Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jinka Chendrayudu And Anothers vs Jinka Chendrayudu And 3 Others on 13 December, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
APHC010144482012
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508]
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEEN OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1558/2012
Between:
Jinka Chendrayudu and another ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Jinka Chendrayudu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. KARRI MURALI KRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam) This present intra court appeal is preferred by the respondents 4 and 5, being aggrieved by the orders dated 21.10.2010 passed in W.P.No.1773 of 2008. In the said Orders, the learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, allowed the writ petition thereby setting aside the orders of the Joint Collector, Kadapa 2 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A No.1558 of 2012 District, while leaving it open to the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate an enquiry, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties involved in this litigation are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the writ petition. The crux of the petitioner's case are as follows:-
3. The petitioner, is an Ex-Serviceman, served as an Air Craftsmen-II for a period of 15 years, from 06.05.1961 to 31.05.1976 and he retired from service on 31.05.1976. Consequent to the application filed by him as an Ex-Serviceman along with his civilian brother (who is father of the respondents 4 and 5), the revenue authorities allotted land by subdividing Sy.No.236 of Rameswaram Village, Proddutur Mandal, Kadapa District., into Sy.Nos.236/A1, 236/A2 & 236-A. For the sake of convenience, the relevant details are set-out in the below format:-
Sy.No. Acres DKT Pattadar Parties
236/A1 1.73 Sri Jinka Pedda Father of the
Chandrayudu respondents
S/o. Pedda 3&4
Chennappa
236/A2 5.02 Sri Jinka Pedda
Chendrayudu Writ
S/o. Pedda Petitioner
Chennappa
236-A 1.41 Allotted for burial
ground ---
3
RRR, J & MRK, J
W.A No.1558 of 2012
After his retirement from the Indian Air Force, the petitioner moved away from native village due to employment opportunities in private sector.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that, during his brother's lifetime, who passed away in the year of 1988, there were no disputes among the family members. In fact, at the instance of the petitioner only, his relatives jointly developed the land and brought the same under cultivation within three years. The petitioner's brother cultivated the land, and after his demise, the land was leased to the petitioner's son-in-law. Subsequently, a bye-pass road was laid in the land assigned to the petitioner in an extent of Ac.0.84cents. For which, the un-official respondents 4 and 5 and their sister claimed compensation and received Rs.26,208/- without petitioner's knowledge and consent. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent conducted inquiry and recovered the amount from the respondents 4 and 5 and their sister.
5. Later, when the petitioner filed a suit against the un-official respondents 4 and 5, they approached the District Collector, Kadapa District, seeking assignment of the petitioner's land at market value. They sought to exploit the fact that the petitioner and father of the respondents 4 and 5 share the same name. They alleged that their father had borne the expenses for bringing the land under cultivation and claimed that the petitioner was attempting to occupy the land on the strength of DKT-Patta issued in the year 1976 in Sy.No.236/A2 for Ac.5.02 cents. 4
RRR, J & MRK, J W.A No.1558 of 2012
6. The District Collector, Kadapa forwarded their representation with specific remarks to the 3rd respondent. Consequently, a Show-Cause- Notice dated 17.02.2005 was issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent/M.R.O., based on the observation made by the 1strespondent, asking to show cause as to why the DKT-Patta should not be cancelled, on the ground that the petitioner had never entered into the land and brought the same under personal cultivation within a period of three years. For which, petitioner submitted his explanation, but the 3rd respondent without considering the same, issued the orders dated 24.04.2005 vide Ref.B/5/2005, cancelling the patta on the grounds that the petitioner violated the conditions of patta.
7. Questioning the cancellation orders dated 24.04.2005 of respondent No.3/M.R.O, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, who passed orders vide D.Dis(A)833/2005 dated 25.08.2005, confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the matter was carried to the 1st respondent by the way of revision which was also confirmed vide D.Dis(E2)67/2006 dated 29.12.2007.
8. Aggrieved by the order of the revenue authorities, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.20175 of 2005 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
5
RRR, J & MRK, J W.A No.1558 of 2012
9. Per contra, the case of the official respondents is that the petitioner was never in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. Further, he has not cultivated the land on his own. Additionally, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the revenue authorities after verifying the relevant aspects, were pleased to pass detailed orders.
10. Whereas, the un-official respondents contended that, right from the issuance of patta, the un-official respondent's father, and thereafter the family members, have been cultivating the land in question by spending money and turning the land in question into cultivable position. The un- official respondents requested the revenue authorities to allot the land in question in their favour on payment of market value. Consequently, the un-official respondents preferred a representation before the District Collector requesting allotment. And subsequently, the revenue authorities passed the reasoned orders. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition by supporting the orders of the revenue authorities.
11. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating all the facts and circumstances, was pleased to allow the writ petition vide orders dated 21.10.2010. The operative para of the said orders reads as under:-
"......Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.12.2007 passed by respondent No.1 is set aside. This order, however, does not preclude respondent Nos.1 to 3 to initiate action against the petitioner, if according to them the D-Form 6 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A No.1558 of 2012 patta produced by the petitioner is not genuine or he has violated any of the conditions thereof. However, before conducting any enquiry with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the D-Form patta or violations of conditions of D-Form patta, if any, by the petitioner., respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall issue notice to the petitioner and provide him an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed. No costs....."
12. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge, the instant writ appeal is instituted by the un-official respondents under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act.
13. The 1st respondent died during the pendency of the writ appeal, and the respondents 5 to 7 were brought on record as his legal representatives.
14. Heard Smt. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Karri Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and also learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.
15. In a nutshell, the petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman, who joined the Indian Air Force on 06.05.1961, served in different posts and retired on 31.05.1976. In fact, the un-official respondent's father, who is none other 7 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A No.1558 of 2012 than the petitioner's own brother, was also assigned an extent of Ac.1.76cents of land in Sy.No.236/A1.
16. It is relevant to note that, the patta issued in favour of the petitioner on 29.06.1976 was granted solely in recognition of his dedicated service to the Indian Air Force, as part of the State Government's policy to enable Ex-Servicemen to lead a peaceful life after their service. It is apt to note that in the patta dated 29.06.1976 assigned in favour of the petitioner, contains specific conditions for the assignee, out of which condition Nos.3 & 4 are relevant and extracted hereunder:-
"3. The lands should be cultivated by the assignee or the members of his family or under supervision of the family members on hired labour.
4. There is no land revenue for the first 3 years except the portion which was brought under cultivation earlier. If the lands are cultivated with Government source of water supply, water-cess should be collected."
The above conditions clearly permit either the assignee or his family members to cultivate "patta land" and it should be brought under the cultivation within a period of three years only.
17. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to relevant provision in the A.P Board of Revenue Standing Orders 15 clause-12(3)(d), which is extracted hereunder:-
8
RRR, J & MRK, J W.A No.1558 of 2012 A.P Board of Revenue Standing Orders 15 clause-12(3)(d):
"12.Communication of orders on darkhasts:-
(3) Terms and conditions of Assignment:-
"(a)............
(b).............
(c).............
"(d) Cultivation should be by the assignee or the members of his family or with hired labour under the supervision of himself or a member of his family."
18. Even as per the case of the un-official respondents also, right from issuance of patta, their father and their family members have been cultivating the patta land by spending huge amounts. It is pertinent to note that, the father of the un-official respondents, who is none other than the petitioner's own brother, along with the unofficial respondents as family members of the petitioner, submitted a representation to the District Collector, Kadapa, seeking that the petitioner's patta land be allotted to them on a market value basis, as they are cultivating the land. It is also evident that the revenue authorities made the following Endorsement:-
"Mandal Revenue Officer, Proddatur to inspect and propose for assignment under market value basis based on the Adangal."9
RRR, J & MRK, J W.A No.1558 of 2012 A plain reading of the above observation would transpires that the same is in the nature of direction rather than reference by the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent, who is the primary authority to exercise his powers under the provisions of A.P Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter in short called as "Act 9 of 1977"). It is also appropriate to mention that after the above stated specific command by the District Level Authority led to the issuance of the Show-Cause Notice and its consequential orders, which is the root cause for this litigation, rather than any action initiated by the authorities on their own.
19. In fact, assignment patta issued in favour of the petitioner, who is Ex-Serviceman way back in the year 1976, whereas Show-Cause-Notice dated 17.02.2005 emanated after a lapse of 29 years.
20. The original appellate and revisional authorities, who possess rich experience in their respective domains, more particularly in respect of patta conditions failed to perceive the simple reason, that when the person was assigned patta in the year 1976, it is highly impracticable and unrealistic to expect him, after a lapse of 29 years, to prove and substantiate his assertions that he cultivated the patta land within the period of three years. Shockingly, the very same un-official respondents (who are family members of an assignee) specifically stated that they themselves have been cultivating the "patta land" right from issuance of 10 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A No.1558 of 2012 the patta. In the light of these peculiar facts and circumstances in the lis, the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in initiating the litigation against the assignee/petitioner is not reasonable., which leads to un-settling a settled matter.
In this context, it is apt to refer the following dictums, which are also dealt with reasonable time so as to exercise the powers vested by the authorities:
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha 1 , while adverting to Sections 65 and 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, held that though there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211 to revise an order made under Section 65 of the Act, the said power must be exercised in reasonable time and on the facts of the case in which the decision arose, the power was exercised over a year after the order was passed, which was deemed to be too late.
22. The Apex Court in Santosh kumar Shivgonda Patil v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale 2 , while dealing with the power of revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966., held as follows :-
1
(1969) 2 SCC 187 2 (2009) 9 SCC 352 11 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A No.1558 of 2012 "It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not prescribe the time-limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suomotu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent therein.
"Ordinarily, the reasonable period within which the power of revision may be exercised would be three years under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code subject, of course, to the exceptional circumstances in a given case, but surely exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 17 years is not a reasonable time. Invocation of revisional power by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is plainly an abuse of process in the facts and circumstances of the case assuming that the order of the Tahsildar passed on 30-3-1976 is flawed and legally not correct........"
23. The Unified High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in B. Adinarayana Murthy Vs. Collector, Ananthapur District 3 ., while appreciating the facts in neighboring District in respect of very same ground of violation of patta conditions held as under:-
"....... Probably, the first respondent is not aware of the factual position of that area and he would not have made enquiries satisfying himself that all these 34 years the land was not used for the purpose for which it 3 1999 (6) ALT 322 12 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A No.1558 of 2012 is assigned i.e., for agricultural purposes. It is, therefore, difficult for this Court to assume that for all these 34 years the lands were not cultivated and were kept fallow. The power of resumption though available has to be exercised by the authorities within a reasonable time. I do not think the authorities are empowered to exercise such power after a long lapse of 34 years on flimsy grounds......"
24. The Erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Laxminarayana and another Vs. Joint Collector, Khammam4., held as under:-
"....It is a question of the reasonable period of limitation within which that power should be exercised where the limitation within which that power should be exercised where the question is one exercising that power within a reasonable time and what is reasonable period would undoubtedly be dependant upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
...........Admittedly, in this case, the power of revision is exercised after a period of ten years and there is no allegation in the show-cause notice that the assignment was obtained by playing fraud or misrepresentation. In the absence of such averment in the show-cause notice the power of cancellation of assignments cannot be exercised after a period of ten years........."
25. Based on well-established legal principles, it is unequivocally held that the cancellation of the patta land assigned to the petitioner, an Ex- Serviceman, in 1976 after a lapse of 29 years and based solely on a 4 1998 (3) ALD 107 13 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A No.1558 of 2012 complaint from his own family members is neither reasonable nor justified. The complaint, made on flimsy grounds by family members whose father was also assigned adjacent patta land, sought the cancellation of the Ex-Serviceman's patta and the re-allotment of the same land to them at market value, which cannot be warranted from any perspective. Recently, in Union of India & Ors v. Saroj Devi 5 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the case of a widow of a deceased soldier who died in harness. The Court criticized the unsympathetic decision-making process of the concerned authorities in classifying the soldier's death and imposed costs of Rs.50,000/-.
26. Yet another aspect in the lis is that the petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman. Armed Forces personnel sacrifice and dedicate their entire life to serve the country. They are given certain incentives by various Governments as well as Union of India, and this is one such step for assignment of land to the petitioner (Ex-Serviceman), who had served our country. The assignment of land in his favour could not have been cancelled in the manner and method, as had been done by the revenue authorities.
27. Before parting with the instant lis, it is apt to refer to the slogan "Jai Jawan Jai Kisan" reflecting the importance of our Indian soldiers and farmers. Each soldier plays a crucial role in ensuring the security and 5 CIVIL APPEAL No. 13730 of 2024, dt:03.12.2024 14 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A No.1558 of 2012 sustenance of the country. The 'Soldier' represents the dedication and bravery of the Indian Armed Forces. They protect the nation from external threats, sacrificing their lives for the safety and security of their fellow citizens and their commitment is vital for maintaining peace and stability, allowing the country to thrive. Equally, the 'Kisan' or 'farmer' symbolizes the backbone of India's economy. Agriculture is a primary source of livelihood for a significant portion of the population, and farmers work tirelessly to produce food for the nation.
28. The great sons and daughters of our Mother India, who expressed their readiness and willingness to dedicate their lives for the protection of our soil, should always be respected in its true letter and spirit of 'Jai Jawan Jai Kisan'.
29. The learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition. This Bench finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO ___________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date:13.12.2024 GVK 15 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A No.1558 of 2012 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL No.1558 of 2012 Date:13.12.2024 GVK