Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Koyya Veeraju And Others vs Mandal Revenue Officer, Gollaprolu, ... on 19 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(6)ALD594, 1998(1)ALT25
Author: T.N.C. Rangarajan
Bench: T.N.C. Rangarajan
ORDER N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.
1. Subject-matter involved in these two writ petitions is common and parties are also common. As such both the petitions are clubbed together and disposed of by a common order.
2. WP No.3030 of 1989 is filed seeking for the relief that a Writ of Mandamus be granted declaring the action of the respondents as illegal and farther direct them to mutate the names of the petitioners in revenue records as per the Ryotwari Patta Certificate issued under Section 11(a)oftheActXXVIof 1948 issued by the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam in RP No-275 of 1962 dated 30-4-1963 and to grant such other relief.
3. Relief sought in WP No.13648 of 1991 is to issue Writ of Certiorari to quash the show-cause notice issued by the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in R.P.No. 159/91, dated 12-8-1991 and further to declare his action in suo mutu exercising the power under Section 5(2) of the Act 26 of 1948 after a lapse of 28 years against the orders of the Settlement Officer passed in RP No.275/62 dated 30-4-1963 as illegal and without jurisdiction and further to direct the authorities to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records as per the Ryotwari Patta Certificates issued under Section 11 (a) of the Act by the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam in RP No.275/62, dated 30-4-1963 to an extent of Ac.42-13 cents in RS No. 175 situated at Kodavali village, Goilaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District and pass such other order.
4. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these two writ petitions, are as follows:
Petitioners 1 and 3 are the sons and 4th Petitioner is wife of one Mr. Chellaiah. Second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner and they are residents of A.V. Nagaram, East Godavari District. An extent of Ac.42-13 cents of land in Survey No. 175 situated at Kodavali village Goilaprolu Mandal, Pitliapuram taluq. East Godavari District was purchased by the petitioners from one Kirlampudi Sugar Cane Farms Limited under registered sale deeds during the year 1957. After the purchase the petitioners were put in possession of the land and they were enjoying the ryoti lands by raising crops. But in survey records the land was shown as Tank Poramboke and also in village Adangals. The village was a Zamin Estate taken over by the Government in view of the provisions under A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act (Act XXVI of 1948), On the request made by the petitioners, the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam exercising his power conferred under Section 11 (a) of the Act issued Ryotwari patta after satisfying the land in question situated in the midst of Zerioti patta lands and the water from the tank dug therein being used for irrigating the land. This order was made by the Settlement Officer in his proceedings RP No.275/62 dated 304-1963. The Tahsildar, Pithapuram challenged the said order under Section 57(ii)(d) of the Act before the Director of Settlements. The said Revision Petition was highly belated. The Director of the Settlements passed an order on 21-9-1964 in RP No. 185/64 setting aside the orders of the Settlement Officer. Questioning the same, a Revision was filed before the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The Commissioner in his proceedings B.P. Ms. No.84/67 dated 17-2-1967 confirmed the orders of the Director of Survey and Settlements. Questioning the same the petitioners filed WP No. 1082/67 before this Court. After contest the Writ Petition was allowed and the orders of the Director of Survey and Settlements as well as the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records were quashed and the matter was remanded to the Director of Settlements for fresh disposal with a direction that the Director of Settlements shall consider whether sufficient grounds were made for entertaining the petition filed beyond the time and consequently determine whether the sufficient cause was made out to entertain the same. After remand, the Director of Settlements held that the delay in filing the revision was wilful. Tlie petitioners challenged the same before the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records who by his orders dated 31-12-1976 rejected the Revision Petition as time barred. The same was challenged before this Court in WP No.434/76. This Court allowed the said Revision Petition on 19-6-1978 setting aside the orders of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records and directed him to dispose of matter afresh. The Commissioner by his order dated 1-5-1982 allowed the revision filed by flic petitioners setting aside the orders of the Director of Settlements passed on 2-4-1976 and remanded the matter to the Director of Settlements to dispose of the case afresh in the light of the High Court's observations. On 17-2-1984, the Director of Settlements passed an order in RP No.26/70 rejecting the revision filed by the Tahsildar Pithapuram against which, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pitliapuram filed Revision Petition before the Commissioner. The Commissioner rejected the said revision by his order dated 4-9-1985. The same was not challenged by the Department. Thus the said order became final. When these proceedings were concluded and the rights of the parties were settled to their surprise the respondents initiated proceedings against the petitioners directing them that they shall not cut and remove the trees situated in the land purcliased by them, in his proceeding Ref.A 26/88 dated 24-12-1988. Aggrieved by the same, WP No.3039 of 1989 is filed seeking for issuing writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records by declaring the proceedings initiated by the authorities as illegal and without jurisdiction.
5. The State on service of notice filed counter. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter is as follows:
That Survey No.175 of Kodavah village of Gollaprolu Mandal stands registered in survey records as "Chitrayi Tank". It is poramboke tank and vested in Government. There is an ayacut of Ac.87-53 cents under this tank for which the Government is collecting water taxes from the ryots. The said tank poramboke was in existence prior to Estate Abolition. During the year 1961, the said area was handed over to the Government of India, Archaeological Department as per EastGodavari Collector's Ref.Al-17735/61 dated 18-9-1961 in view of its archaeological importance. Without the knowledge of the Department, the petitioners came into the possession of the land during the year 1957. The petitioners approached the Settlement Officer for mutation in the year 1963. The land in question was situated in an estate village. Even, the Zamin had no right over the land prior to abolition of the Estate. The respondents have admitted the proceedings that were initiated throughout till the last order passed by the Commissioner on 4-9-1985. It is averred in the counter that initiation of suo motu powers after a long time is not illegal and without jurisdiction in view of Board's CircularNo.Pl. 1359/76, dated 27-9-1976. In view of powers conferred under Sections 5 and 7 of EA Act, a Revision was filed on 10-10-1986 before the Director of Settlements. Even the Collector, Kakinada addressed a letter on 3-1-1987 requesting the Director of Settlements to initiate enquiry under Section 5(2) of EA Act. On 30-4-1988 the Director requested the Collector to send the prc-abolition records. When the matter stood thus, the petitioners were attempted to cut and remove the standing trees from the lands. As such a direction had to be given to the petitioners not to cut and remove the standing trees. The purchase of the land by the petitioners has not conferred a right on them as the land was not available for sale. The petitioners 1,3, and 4 filed declaration before the concerned Land Reforms Tribunal. Though they filed declaration they did not mention their possession and enjoyment of the lands in their possession. The lands in question was shown as tank poramboke even in 1834. But the purchase of the land by the petitioners is only in 1957. As the matter was pending before the Director of Survey and Settlements on the representation made by the department recommended by the Collector, the Mandal Revenue Officer was justified in issuing the notice dated 24-12-1988 calling upon the petitioners not to cut and remove the standing trees.
6. Regarding averments in WP No. 13648 of 1991 concerned they arc almost same as in WP No.3039 of 1989.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the proceedings initiated by the respondents are quite illegal and without jurisdiction. The rights of the petitioners were confirmed and concluded by an order of Settlement Officer passed during 1963. It is not open for the authorities to revise the same by exercising suo motu powers after 25 to 28 years. The proceedings initiated by the authorities is nothing but clear case of misusing the powers. According to him, no fraud or misrepresentation was committed by the petitioners. When they purchased the lands in Ihe year 1961 nothing was in the revenue records mentioning that it is handed over to Archaeological Department etc. Though it was included in the tank bed, but on the date of purchase it had lost all the characteristics of the canal land or the tank bed. On the other hand (they were) using it for raising crops. At no time the authorities objected the petitioners from raising trees in the land in question. But to initiate the proceedings, all of a sudden, without even holding an enquiry and hearing the petitioners is not only quite arbitrary but also illegal. As the petitioners have been in possession since 1957 they are entitled for mutation of their names in the revenue records. The authorities are also duty bound to order mutation, but yielding to the pressure of the busy bodies they started initiating the proceedings in question which are mala fide. He also contended that when the proceedings are quite arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction it is not necessary to avail alternative remedy. On the other hand this Court to correct the injustice caused to the petitioners can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To support her contention, she also placed reliance on some of the decisions which will be referred a little later.
8. As an answer to these contentions, the learned Government Pleader contended that the proceedings initiated were quite just and valid. The authorities after satisfying that fraud and misrepresentation have been played sought to initiate the suo motu revisional powers. To avert grabbing of land by the petitioners which belongs to the Government, the authorities arc justified in reopening the case. The petitioners knowing fully well the effect of law purchased the land. The petitioners filed declaration under Land Regulation (sic Reforms) Act before the Tribunal. But they suppressed information as to their possession of land in question. This they did with a mala fide intention. Since disputed questions of facts are involved, the petitioners shall agitate the same by filing an appeal under Section 90 of A.P. (AA) Estates Abolition Act before the Commissioner of Land Revenue.
9. The facts relating to the date of purchase of the land till the date of proceedings under challenge are not in dispute. The short point for consideration is whether the authorities are justified in revising the orders passed during the year 1963 and directing the petitioners not to do a particular act?
10. In order to understand the powers of the authorities, it is proper to bear in mind the effect of Sections 5 and 1l(a). which read as follows:
"5. Appointment and function of the Settlement Officers :-(1) As soon as may be after the passing of this Act, the Government shall appoint one or more Settlement Officers to carry out the functions and duties assigned to them under this Act.
(2) Every Settlement Officer shall be subordinate to the Director and shall be guided by such lawful instructions as he may issue from time to time; and the Director shall also have power to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Settlement Officer, other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal".
"11. Land in which ryot is entitled to ryoti patta :--Every ryot in an estate shall, with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryohvari patta in respect of-
(a) all ryoti lands which, immediately before the notified date were properly included or ought to have been properly included in his holding and which are not either lanka lands or lands in respect of which a landholder or some other person is entitled to a ryohwari patta under any other provision of this Act;"
11. Dealing with the revisional powers of the authorities either under the Act in question or under similar Acts or similar provisions available under other allied Acts, the Supreme court as well as this Court have laid down the law to the following effect:
The Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, , while explaining the power of Commissioner to revise order made under Section 65 the effect of limitation, three questions were answered as follows: viz., revisional powers must be exercised within a reasonable time viz., within few months, while ordering the authorities shall give reasons for its conclusion; the Commissioner while exercising his powers conferred under Sections 65 and 211 of Bombay Land Revenue Code (5 of 1879) cannot decide questions of title against occupant. The relevant discussion is at Paras 11, 12 13 and 14 which reads as follows:
"ll. The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under Section 65 at any time. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised.
12. It seems to us that Section 65 itself indicates the length of the reasonable time within which the Commissioner must act under Section 211. Under Section 65 of the Code if the Collector docs not inform the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of three months the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. This section shows that a period of three months is considered ample for the Collector to make up his mind and beyond that the Legislature thinks that the matter is so urgent that permission shall be deemed to have been granted. Reading Section 211 and 65 together it seems to us that the Commissioner must exercise his revisional powers within a few months of the order of the Collector. This is reasonable time because after the grant of the permission for building purposes the occupant is likely to spend money on starting building operations atleast within a few months from the date of the permission, hi this case the Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector on October 12, 1961, i.e., more than a year after the order, and it seems to us that this order was passed too late.
13. We are also of opinion that the order of the Commissioner should be quashed on the ground mat he did not give any reasons for his conclusions. We have already extracted the passage above which shows that after reciting the various contentions he baldly stated his conclusions without disclosing his reasons. In a matter of this kind the Commissioner should indicate his reasons, however, briefly, so that an aggrieved party may carry the matter further if so advised.
14. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner should not have gone into the question of title. It seems to us that when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute is serious the appropriate course for the Collector or the Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a competent Court and not to decide the question of title himself against the occupant."
12. This Court in the case of G. Varasimhamurthy v. Director of Settlements, 1989 (1) ALT 124 interpreting Sections 4(4) and 5 of A.P. Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation Act, 1969, held as follows:
"Even though no period of limitation is prescribed under the relevant enactment for exercise of power suo motu, the power should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is not open to the authorities to take action after a lapse of several years, merely on the ground that there is no period of limitation. What is a reasonable time depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
In this case, it was only on 20-8-1987 that the impugned notice was issued seeking to exercise die revisional power under Section 4(4) of the Regulation, 12 years after the order and nine years after the Director of Settlements had knowledge about the grant of pattas. The exercise of power at this stage is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. The period of limitation for filing the appeal is only two months. Therefore the action of the 1st respondent in seeking to revise the order of the Settlement Officer dated 2-2-1975 in 1987 is unreasonable."
13. This Court in Kalleti Chengaiah v. Director of Settlements, once again interpreting Section 5(2) of the Act, 1948 took almost a similar view as taken by this Court in earlier decision which reads as follows:
"Section 5(2) makes it clear that the Director has power to cancel or revise any order of the Settlement Officer, of course excluding those against which an appeal lies to the Tribunal. The words cancel or revise' occurring in Section are wide enough to take in, the incidental power of remand to the lower authority by the Director while exercising his powers under Section 5(2) of the Act, irrespective of the fact whether the revision is a preferred one or taken up suo motu.
In this case, at the time of issuing the show-cause notice, the Director was not having even the order of granting patta so that he could peruse and find a ground to take up the revision suo motu. This is a case where the patta was granted as long back as in the year 1983 and the present revision taken up suo motu is disposed of in October, 1990 upsetting the settled rights conferred through the patta in favour of the petitioner to the land in question. Therefore, on the ground of non-application of mind before initiation of the proceedings, and the resultant upsetting of the settled rights, the impugned order is liable to be quashed."
14. In the case of Linga Reddi v. Director of Settlements, , this Court while interpreting the scope of Sections 10 and 64 of A-P. (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908 held as follows:
"Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908, Sections 10 & 64- A.P. (AA) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryohvari) Act, 1948 -Zamindari Estate abolished and taken over by government by virtue of Abolition Act XXVI of 1948 Persons holding lands enjoying transferable and heritable rights under Estates Land Act (Act I of 1908) Continue to enjoy the rights of ownership -After abolition of estates Rough pattas granted and names entered in 10(1) revenue accounts Collector requested Director of Settlements of initiate suo motu proceedings in respect of such lands. The Director of Settlements initiated proceedings on the ground that pre-abolition records are not available to hold that the rough pattas granted arc valid- without enquiry -Unsustainable - Mere fact that land is not cultivated though capable of cultivation
- Rough pattas granted by revenue authorities cannot be reopened after lapse of long time except when there is proof of fraud or mis-representation while obtaining pattas-Procecdings initiated out of pressure without application of mind
- Invalid.
15. A Division bench of this Court in the case of Ibrahimpatnam Taliik Vyavasaya Coolie Sangam v. K. Suresh Reddy, 1996 (2) ALD 945 (DB) = 1996 (2) An WR 511, while interpreting the scope of Section 50-B of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 took almost a similar view. Relevant portion available in Para 5 of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
"The law is far too well settled that where power is conferred on an authority to exercise suo motu revisional power, without setting out the time limit within which the power is to be exercised, the jurisdiction as of necessity required to be invoked within a reasonable time frame, though such reasonable time may vary according to the facts of the case. Non-stipulation of the limitation for exercise of the suo motu power does not authorise the authorities vested with the power to invoke it after a lapse of any length of time since exercise of an administrative power or quasi-judicial power is necessarily linked to the concept of Rule of Law enshrined in the Constitution and exercise of such power after long lapse of time is prima facie arbitrary. Absence of arbitrariness in exercise of vested power is only reiteration of the principles of prevalence of Rule of Law. Exercise of such power after 14 to 15 years is ipso facto unreasonable."
16. The above discussion including the legal position makes it clear that the powers which the authorities sought to exercise are neither just nor reasonable. By the present proceedings, they started to unsettle the things which were settled long ago. Keeping silent for several decades and then to come up with an explanation that lands in question (were) prohibited for alienation and the alienators (sic alienees) are not entitled for mutation is not tenable. The powers to revise are quasi-judicial in nature. The same shall be exercised within a reasonable period and while exercising shall give valid and acceptable reasons. The power exercised clearly establishes that the authorities acted under dictation influenced more by extraneous consideration; the proceedings are not only arbitrary and unreasonable, but they exercise powers with mala fide intention.
17. The submission of the Government Pleader is that the authorities to exercise suo motu powers as they came to know that alienations were made due to fraud and misrepresentation. But in none of the orders referred to earlier, mere was a finding as to fraud or misrepresentation. The facts narrated by the petitioners disclose that after purchase of the land they were put in possession of the land they improved it and they have been enjojing the same. If the authority felt that the land in question was required for some public purpose then they had to resort to invoke the provisions contained in some other law to take over the land and not by unsettling the thiings. In our view exercise of suo motu revisional powers is unwarranted, mala fide, unreasonable and illegal. When the Court comes to know that manifest illegality has been crept in or proceedings without jurisdiction, to render justice and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, this Court can exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instead of driving the parties to exhaust alternative remedy. After all alternative remedy is not a rule of law, but it is a matter of convenience for Judges to dispose of the cases. The duty of the Court is to see justice is not only done but seemed to be done.
18. The case of the petitioner squarely falls under the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and Supreme Court in the decision referred to above. Whereas the reliance placed by the Government Pleader on a decision of this Court rendered in the case of N. Ramachandra Reddy v. Commissioner of Survey Settlements and Land Records, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, 1990 (2) An. WR 534, has no application.
19. The action of the authorities is neither authorised under any provisions of the Act nor can escape from the criticism by the Courts in the light of the decisions referred above. Hence, both the Writ Petitions are allowed declaring the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are void and orders under challenge are quashed and the respondents are directed to consider die petitioner's request for ordering mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the lands in question for which they are entitled to as expeditiousty as possible. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.