Telangana High Court
Jadapalli Chakrapani, vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, on 7 September, 2018
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
Writ Petition No. 5196 of 2008
and
WPMP.No.31823 of 2008
COMMON ORDER:
This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner requesting to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from the dry land in an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.336/7 of Palachuru village, Pellakuru Mandal, without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and the further action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned endorsement/proceedings in Rc.A.2620/06, dated 04.02.2008, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation in respect of the above said land as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 & 300-A of the Constitution of India; and to set aside the impugned endorsement and direct the respondents to issue proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and pay compensation to the petitioner for the above said extent of land.
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition (AP) appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, and of Sri V. Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WPMP.No.31823 of 2008. I have perused the material record.
3. To begin with, it is to be noted that the petitioner and one J. Ravi are brothers. Their father J. Penchalaiah was assigned land of extents of Ac.5.00 2 MSRM, J WP.No.5196 _2008 cents in Sy.No.336/7 and Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.No.403/3 of Palachuru village of the then Srikalahasti Taluq of Chittoor District presently in Pellakuru Mandal of Nellore District. He was granted pattadar passbooks by the revenue authorities. He died in the year 1992 leaving behind the petitioner and his said brother. His property devolved upon the two brothers. After the death of Penchalaiah, the father of the petitioner, the petitioner's name is entered in the pattadar passbook originally issued to the father of the petitioner in respect of Ac.5.00 cents of land in Sy.No.336/7 and some other land; however, the extent of Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.No.403/3 was deleted from that passbook and the brother of the petitioner - Ravi was issued separate passbook in respect of Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.No.403/3. Accordingly, the petitioner and his brother continued in possession and enjoyment of their respective extents of afore- stated lands. The petitioner has been paying land revenue in respect of his land viz., Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.336/7 [hereinafter referred to as 'the subject land']. The petitioner borrowed agricultural loan from Andhra bank, Manakur branch for raising crops in the said land.
4. In this backdrop, the petitioner contends that since the subject land is admittedly assigned to his father way back in the year 1968 and the subject land was also subject matter of acquisition by resumption for establishment of industrial park and as, after rectifying the entries, pattadar passbook in respect of the said land was given to the petitioner and for the remaining extent of Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.No.403/3 pattadar passbook was given to his brother separately, and as originally the petitioner's father and later the petitioner continued in possession of the subject land and brought it under cultivation and cultivated the same for several long years till it was acquired for SEZ in the 3 MSRM, J WP.No.5196 _2008 year 2008 and as no orders are passed canceling the patta issued in the year 1968 in favour of the father of the petitioner either within the period of limitation allowed under law or within a reasonable time thereafter, the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation in respect of his land (subject land) notwithstanding payment of exgratia to his brother for the other extent of Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.no.403/3.
5. The case of the Government is this:
The lands viz., Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.no.336/7 and Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.no.403/3 of Palachuru village were originally assigned by the erstwhile Tahasildar of Sreekalahasthi of Chittoor District in favour of J. Penchalaiah, the father of the petitioner herein, vide DKT.No.1883/4/77, dated 03.03.1968 and DKT No.3578/79. All the assigned lands of an extent of Ac.596.50 cents were resumed for the establishment of industrial park by the APIIC limited, Nellore. The afore-stated two extents of lands are parts of the lands so resumed. Exgratia is sanctioned in respect of Ac.450.00 cents at intervals after verifying the records and details of the claimants. As per conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.Nos.1142, Revenue, dated 18.06.1954, and 1407, Revenue, dated 25.07.1958, a landless poor person is eligible for grant of patta to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents of wet or Ac.5.00 cents of dry land only. However, late Penchalaiah, the father of the petitioner, had initially obtained a patta for Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.no.336/7 vide DKT No.1883/4/77, dated 3.3.68. And, subsequently, by misrepresenting the facts, the said Penchalaiah got assignment of land under patta for another extent of Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.no.403/3 vide DKT No.3578/79 from the erstwhile Tahasildar of Srikalahasthi of Chittoor 4 MSRM, J WP.No.5196 _2008 District. The sub-Collector, Gudur - 3rd respondent, after verification of the records, found that the assignments of above said lands in favour of the father of the petitioner are contrary to the terms of the afore-stated Government Orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.1142 and 1407 and that exgratia was already paid in respect of Ac.4.95 cents on the first claim filed by the other son of the deceased assignee and that therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered as his father Penchalaiah is not entitled to hold assigned land of more than Ac.5.00 cents. Therefore, the impugned endorsement, dated 04.02.2008, was accordingly given to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. After the death of their father, the petitioner and his brother, Ravi, misrepresented the facts for grant of individual pattadar passbooks for the said two extents. Accordingly, for an extent of Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.no.403/3 pattadar passbook was issued to Ravi, the brother of the petitioner; and, for an extent of Ac.5.00 cents pattadar passbook was issued to the petitioner herein.
Government initiated land acquisition proceedings for acquiring the lands in Palachuru village for establishment of Special Economic Zone (SEZ). As the above lands in the afore-said two extents are Government lands and were assigned to petitioner's father, they were not included in the notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act as the Government need not notify its own land for acquisition. One of the sons of the original assignee, that is, Ravi, claimed exgratia for Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.no.403/3 from the Sub-Collector; and the Sub-Collector recommended the said claim and accordingly he was paid exgratia. Again, the petitioner claimed exgratia for Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.no.336/7. On verification of records and for the reason that exgratia was already paid in respect of maximum extent of Ac.4.95 cents, the claim of the 5 MSRM, J WP.No.5196 _2008 petitioner was not considered. Since the lands assigned to the father of the petitioner were also required for establishment of SEZ, the said lands were also resumed along with the other lands as per resumption orders, dated 10.05.2007, and were taken possession. Therefore, the action of these respondents in dispossessing the petitioner is legal and valid. By the general notice issued in April, 2007, all the assignees of various extents of lands in various survey numbers were informed that their said lands are being resumed by the Government for establishment of industrial park. A publication was given by beat of tom tom in the village. The petitioner and his brother were given opportunity to file objections. They have not turned up and they have not filed any objections. Therefore, it is concluded that the petitioner and his brother are having no objection for resumption of the land. Accordingly, resumption proceedings were issued, on 10.05.2007, and lands of the petitioner and his brother were taken possession along with the other assigned lands. Hence, no exgratia is payable to the petitioner in respect of Ac.5.00 cents of land. His brother was paid exgratia for Ac.4.95 cents is not disputed. Since the original assignee obtained the patta by misrepresentation and fraud, the petitioner and his brother, who are sons of the deceased assignee, cannot claim exgratia for the subject extent of Ac.5.00 cents of land. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. It is not in dispute that a landless poor person is eligible for grant of patta to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents of wet or Ac.5.00 cents of dry land only. However, it is also admitted that the petitioner's father was assigned two extents of land aforementioned under two DKT pattas referred to above. For several decades, the father of the petitioner initially and later the two brothers 6 MSRM, J WP.No.5196 _2008 enjoyed the said two extents of lands that are originally assigned to their father. Such enjoyment of the lands continued till the lands were acquired for SEZ under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. When the exgratia was paid to the brother of the petitioner, Ravi, for the extent of Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.no.403/3 and no exgratia was paid to the petitioner in respect of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.no.336/7, he made a claim for payment of exgratia/compensation for his land as per procedure. However, on his such claim, the impugned endorsement was issued, inter alia, stating that his representation was examined as per rules governing payment of compensation; that exgratia is payable to one eligible person of one family for the land of an extent not exceeding Ac.5.00 cents taken possession by the Government; that insofar as the family of the petitioner, his brother, Ravi, was already paid exgratia/compensation for Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.no.403/3 of Palachuru village; hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation in respect of the subject land as per law & rules governing payment of compensation; and, hence, his representation is rejected. Thus, the only ground on which the representation of the petitioner was rejected is that the original assignment in respect of two extents of land was obtained by the father of the petitioner by misrepresentation & fraud and that the petitioner is not entitled to claim exgratia for the subject land, as his brother was already paid exgratia in respect of the eligible extent of the assigned land. Now the question for consideration is - 'whether for the aforesaid reason the Government are entitled to deny payment of exgratia to the petitioner in respect of subject land, which was also originally assigned to his father and which devolved upon him on the death of his father?' 7 MSRM, J WP.No.5196 _2008
7. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the decision in P. Anasuyamma v. The Commissioner of Land Revenue1. The facts of the cited case are as follows: 'The husband of the petitioner in one of the writ petitions in the batch, possessed lands to an extent of twenty acres. Therefore, she was not eligible for assignment of land had she disclosed the said fact to the authorities and as she was not a landless poor person as defined by Board Standing Order-
15. However, her contention appears to be is that she is a divorced woman and that there has been a partition in the family and that in the said partition, no lands were given to her and that she is eking out livelihood without assistance from any person including her separated son and, therefore, the assignment is valid and that no misrepresentation or fraud has been committed.' Having regard to the contentions, this Court having found that it is clear from the facts that there is misrepresentation or fraud so far as the said petitioner is concerned, in the sense that she failed to disclose before the authorities that her husband own twenty acres of land and that there was family partition etcetera at the time she filed the application for assignment inter alia held that there is misrepresentation of fact or fraud so far as the said petitioner is concerned. In the said factual backdrop, the Court went on to consider the question as to whether on that ground such assignment is liable to be cancelled. This Court, having referred to the relevant paragraphs of Board Standing Orders and the legal position obtaining held that the legislature has taken care of the fact that even where there is misrepresentation or fraud, the period of limitation shall not be more than three years whenever a Collector is exercising his revisional jurisdiction and that as it was held that the limitation that applies 1 1994(2) ALT 329 8 MSRM, J WP.No.5196 _2008 to the facts of the case may be three years as provided in BSO 15(18) her writ petition is to be allowed on the ground that the proceedings are barred by time though it was held that there is misrepresentation and fraud in her case.
8. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is to be noted that this is not a case in which the case of the Government is that the petitioner's father, late Penchalaiah, possessed his own land and suppressed the said fact and obtained assignment of two extents of lands. The Government are very much aware of the extent of land that was first assigned to the father of the petitioner but again assigned another extent of land to him. Therefore, the Government are very much aware of the assignment of two extents of land in favour of the father of the petitioner from the inception. Further, the revenue officers also issued a pattadar passbook for one extent out of the two extents of land, that is, for Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.no.403/3 in the name of the brother of the petitioner and continued the original pattadar passbook of the father in the name of petitioner after deleting the entry with regard to Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.no.403/3, which devolved upon his brother, and by retaining the entry in respect of Ac.5.00 cents of land, which devolved upon the petitioner. Hence, it is not possible to accept the contention of the Government that there is either misrepresentation or fraud and that the facts are not known to the responsible officers of the Government. The Government officers while dealing with records from time to time were expected to verify the true state of affairs and also the facts borne out by the record and make amends for the mistakes promptly and without any delays. Even though two extents of lands are assigned to the father of the petitioner and later passbooks were issued to the two brothers as stated above in respect of the two extents of lands separately, 9 MSRM, J WP.No.5196 _2008 never any proceedings were initiated for cancellation of assignment in respect of one of the two extents of land; and, for several decades firstly the original assignee and later the petitioner and his brother were allowed to enjoy the lands. In-fact, father of the petitioner originally and later the petitioner enjoyed peaceably the subject land in his own right as absolute owner thereof and perfected his right, title and interest over the same. Therefore, the contention of the Government that there was misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the father does not stand the test of scrutiny and hence, cannot be countenanced. Further, as held in the decision in P. Anasuyamma's case [1 supra], even in case of fraud and misrepresentation also, the proceedings for cancellation of patta on the said grounds shall be initiated within a reasonable time even in the absence of period of limitation. In the absence of any initiation of such proceedings within a reasonable time for cancellation of the patta in question and in the light of the fact that the patta is allowed to stand, any contentions disputing the assignment of land on grounds like misrepresentation/fraud raised subsequently and beyond a reasonable time are untenable and such contentions which are not permissible cannot be approved by a Court of law, much less the Court exercising equity jurisdiction.
9. As a result, and having regard to the facts & circumstances and also the vital fact that the assignment of the subject land was not cancelled and that the subject land was not resumed on the ground now being urged by the Government, this Court holds that the Government are not justified in denying payment of exgratia to the petitioner in respect of the subject land, which was originally assigned to his father several decades back. Therefore, it follows that 10 MSRM, J WP.No.5196 _2008 the writ petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
10. On the above analysis, this Court finds that the Government are not justified in denying exgratia to the petitioner despite the fact that he was dispossessed from the land for the purpose of acquisition of land for SEZ.
11. Before parting, it is to be noted that the interveners - implead petitioners filed a petition for their impleadment, inter alia, stating that their father's name is Guna Penchalaiah; that he was issued assignment patta for the land in Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.no.403/3 vide DKT.no.598/DKT/3578/79, dt.5.2.1968; that the original patta was lost in the cyclone of the year 1983; that, therefore, they are not in a position to file the said original patta or a copy of the same; that J. Penchalaiah, the father of the writ petitioner, was granted patta in respect of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.no.336/7 vide DKT no.473/1883/4/89, dated 3.3.68; that they came to know that for their land, the LAO has paid exgratia to the brother of the writ petitioner; hence, they made a representation, dated 11.08.2008, for payment of compensation to them for the said land in an extent of Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.no.403/3 which stands in the name of their father; and that, hence, they have interest in this writ petition and, therefore, they may be added as necessary parties to this writ petition.
11.1 The writ petitioner filed a counter opposing the application and reiterating his case, which is already stated supra.
11.2 The implead petitioners are claiming exgratia in respect of Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.no.403/3; however, in respect of the said land exgratia was already paid to the brother of the petitioner, Ravi. The land, which is the subject matter of the 11 MSRM, J WP.No.5196 _2008 present writ petition, is not Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.no.403/3; but, it is Ac.5.00 cents of land in Sy.no.336/7. Be that as it may. The Government are not supporting the cause of the implead petitioners as the Government are also stating that land in the above mentioned two extents were originally assigned to the father of the writ petitioner though by misrepresentation or fraud. Thus, it is clear that insofar as the subject land, the implead petitioners have no interest as their claim is not in respect of the subject land of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.no.336/7. In that view of the matter, the implead petition is liable for dismissal.
11.3 Accordingly, the implead petition is dismissed.
12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to pay compensation/exgratia to the petitioner in respect of the land Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.no.336/7 of Palachuru village, Pellakuru Mandal, in the same manner as was done in the case of the petitioner's brother insofar as his extent of land viz., Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.no.403/3 of the same village.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J 07.09.2018 Vjl