authority is not maintainable.
There is no doubt some controversy whether an application was filed for condonation of delay and it was pointed out that in fact an application was filed and inasmuch as the appeal was admitted, it may have to be taken that the delay also had been condoned. Strong reliance was placed on Ragho Singh's case (referred 1 supra) wherein the Apex Court held that where the appeal filed before the Additional Collector, which was beyond time by 10 days, it was liable to be dismissed in the absence of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay. Reliance also was placed on the decision of the learned Judge of this Court in A. Nagaiah's case (referred 2 supra) wherein the learned Judge while deciding Section 24 (1) of the Act held that an appeal against the order of Revenue Divisional Officer granting occupancy certificate filed beyond 30 days and no application was made for extension of time for filing appeal but only the reason for delay was mentioned in memorandum of Appeal and Collector merely accepted the recommendation made by this office and admitted the appeal without affording an opportunity to the respondents, the ingredients of Section 24 of the Act are not satisfied and such appeal is an invalid appeal. Submissions at length were made by both the Counsel pointing out the dates and events and the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner contending that in the facts and circumstances it must be taken that the delay deemed to have been condoned and on the contrary the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents pointing out that at the time of admission of the appeal, there was no notice and subsequent thereto, the application for condonation of delay had been opposed by filing a counter in detail.
8. Apart from this question, the crucial question of want of jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to entertain the dispute had been argued in elaboration. The facts in nutshell as reflected from the respective pleadings in W.P.No. 827/2005 are as hereunder:-
It was stated that an extent of Acs.9-22 guntas of land in Sy.No. 369 of Nagarkurnool town was inam land and one Srinivasa Rao Despande was the inamdar. The erstwhile Government of Nizam acquired the total extent of Acs.9-22 guntas of land. Out of which, Acs. 7-20 guntas of land was for providing play ground and construction of school building at the time of Silver Jubilee Celebrations of the Nizam in the year 1350 Fasli. In the year 1973 the daughters-in-law of late Srinivasa Rao Deshpande namely, Smt. Rangamma and Smt. Laxmamma, filed a suit for partition and separate possession to an extent of Acs. 2-02 guntas in Sy. No. 369. During the pendency of the suit, one A. Narasimha Reddy got himself impleaded in the suit as plaintiff No. 3 contending that he had purchased Ac.1-01 guntas of land in Sy.No. 369 from Smt. Rangamma and Smt. Laxmamma by way of registered sale deed. The District Munsiff, Nagarkurnool, granting preliminary decree on 18-3-1974 affecting partition against the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, the Chief Executive Officer, formerly DDO, Zilla Parishad, Mahabubnagar and MPDO, Nagarkurnool. An appeal in A.S. No. 93/74 was filed on the file of Subordinate Judge, Mahabubnagar, and the appeal was dismissed on 26-12-1976 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the learned District Munsiff, Nagarkurnool. The matter was further carried by the District Collector and others in SA (SR) No. 33805/76 along with an application to condone delay which was allowed on payment of costs but however the costs were not paid. The learned District Munsiff, Nagarkurnool, appointed Commissioner for effecting partition and on the report of the Commissioner, a final decree was passed on 6-5-1981. The District Collector and others filed appeal as against the said final decree in A.S.No. 60/82 on the file of District Judge, Mahabubnagar and the District Judge, Mahabubnagar, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the learned District Munsiff, Nagarkurnool with a direction to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the parties. The Decree-holders- Smt. Rangamma and Smt. Laxmamma and A. Narasimha Reddy filed C.M.A.No. 1010/43 questioning the order of remand but however they had chosen to withdraw the appeal.
Pending litigation in Civil Court, Smt. Rangamma, Smt. Laxmamma and A. Narasimha Reddy filed declaration before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool, for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate to Acs. 2-02 guntas of land in Sy.No. 369 in file I.A.No. 3856/75. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool, in the year 1977 granted Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of Smt. Rangamma, Smt. Laxmamma and A. Narasimha Reddy. One Smt. Ramalaxmamma also filed a declaration for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool, which was rejected and she filed an appeal before the District Collector and during the pendency of the appeal, they entered into a compromise and the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool. Subsequent thereto, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool, issued notices to the parties for appearance. Since the then District Development Officer was not issued notice, he filed an implead application opposing their claims. It is stated that no certificate had been issued in terms of compromise and the said implead application is said to be pending.
The District Development Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mahabubnagar, filed appeal on 19-8-1988 before the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, under Section 24(1) of the Act challenging the orders of the R.D.O., Nagarkurnool. Along with the appeal, an affidavit also was filed narrating all the details of the litigation. Several of the grounds raised had been narrated in detail. The said Narasimha Reddy, Smt. Laxmamma and legal heirs of Smt. Rangamma and Smt. Rama Laxmamma filed W.P. No. 17473/88 challenging the admission of appeal by District Collector, Mahabubnagar, on the ground that he was one of the parties to the civil litigation and hence this Court transferred the appeal to Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad, on 15-7-1996. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, after registering the appeal issued notices of appearance to the parties. On appearance of the parties before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad, the respondents A. Narasimha Reddy and others raised objection that Smt. Rangamma died in the year 1988 and legal representatives were not brought on record and the appeal stood abated. The Commissioner of Land Revenue allowed L.R. Application filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mahabubnagar, and ordered for bringing the legal representatives on record in the appeal. A. Narasimha Reddy and others challenged the orders of the Commissioner of the Land Revenue in W.P.No. 1718/2001 and this Court directed the Commissioner of Land Revenue to dispose of the Appeal after giving reasonable opportunity to all the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months. The said appeal was dismissed on 7-4-2004 which is said to have been communicated on 13-4-2004. Several of the grounds in detail had been elaborated, commencing from paras 11 to 28 in the affidavit filed in support of the W.P.No. 827/2005.
Respondent No. 15 filed counter affidavit in detail admitting certain of the allegations and denying certain of the allegations. Specific stand was taken that the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 96/73 specifically stated that the parties to the suit are in joint possession of the suit schedule property, the entire extent of Acs.9-22 guntas of land and the plaintiffs are entitled to Acs.2-02 guntas of land and the defendants are entitled to Acs. 7-20 guntas of land. The defendants denied the same. Thus, the joint possession of the parties had been admitted. The observation made in C.M.A.No. 1010/84 also was referred to. The decision of this Court in C.R.P. No. 5613/2000 and batch reported in 2004 (1) A.L.D., 849 also had been referred to, It was also stated that appeal was filed by Smt. Ramalaxmamma and the same was allowed granting the relief in terms of compromise but in fact there was no remand. The order passed by the R.D.O., has been merged in the order of the Collector in case No. Ex.B-2/2/1978 dated 11-8-1980 and hence, no appeal again can be filed before the Collector against the very same order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Further specific stand was taken that the writ petitioner was fully aware of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Collector, even in the year 1980, but did not question the same in time and several other details had been narrated in detail in this regard. Further stand had been taken that the allegation that the entire area of Acs. 9-22 guntas of land had been acquired by the Government is contrary to the narration of facts in the suit and also the grounds of Appeal no doubt the affidavit filed in Inam Appeal. It was also pleaded that Zilla Parishad is not a necessary party to the Inam's proceedings. Specific stand was taken that the decree of the Civil Court is binding on the Revenue Court as held by the Apex Court in Prakash Narain Sharma v. Burmah Sheel Cooperative Housing Society ; Lokraj v. Kishan Lal ; and State of Maharashtra v. Lazmen Abaji also had been explained and the decision of the Full Bench in M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P. Hyderabad 1998 (3) ALT 96 (F.B.) also was referred to. Several of the other factual details also had been narrated.
The Counsel for the contesting respondents placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division Bench in Section Veera Reddy's case (referred 3rd supra) wherein it was held that the question of personal cultivation has to be decided having regard to the nature of the land and other attendant circumstances and the plaintiffs have been found to be not entitled to the possession of the land in question in their own right and their possession pursuant to the order of the Court and cultivation done by them therein would enure to the benefit of the persons who are held entitled to the possession thereof. The principal question which had been agitated by the learned senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 827/2005 is that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction at all to entertain this dispute inasmuch as this property ceased to be agricultural land and inasmuch as the nature of the land is not cultivable land, the question of approaching R.D.O., for Occupancy Rights Certificate would not arise and hence all the proceedings are without jurisdiction. Section 2(k) of the Act defines 'Special Tribunal' as in this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context 'Special Tribunal' means a Special Tribunal constituted under Section 23 of this Act. Section 4 of the Act deals with Registration of inamdars as occupants. Section 4(1)(c) specifies that every inamdar shall, with effect from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all inam lands other than lands upon which have been erected buildings owned by any person other than the inamdar. Section 9 of the Act dealing with vesting of certain buildings and inam lands used for non-agricultural purpose reads as hereunder:-
(1) Every private building, situated within an inam shall, with effect from the date of vesting, vest in the person who owned it immediately before that date.
(2) Where an inam land has been convertea for any purpose, unconnected with agriculture, the holder of such land shall be entitled to keep the land, provided that such conversion was not void or illegal under any law in force.
(3) The vesting of private buildings or lands under Sub-section (1) or (2) shall be subject to the payment of non-agricultural assessment that may be imposed by Government from time to time.
Section 23 of the Act dealing with Constitution of Special Tribunals and their powers reads hereunder:-
(1) The Government shall constitute as many Special Tribunal as may be necessary for the purpose of this Act.
(2) Each Special Tribunal shall consist of an officer of a rank not less than that of District Judge.
(3) Each Special Tribunal shall hold its sitting at such times and places, and shall have such jurisdiction, and over such local areas as the Government may, by notification from time to time, determine.
(4) No order of the Government constituting a Special Tribunal under this Section shall be called in question in any manner, whatsoever.
(5) The Special Tribunal shall have the same power regarding summoning and attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents as a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Rule 18 of the Rules dealing with Authority under Section 24 reads as hereunder:-
(1) For the purpose of Sub-section (1) of Section 24 the Board of Revenue shall be the prescribed authority.
(2) For the purpose of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 the Special Tribunal shall be the prescribed authority.
Section 24 of the Act deals with Appeals from orders under Section 10 to prescribed authority and Section 24(2) of the Act specifies if any question arises whether any building or land falls within the scope of Section 9 the same shall be referred to the prescribed authority whose decision shall be final.
9. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned Order the 1st respondent recorded as many as 7 submissions submitted by the Counsel for the appellant in the written arguments. The 1st respondent considered all the aspects and ultimately arrived at a conclusion that both on merits and also on the ground of inordinate delay, the appeal deserves a dismissal. Even if the submission of the learned senior Counsel for the writ petitioner to the effect that the delay may be deemed to have been condoned in the facts and circumstances to be accepted, though the said contention is not a well-founded one, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reasons specified infra.
10. It is clear from the facts that the litigation is a long dawn litigation and the selfsame Bench while disposing of C.R.P. No. 5613/2000 and batch recorded elaborate reasons. It is not in serious controversy that the findings recorded and the Decrees made by the competent Civil Court had attained finality. Even from the respective stands taken by the parties, in the civil proceedings, the plea of joint possession virtually had been accepted and on the strength of the same, the preliminary decree and the final decree also had been made and this question cannot be reagitated again between the parties and it is needless to say that these parties being parties even to the civil proceedings, the findings recorded therein would operate as res judicata between these parties. Be that as it may, the scope of controversy in the present Writ Petition is the validity of the impugned order, the question of want of jurisdiction to entertain a dispute of this nature in relation to non-agricultural property is being canvassed. On a careful scrutiny of the grounds of Appeal and also the written arguments, this ground was not raised at all. It is needless to say that the written arguments cannot be equated with that of a plea being raised in this regard. Though certain submissions were made that this is a question of law touching the jurisdiction of the concerned Revenue Court in entertaining a dispute which would touch the root of the matter on admitted facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interpretation that is being given to the personal cultivation, cultivable land, agricultural land, non-agricultural user, by giving strict and literal interpretation, cannot be accepted taking into consideration the nature, scope and ambit of the Act and the different provisions of the Act. Even otherwise, this question which is being canvassed for the first time before the Writ Court, does not deserve serious consideration at the hands of this Court in view of the fact that this writ remedy itself being a discretionary remedy, it is suffice to state that there are no bona fides on the part of the writ petitioner and this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the 1st respondent was well justified in dismissing the appeal both on the ground of inordinate delay and also on merits in the light of the series of events inclusive of the different civil Proceedings especially in the light of the Judgment delivered by this Court in C.R.P. No. 5613/2000 and batch. In the light of the views expressed above, the question whether State of Maharashtra's case (referred 12 supra) is direct on the point and Lokraj's case (referred 11 supra) is not direct on the point and the other Full Bench decision in M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Limited's case (referred 13 supra) to the effect that the later decision need not be followed, these aspects need not be considered in elaboration. In view of the settled principles in issuing the discretionary Writs of either a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Certiorari and also the limitations of exercise of judicial review to be exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. Except the aforesaid contentions, none other contentions had been canvassed before this Court and hence this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed with costs.
W.A.Nos. 231 and 321 of 2001:-
11. These Writ Appeals are filed questioning the orders made in W.P. No. 12815/99 and review W.P.M.P. No. 1404/2000. The Writ Petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in the Writ Petition - The State of Andhra Pradesh and others in laying a road in the land in Sy.No. 369 allowed to the writ petitioners herein in the final decree proceedings in I.A.No. 110/96 in O.S.No. 96/93 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, as illegal, void and further direct the respondents to pay damages to the writ petitioners at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month from the date of laying the road from February, 1997 till the date of initiate of land acquisition proceedings and further direct the respondents therein to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and pay compensation accordingly with all attending benefits. The respondents in the Writ Petition were directed to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the lands and pay compensation in respect of the land in which the road was laid with reference to the land belonging to the writ petitioners in Sy.No. 369 at Nagarkurnool village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and the said order of the Court shall be implemented by the respondent therein within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mahabubnagar - R-3 in W.P.No. 12815/99 filed review W.P.M.P, No. 1404/2000 and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ Appeal had been preferred. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No. 12815/99 is as hereunder:-
It is stated that the petitioners own an extent of 9 acres 22 guntas of land situated at Nagerkurnool, Mahababunagar District. Out of the said extent of 9 acres 22 guntas, an extent of 7 acres 20 guntas was acquired by the Government of Hyderabad. As that extent was not separated, later the petitioners filed a suit for division of 2 acres 2 guntas and the suit O.S. No. 96/73 was decreed and even a final decree was passed and separate possession was delivered to the petitioners. However, thereafter the respondents have laid a 30 feet width record without acquiring the land of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court, for a direction that the action of the respondents is illegal and also for further direction to the respondents to initiate the Land Acquisition proceedings for acquisition of the said lands and to pay compensation.
This matter came up for hearing on 25-6-1999 and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Department took notice for obtaining instructions and the matter was adjourned from time to time till today. But still there is no improvement. In fact when the matter came up for hearing on 18-11-1999 at the instance of the Government Pleader four weeks time was granted. Even thereafter also, there is no improvement. Therefore, after hearing the petitioners, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Admittedly, there are civil proceedings which are not disputed by the respondents by filing any counter. The respondents have laid a road on the petitioners' private land and therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to initiate the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the same and pay compensation. Otherwise, the respondents have no right over the private lands of the petitioners to lay a road. It is stated that the said road was laid in the year 1997 and after laying the road, the petitioners represented to the respondents, but as there was no response from the respondents, the petitioners have approached this Court.
The learned Judge in the light of the same ultimately granted relief to the petitioners referred to supra. The review W.P.M.P. No. 1404/2000 as stated above also had been dismissed. In the light of the same, this Court is of the opinion that these Writ Appeals are bound to fail both in the light of the common order already made by this Court in C.R.P.No. 5613/2000 and also the order which is being made by this Court in W.P. No. 827/2005. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals shall stand dismissed with costs.
12. For the foregoing reasons W.P.No. 827/2005 is hereby dismissed with costs and likewise, W.A.Nos. 231 and 321 of 2001 also are hereby dismissed with costs.