Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana, Represented By ... vs Sri. S.Narender S/O Late Sree Ramulu, on 9 March, 2022
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL No.488 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 05.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21794 of 2016.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that land admeasuring Ac.9.35 guntas bearing Survey No.197 situated at Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was under the ownership of one late Sri Sriramulu @ Shivaram and he was also owner of land admeasuring Ac.11.05 guntas bearing Survey No.196 situated at the same Village. The facts further reveal that one Sri M.R. Krishna, former Member of Parliament, addressed a letter dated 07.03.1990 to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, stating that he has purchased land in Survey Nos.196 and 197 of Yapral Village from the land owner, Sri P. Shivaram S/o. Sri Venkatswamy, in the year 1955. It was also stated in the aforesaid letter that he is eager to build about 200 more houses for the houseless families and to transfer the aforesaid land to the State Government through Mandal Revenue Officer, 2 Malkajgiri. The State Government, based upon the offer made by Sri M.R.Krishna, at that point of time took action in the matter and also mutated the name of the Government in the revenue records. Meaning thereby, in the absence of any deed of transfer, which is required under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, simply on the basis of a letter of a Member of Parliament, the property of a private individual was treated to be transferred in the name of a Member of Parliament and then it was transferred in the name of the State of Telangana (erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh).
The children of late Sri Sriramulu @ Shivaram were all Government servants, two of them were posted out of Telangana and one was in Telangana. The moment they came to know about such transfer of land, a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.20371 of 1997 was preferred by one of the children, Sri Narender. In the aforesaid writ petition, it was categorically stated that he is the owner of the land, as the predecessor-in-title is his father, there was no deed of transfer of title and based upon some letter of the former Member of Parliament, the land was transferred to the State Government and thereafter to some housing society. A prayer was made in the aforesaid writ petition that in case the State Government wants the land in question, appropriate 3 proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act be initiated. At the same time, the writ petitioner, Sri Narender, also approached the revenue authorities for mutation of his name in the revenue records, as the name of Sri Sriramulu @ Shivaram was deleted from the revenue records and finally orders were passed by the revenue authorities rejecting his claim and therefore, a second writ petition was also preferred i.e., W.P.No.17811 of 2001. Both the writ petitions were heard together and after taking into account the entire history of the litigation, by an order dated 26.11.2001, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions.
The order dated 26.11.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.20371 of 1997 and 17811 of 2001 is reproduced as under:-
"Both the writ petitions can be disposed of by this common order, as the relief claimed is consequential relief.
In W.P.No.20371 of 1997, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to restore the land in Survey No.197 admeasuring Ac.9.37 guntas situated at Yapral village. Malkajgiri mandal, Ranga Reddy District or in the alternative to direct the respondents to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. W.P.No.17811 of 2001 is filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector dated 21.8.2000 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer dated 24.8.1993.
The facts leading to the present writ petitions can be traced out in the following paragraphs.
The father of the petitioner Mr. Sriramulu was the owner and pattadar of the land in an extent of Ac.21.00 situated in S.Nos.196 and 197 of Yapral village, Malkajgiri Mandal. It is 4 also stated that in the revenue records such as Khasra pahani and other pahanies the name of the father of the petitioner was shown as he pattadar of the land in question. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner, having come to know that the name of his father has not been shown as Pattadar in the revenue records even though he was recognized as Pattadar in final tenancy records, made an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer for necessary correction in the revenue records. The said application was dismissed by the Mandal Revenue Officer by order dated 24.8.1993. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Joint Collector who by an order dated 21.8.2000 dismissed the said revision. Aggrieved by the same, these writ petitions are filed.
In the counter filed by the Government it is stated that the name of the father of the petitioner was figuring as Pattadar and owner in respect of the land in question up to 1959-60 and thereafter it was converted into Sarkari on the ground that some documents were exchanged between the father of the petitioner and the social welfare department and that after it became government land, various assignments were made in favour of third parties who are represented by the 3rd respondent society. The Joint Collector considered this matter and found that it was a patta land which is not covered by the provisions of the A.P.Rights in land and Pattadar pass books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). He also found that the application was filed belatedly. On both the grounds, the revision petition was dismissed and the order of the Joint Collector cannot be said to be illegal and contrary to law.
The 3rd respondent society filed a counter stating that the land was purchased by the members of the society from the original owner and to that extent a statement was issued by the wife of the original owner and thereafter the land was allotted to various persons who have constructed the buildings and they are in occupation of the said constructions for the last several years. Therefore, it is submitted that the writ petitions as such are not maintainable. The petitioner has to only raise a civil dispute before the appropriate Court and hence these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
The issue that arises for consideration is whether the orders of the authorities below are justified?
There is no dispute that the petitioner is the son of the original owner and it is also borne out by records that upto 1959-60 the father of the petitioner was shown as the pattadar wherein he was said to be holding an extent of Ac.21.00 in S.Nos.196 and 197. The Joint Collector refused to grant relief to the petitioner on the ground that the land is not an agricultural land and therefore the provisions of the Act would not apply. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the definition of land in Act 26 of 1971, which reads thus:5
"Land means land which is used or is capable for being used for the purpose of agriculture including horticulture but does not include land used exclusively for non agricultural purposes."
It is the case of the petitioner that there must be a definite finding that the land was not capable of being used for the purpose of agriculture and the Government in the counter itself has stated that the land was assigned to various land less poor persons. In such a situation, the finding that the land is not covered by the provisions of the Act is illegal and contrary to law. It is the Government who made the land uncultivable on account of assignment of pattas in respect of various beneficiaries who are landless poor. But the question that falls for consideration is whether the land could be converted as a Government land when it is accepted as a patta land by the Government itself. Even though the learned Government Pleader tried to convince this Court that the land was purchased by the social welfare department and that records are not traceable and that the subsequent events prove that funds were pressed into service for development of the land and the Hyderabad colonies itself indicates that it is a government land and it has become virtually not useful for cultivation, am afraid, I cannot accept said contention. When it is admitted by the Government itself that it is a patta land upto 1959-60, the burden is on the Government to show as to how it became a Sarkari land either by virtue of acquisition under the land Acquisition Act or by virtue of other instruments and none of those proceedings are forthcoming before this Court. It is also admitted by the Government they have assigned the land to various persons and some more land is also vacant and even the said vacant is also in the process of being assigned to others and the plans were already prepared in this regard. Thus, in effect saying that the nature of the entire land has been changed and that the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this regard. It is one thing to say that it is a Government land and the Government is entitled to allot the land to the landless poor persons or assign in favour of various beneficiaries. But, it is yet another thing to say that though it is a patta land yet it was converted into government land and thereafter it was assigned. In the former case, it is always open for the Government to assign the land in favour of the landless poor. But, in the later case, the Government is under a duty to establish as to how it became Government land and it cannot deprive the real owner of the right to property except in accordance with law. Even though right to property is not a constitutional right, yet it is a legal right, which cannot be deprived by the Government without following the procedure as laid down under law.
In the instant case, admittedly, no such documents are forthcoming to show as to how the land in question became the 6 government land. The fact remains that the land has been assigned to various persons and they have raised structures and they have been staying there for the last several years. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent society though contend that the land has been purchased by the society and that the sale deeds are with the Government that cannot be accepted for the reason that the government itself submits that the land was treated as a Sarkari land and the assignments were made in favour of the members of the 3rd respondent society. Obviously, it has to be held that the members of the 3rd respondent society are not the purchasers and that they are only beneficiaries of the assignments alleged to have been made by the Government after treating the land in question as Government land. Moreover the stand of the association was rejected by the Joint Collector and no challenge was made by the society. It is also stated in the counter that some more land is available but in view of the fact that the land was allowed to be allotted to various persons by the Government even though it has no right and that further process has already been initiated for allotment of vacant land, the situation cannot be retrieved but it has to be only salvaged keeping in view the interest of the beneficiaries as also the interest of the petitioner who cannot be deprived of his land without recourse to law. When once the Government claims that it is a Government land without there being any valid documentary proof, the necessary recourse it should follow from the events is that the it should first acquire the land before it makes allotment to others. But, in the instant case, a retrograde step was taken by the government. Having allowed the land to become Abadi, it will not be permissible to the Joint Collector to say that the land is not covered by the provisions the Act since it has become Abadi.
Another ground that is raised by the respondents is that there are clear latches on the part of the petitioner and that he cannot approach the authorities after long lapse of time. But, this is to be noted that since the Government itself has stated that it has treated the land in question as a Government land and allotted the same to various others, the question of delay becomes immaterial and the Government is bound to come to the rescue of the petitioners as well as the beneficiaries. Since this Court found that it is not possible to restore the land in favour of the petitioner, the only alternative that can be culled out from the events is that the Government should acquire the land by initiating necessary proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land held by the petitioner's father to which the petitioner succeed.
Under these circumstances, the impugned orders are aside. The Government is directed to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act by acquiring the land in question. This exercise shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7
Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly." Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, writ appeals i.e., W.A.Nos.825 and 957 of 2002 were preferred in the matter and by an order dated 24.08.2010, the Division Bench has affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The order dated 24.08.2010 passed by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.825 and 957 of 2002 is reproduced as under:-
"Since these two appeals were heard together along with the other connected appeal filed by the State in W.A (SR) No. 82947 of 2009 and common objection being raised as to maintainability, hence, they are being taken up for disposal together, though by two different judgments.
Heard learned Advocate General on behalf of appellants and Mr Y Ashok Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents/writ petitioners. The facts as arise in the present lis are that the appeal in W A No. 957 of 2002 is filed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri (M), Ranga Reddy district, having aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W P No. 20371 of 1997 dated 26.11.2001, allowing the writ petition, where the respondents herein/writ petitioners sought writ of mandamus seeking direction for restoration of land in Survey No. 197, admeasuring Ac.9.35 guntas, Yapral village, Malkajgiri mandal, Ranga Reddy district, or in the alternative direct the authorities to initiate proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.
Whereas, the appeal in W A No. 825 of 2002 is filed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri mandal, Ranga Reddy district, aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P No. 17811 of 2001 dated 26.11.2001 allowing the writ petition, where the first respondent herein/writ petitioner sought a writ against the appellant no.2 herein, interalia seeking for a writ of certiorari and to quash the orders passed by the first appellant viz., the Joint Collector in File No.D5/1176/94 dated 21.8.2000, confirming the orders 8 of the appellant no.2 viz., Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri in file ROR/Yapral/2060/93 dated 24.8.1993.
In W P No. 20371 of 1997 the claim of the petitioner was that having regard to the fact that the land was claimed by Social Welfare Department, in pursuance of certain projects made by it, which is not created, hence he sought either for restoration of the said land or to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Since the above two writ petitions were disposed of by the learned single Judge by a common judgment, hence the appeals filed against the said two orders can be heard together.
The claim of the petitioner, who is common in both the writ petitions mentioned above, rest on the footing that his father was owner and pattedar of the land in an extent of Ac.21 in Survey Nos. 196, 197 of Yapral village, Malkajgiri mandal. Since subsequently it was found that his father's name was not found in the revenue records as pattedar, even though he was recognised as pattedar in all records including the tenancy, he filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer for effecting corrections in the revenue records under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971. however, the Mandal Revenue Officer, who is primary authority constituted thereunder, dismissed the application as per the orders dated 24.8.1993, there upon, the writ petitioner filed a revision before the first appellant herein viz., Joint Collector and the same was also numbered as per the orders dated 21.8.2000.
Thus, as stated above, in both these writ petitions the land involved and parties also are virtually one and same. In the other writ petition in W P No. 17811 of 2001, a society was added as third respondent, which is also added as respondent no.2 in one of the appeals, which claims that the said land was purchased by the members of the society from the original owner and was allotted to various persons who are members of the society and who in turn have constructed the buildings and are in occupation of their respective premises, hence, having regard to such nature of claim arising, this Court cannot go into any such claim on behalf of the writ petitioner and necessarily the remedy lies with the appropriate Civil Court.
Learned single Judge after taking into consideration the respective pleadings, claims and objections, ultimately allowed both the writ petitions rejecting the objections raised on behalf of the appellants herein including that of the society and set aside both the aforesaid orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer and Joint Collector and in view of the position as claimed by the society and its members, direction was given to the Government to initiate proceedings under the principles of Land Acquisition Act by acquiring the land in 9 question. Hence, these two appeals are being filed by the appellants as shown in the cause title.
When the matter came up for hearing, these appeals were also taken up along with other connected matter, as mentioned above and an objection was raised as to the very locus and maintainability of the appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters patent, more so, at the instance of the Joint Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, whose orders dated 21.8.2000 and 24.8.1993 being assailed in the writ petitions. Admittedly, these two authorities are the respective authorities under A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 with all the powers to go into the claims of record of rights and pass appropriate orders. The primary authority is Mandal Revenue officer and the revisional authority is Joint Collector, therefore, both these authorities without any demur or dispute are quasi judicial authorities with all the powers and jurisdiction to go into the claims of substantive rights of the parties vis-à-vis any objection either from the Government or any third parties and make a decision thereon. Therefore, these two authorities naturally are on par with regular Court/Tribunal or quasi judicial body with all judicial powers, though in a restricted manner, it can be safely said as quasi judicial to decide upon the rights, therefore, if any claim or objection or right is raised or any right is claimed by the Government, which circumstance is totally different and necessarily the Government has to pursue the remedies and set up the claim in the manner which is known to law but not otherwise. These authorities, therefore which are supposed to be independent quasi judicial bodies, cannot claim to represent the Government or interest of the Government and to carry forward by availing any remedies under the law including under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Necessarily it follows as already held in the connected proceedings in WA (SR) No. 82947 of 2009 that such quasi judicial bodies/authorities would not have any locus to assail their own orders on judicial side and it cannot be termed as aggrieved persons/parties.
Admittedly, these two appeals are at the instance of very same authorities except in W P No. 20371 of 1997 where the Collector of Ranga Reddy district is made a respondent no.1. Either at the time of disposal of the writ petitions or prior thereto, no counter affidavits either by the Collector or by any appropriate authorities raising any objection or setting up any claim , right, title or interest of the Government were filed. Further, the entire contest, admittedly by the learned Government Pleader is on behalf of the very same authorities which are under challenge. Yet, it is these appellants now sought to file the appeals as against the orders allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents/writ petitioners, therefore the very appeal is not maintainable, as we have 10 already held in other connected matters nor it can be said that appellants have any locus to prefer any appeal.
Coming to the facts of the case and the conclusions as arrived at by the learned Single Judge, it has to be seen that there being no dispute as to the petitioner as son of the original owner as evident from the records in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.21-00 in Sy.No.196 and 197. The entire case was in contract to the merits was sought to be negatived only on the ground that the land is not an agricultural land as the same is not capable of being used for any purpose of agriculture. However, it is borne from the record that the patta stood in their name up to 1959-60 and there is nothing on record to show how the said land has become Sarkari or government. Admittedly, there is no acquisition of personal whatsoever of nature nor any other mode as known to law is pointed out for the State to become the owner. In the absence of any such positive evidence and material in support or any specific case, even it is neither open for the appellants to set forth a claim of government nor would it make the land as that of the agricultural. The learned Single Judge has considered the same in depth by querying as to how the land could become that of government. There was neither any explanation before the learned Single Judge nor before us in spite of such finding by the learned Judge. Therefore, on all the counts as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, we are in entire agreement since we are disposing of these matters on the other ground of maintainability and correctness of the appeal as has been filed and framed. It would suffice to reiterate the findings as arrived by the learned Single Judge as sufficient enough not to warrant any interference in the appeal.
After such objection was raised and matter was heard in part, an application has been filed in WAMP No. 2567 of 2009 by the State of A P represented by its District Collector, Ranga Reddy as proposed appellants under Rule 16-A of the Writ Rules, seeking permission to add the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its District Collector, Ranga Reddy in W A No. 825 of 2002 by transposing the appellants 1 and 2 as respondents 3 and 4.
This application is supported by an affidavit sworn to by Mr. Dana Kishore, who is working as District Collector, Ranga Reddy. A reading of the entire affidavit, there is no reference nor any mention as to the filing of any pleading or counter affidavit by the very same deponent in either of the writ petitions, which were disposed of by the learned Single Judge as long back as on 26.11.2001. However, curiously the said affidavit proceeds in para 3 to5 on the premise that due to the orders passed by the appellants 1 and 2 /Joint Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, the State was vested with the title to property in dispute and the writ petitioners 11 have not made the State as party and said defect continued even in the writ appeal, though the state is a party being adversely affected and relied on the principle "no order adverse to a party should be passed without hearing him' In para 4 it is stated that appellants 1 and 2 viz., Joint Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, admittedly being quasi judicial authorities, cannot prefer an appeal against the decision rendered by themselves, therefore in the interest of justice, it is essential that State be made party in the writ appeal. Further in para 5, it is stated that objection as to maintainability was never raised at the time of admission or thereafter and the same was raised at the stage of hearing of the appeal. That the interest of justice require that the appellant be permitted to make necessary amendments including amending the cause title and transposition of the parties is permissible even at the appellate stage, hence the said application.
The application in W A M P NO. 2567 of 2009 was contested and opposed on behalf of the writ petitioners/respondents as being belated, totally lacking either bonafides much less merits nor coming out with any proper explanation for sleeping over the matter all along.
We have considered the very same objection in the connected proceedings in WA(SR) No. 82947 of 2009 and we have given the reasons also as to how and why such appeals at the instance of quasi judicial authorities under particular legislation have no locus, therefore appeal itself held to be not maintainable. Even similar such applications in WAMP Nos. 2011, 2240, 2318 and 2575 of 2009 are dismissed.
Following the same and for self same reasons, we hold that the present appeals in W A Nos. 825 and 957 of 2002 are not maintainable and accordingly the same are hereby dismissed. Consequently, WAMP No. 2567 of 2009 stands dismissed. No costs."
The erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench, has preferred S.L.P.Nos.32823-32826 of 2010 and the same were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Meaning thereby, way back in the year 2001, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division 12 Bench and also affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with a liberty to the State to initiate land acquisition proceedings in case the State Government wants to acquire the land or to permit land owners to continue with their possession. However, nothing was done in the matter. On the contrary, the State Government started erecting fencing over the land, which was under the ownership of Sri Narender, descendent of late Sri Sriramulu @ Shivaram. Therefore, Sri Narender has again preferred a writ petition, which was registered as W.P.No.21794 of 2016 and by an order dated 05.01.2017, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:-
"Neither the Government nor M.R.Krishna is able to show a valid title in respect of the subject land. On the other hand several sale transactions have taken place as per the statement of the Encumbrance on property dated 05.10.2016 in Sy Nos.196 and 197 of Yapral village during the past 34 years period i.e., w.e.f 01.04.1982 to 04.10.2016 without the government or M R Krishna being a party to the said sale documents numbering about 46 as informed by the petitioner. The MRO proceedings No.B/6574/1988 dated 08.08.1989 are not valid under law and it is not binding to the petitioner. Thus, the respondents have willfully and deliberately failed to implement the common order of this Court passed in W.P.No.20371 of 1997 and 17811 of 2001 dated 26.11.2001, which amounts to contempt and they are liable to be punished in accordance with law in appropriate proceedings.
It is pertinent to mention here that this Court vide order dated 26.11.2001 in WP No.20371 of 1997 & 17811 of 2001 opined as under :
"In the instant case, admittedly, no such documents are forthcoming to show as to how the land in question became the government land. The fact remains that the land has been 13 assigned to various persons and they have raised structures and they have been staying there for the last several years. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent society though contend that the land has been purchased by the society and that the sale deeds are with the Government, that cannot be accepted for the reason that the government itself submits that the land was treated as a sarkari land and the assignments were made in favour of the members of the 3rd respondent society. Obviously, it has to be held that the members of the 3rd respondent society are not the purchasers and that they are only beneficiaries of the assignments alleged to have been made by the Government after treating the land in question as a Government land. Moreover the stand of the association was rejected by the Joint Collector and no challenge was made by the society. It is also stated in the counter that some more land is available but in view of the fact that the land was allowed to be allotted to various persons by the Government even though it has no right and that further process has already been initiated for allotment of vacant land, the situation cannot be retrieved but it has to be only salvaged keeping in view the interest of the beneficiaries as also the interest of the petitioner who cannot be deprived of his land without recourse to law. When once the Government claims that it is a government land without there being any valid documentary proof, the necessary recourse it should follow from the events is that it should first acquire the land before it makes allotment to others. But, in the instant case, a retrograde step was taken by the government. Having allowed the land to become Abadi, it will not be permissible to the Joint Collector to say that the land is not covered by the provisions of the Act since it has become Abadi.
Another ground that is raised by the respondents is that there are clear latches on the part of the petitioner and that he cannot approach the authorities after long lapse of time. But, this is to be noted that since the Government itself has stated that it has treated the land in question as a Government land and allotted the same to various others, the question of delay becomes immaterial and the Government is bound to come to the rescue of the petitioners as well as the beneficiaries. Since this Court found that it is not possible to restore the land in favour of the petitioner, the only alternative that 14 can be culled out from the events is that the government should acquire the land by initiating necessary proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land held by the petitioner's father to which the petitioner succeed."
Thus, the issues raised by the respondents on delay or otherwise have already been answered by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2001 as noted above. Therefore, there is no necessity to record opinion again in the present case. In addition, during the arguments in this petition, the respondents sought to time to verify the antecedents of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner and provided the name and addresses of family members of the petitioner including his brother staying at Bhopal (M.P). However, the respondents could not brought any material on record against the petitioner.
It is important to note that this Court in the aforesaid order also opined that it is not possible to restore the land in favour of the petitioner, the only alternative that can be culled out from the events is that the Government should acquire the land by initiating necessary proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land held by the petitioner's father to which the petitioner succeed and the same has been allowed to encroach by the Government.
In view of the facts and circumstances recorded above and for substantial justice, this Court is hereby direct as under:
i) the respondents shall not dispossess and interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the vacant land available in Sy.No.197 situated at Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad;
ii) the respondents are directed to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 30 of 2013 by acquiring the land under Sy No.196 situated at Yapral village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which is under encroachment, and compensation shall be paid in favour of the petitioner;
iii) the respondents shall complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
iv) Failing which, the respondents shall be personally held liable for all the consequences.
With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed."
15
The State Government has preferred the present writ appeal against the aforesaid order. It is also pertinent to note that all the contempt proceedings also have been disposed of in the light of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Learned counsel for the State Government has vehemently argued before this Court that the predecessor-in- title, Sri Sriramulu @ Shivaram, has sold the subject land to Sri M.R. Krishna, former Member of Parliament. Heavy reliance has been placed upon the letter dated 07.03.1990 addressed by the former Member of Parliament, which is reproduced as under:-
"7th March 1990 To, The M.R.O., MALKAJGIRI, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Dear Sir, I have purchased the lands in survey No.196 and 197 near Yapral in Alwal Municipality of Ranga Reddy District and established Jai Jawahar Nagar Colony. I purchased the land from Shri.P.Shivaram son of Shri.Venakatswamy a resident of Yapral village in the year 1955.
The site was approved by Pandit Jawarlal Nehru and the foundation stone for the colony was laid by Pandit Govind Bellabh Pant and the colony vas constructed mostly with voluntary labour. The Colony vas inaugurated by Panditji and over three hundred families belonging to the scheduled caste are presently residing.
We are eager to build about 20more houses for the houseless families. I have already requested you to allot house sites out of the remaining land to these families. Since you have asked me to produce some documents to show that I have purchased the land I could get hold of a receipt issued to 16 me by Shri.Shivaram 35 years ago. Shivaram and his nearest relatives are not alive and all other papers are not traceable immediately. I shall be grateful if you could complete the formalities and distribute the house sit Thanking you, yours faithfully, sd/-"
This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid letter. There is no reference to any title deed. There is no reference to any gift deed or any instrument of transfer as required under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This Court fails to understand as to how title is transferred in favour of Sri M.R. Krishna, former Member of Parliament, on the basis of the aforesaid letter. This Court is witnessing, for the first time, such type of transaction wherein a Member of Parliament has addressed a letter stating that he has purchased land and on the basis of his letter, the State Government has mutated the land in the name of the State Government. Such type of practice and procedure is unheard of.
Learned counsel for the State Government has also drawn the attention of this Court towards Form-C under Rule 16 of the A.P. (T.A) Land Revenue Rules, 1951. His contention is that the former Member of Parliament, Sri M.R. Krishna, has submitted a Form-C under Rule 16 of the A.P. (T.A) Land Revenue Rules, 17 1951 and therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid relinquishment, the State Government became the title holder of the property.
Rules 16 of the A.P. (T.A) Land Revenue Rules, 1951 is reproduced as under:-
"16. Relinquishment of land:-- A registered holder may relinquish his land by submitting an unconditional razinama in writing to the Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar before the end of April in any year. Such razinama need not be stamped but shall be in Form 'C' and the declaration therein shall be attested by two respectable witnesses. The Patwari shall, if requested to do so by the registered holder, write the razinama himself without charging any fees for the same. If the razinama is prepared by the Patwari, he shall affix his signature beneath the words 'written by' on the lower left hand corner of such razinama. The Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar, as the case may be, who receives such razinama shall certify it in his own hand according to the certificate prescribed in Form 'C'. He shall exercise due care in ascertaining the identity of the person who has signed the same, notwithstanding that such notice has been duly endorsed as hereinbefore required. The relinquishment shall have effect from the close of the current year."
The aforesaid Rule makes it very clear that a registered holder may relinquish his land by submitting an unconditional razinama in writing to the Tahsildar. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that Sri M.R.Krishna, the former Member of Parliament, is not a registered holder of the land situated in Survey Nos.196 and 197 of Yapral Village. Therefore, as he is not the registered holder of the land, the relinquishment by him has got no meaning and the State Government cannot claim title based upon Form-C in the manner and method it is being done.
18
The entire controversy has been put to rest in the earlier round of litigation. All documents were minutely scanned by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the S.L.Ps also. The State Government, in spite of the fact that it was granted a liberty to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act of 1894"), opted not to acquire the land and on the contrary has started fencing the land, which is certainly a private property as held in the earlier round of litigation, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition.
Another important aspect of the case is that at the relevant point of time, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was in force and therefore, the State Government was granted a liberty to acquire the land under the Act of 1894. Now we are in the year 2022 and therefore, if in case the State Government now wants to acquire the land, the State Government will have to initiate proceedings only under the new Act i.e., The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the Act of 2013"). This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 19
Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld.
Learned counsel for the State Government, after the order was dictated, still made an attempt to impress upon the Court that the State Government is the owner of the property by virtue of the documents at page Nos.122 as well as 232.
The document, which is at page No.122, is a letter addressed by the wife of the predecessor-in-title, Sri Sriramulu @ Shivaram, and the learned counsel for the State Government has stated that the wife has also accepted the sale in favour of the former Member of Parliament, Sri M.R. Krishna. The learned Single Judge has observed that the aforesaid document is a fabricated one. There is total denial on the part of the petitioner about the aforesaid letter. Otherwise also, such letter does not transfer title in favour of the former Member of Parliament, Sri M.R. Krishna.
Another document, which is at page No.232, is some revenue proceedings dated 25.03.1989 of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the same reflects that the request of the former Member of Parliament, Sri M.R.Krishna, was considered and the land was transferred to the State Government. This Court fails 20 to understand as to how a person, who was not title holder of the property, was making a request to the State Government and the State Government very innocently accepted the request of such person, who was not a title holder, in transferring the land in the name of the State Government.
Learned counsel for the State Government has also drawn the attention of this Court towards page No.238 which is a document dated 17.06.1989. It is again a statement of Sri M.R.Krishna, the then Member of Parliament, who is not having title and who has informed to the State Government that he does not have any objection for transfer of land to the State Government. Meaning thereby, based upon some letters of Sri M.R.Krishna, former Member of Parliament, the State Government is interfering with the possession of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner without acquiring the land and without paying the compensation.
Another important aspect of the case is that though the stand of the former Member of Parliament, Sri M.R.Krishna, in the present case is that he has gifted/donated/shown generosity towards the Government by transferring the land under his ownership, he has also preferred a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.26697 of 1998 stating that he is the owner and occupier 21 of land in Survey No.197 admeasuring Ac.9.35 guntas situated at Yapral Village and the Government is interfering with his peaceful possession. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 17.12.1998. Thereafter, no further steps have been taken by Sri M.R.Krishna. Meaning thereby, Sri M.R.Krishna, former Member of Parliament, himself has disputed the fact of transfer of land to the State Government at some point of time and based upon some letter addressed by him, now the State Government is claiming title.
This Court has seen many examples where private individuals have grabbed the Government land but this is one classic example of a case where the Government is grabbing the land of a private individual. The matter has been adjudicated way back in the year 2001 and has attained finality from the Supreme Court. In spite of the aforesaid fact, the State Government has not taken recourse to the land acquisition proceedings either under the Act of 1894 or under the Act of 2013 and is forcibly evicting the title holder of the property.
Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). 22
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ _______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 09.03.2022 JSU/pln