Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dampuri Bhaskar Bhaskar Yadav vs The State Of Ap on 14 September, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.23879 OF 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:
"To issue Writ of Mandamus to set aside the Proceedings Rc. A2/197/2020 dated 08.06.2020 of the 6th Respondent subsequently to direct the Respondents 3 and 4 to ratify the Field Measurement Books FMBs and Survey Land Registered SLR with regard to Survey Numbers 144 and 145 situated at Inagaluru Village, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District as per the Village Fair Adangal based on the recommendations of the 7th Respondent Vide Proceeding Roc.A/165/2019 dated 14.08.2019"
The petitioner purchased land of an extent of Ac.2-06 cents in Survey No.144/2, an extent of Ac.1-03 cents in Survey No.144/3A, and an extent of Ac.1-03 cents in Survey No.144/3B, totally an extent of Ac.4-12 cents of dry land from his vendor Smt. Pulluru Maheswaramma through Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.5759/2015, dated 28-11-2015. Further, the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0-25 cents in Survey No.142/6B, and an extent of Ac.0-90 cents in Survey No. 143/6C, an extent of Ac.0-78 cents in Survey No. 145/4, an extent of Ac.0-18 cents in Survey No.145/5A,an extent of Ac.0-18 cents in Survey No.145/5B, an extent of Ac.0-17 cents in Survey No.144/5C, and an extent of Ac.0-18 cents in Survey No.1458/5D, totally an extent of Ac.2-57 cents from his vendors Sri Chelikam Tirupal Reddy and the same was registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Srikalaasti, vide Document No.5763/2015, dated 28-11-2015. Prior to the purchase of the said land by the petitioner, the vendor of the petitioner by name Smt. Pulluru Maheswaramma converted the said land from Agriculture to Non-Agriculture vide proceedings No.J/756/2015, MSM,J WP_23879_2020 2 dated 21-04-2015 with regard to the survey numbers 144/2 an extent of Ac.2-06 cents, survey numbers 144/3A an extent of Ac.1- 03 cents and survey numbers 144/3B an extent of Ac.1-03 cents, totally an extent of Ac.4-12 cents from the 5th respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner's another vendor Sri Chelikam Tirupal Reddy got conversion of the land from Agriculture to Non-Agriculture vide Proceeding No. J/758/2015, dated 21-04-2015 with regard to the survey No. 142/6B an extent of Ac.0-25 cents, Survey No.143/6C an extent of Ac.0-90 cents, Survey No. 145/4 an extent of Ac.0-18 cents, Survey No.145/5B an extent of Ac.0-18 cents, Survey No.145/5C an extent of Ac.0-17 cents and Survey No.145/5D an extent of Ac.0-18 cents, totally an extent of Ac.2-56 cents.
The petitioner came to know the differences of land comparing to the existing Field Measurement Book (FMB) and Fair Adangal of Inagaluru Village with regard to Survey No.144 and 145 which were purchased by the petitioner through Registered Document No.5759/2015, dated 28-11-2015 and Registered Document No. 5763/2012, dated 28-11-2015. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation of the seventh respondent on 03-05-2019 by stating all the facts and requested to rectify the difference of Survey No.144 and 145 with reference to the Field Measurement Book (FMB) and as per Fair Adangal of Inagaluru Village. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Inspector submitted his report vide No.DIS/MRI/2019, 13- 08-2019. As per the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District, the petitioner lost an extent of Ac.0-76 cents of land on ground in two Survey No.144 and Survey No.145 out of total an extent of Ac.5-54 cents. In view of the said reasons as well as the request of the petitioner, the Mandal Revenue MSM,J WP_23879_2020 3 Inspector, Srikalahasti Mandal requested the seventh respondent through his proceedings vide D.Dis/MRI/2019, dated 13-8-2019 with request to submit report to the Higher Authorities for modifications of the FMBs with regard to Survey No. 144 and 145 of Inagaluru Village, Srikalahasti Mandal, as per the extents recorded in the Fair Adangal.
The seventh respondent in his proceedings Roc.A/165/2019, dated 14-08-2019 submitted report to the fourth respondent for ratification of Field Measurement Book and Survey Land Record with regard to the Survey No.144 and 145 of Inagaluru Village, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District. The seventh respondent stated that the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Srikalahasti Mandal in his report submitted existing Field Measurement Book Sketch and proposed Field Measurement Book Sketch, he recommended for modification of the FMB, as per the extensions recorded in the Fair Adangal, for the said reason, the seventh respondent gave details with a request to correct the Sub -Divisions in the Field Measurement Books with regard to the lands in Survey Nos. 144 and 145 of Inagaluru Village, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District, as per the extensions recorded in the Fair Adangal. Even though the seventh respondent submitted his report to the 4th respondent on 14-08-2019 with a request to correct the Sub- Divisions in the Field Measurement Book with regard to Survey Nos. 144 and 145 of Inagalur Village, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District, as per the extents recorded in the Fair Adangal to the fourth respondent by marking the same to the Respondent Nos.5 and 6, but the fourth respondent has not yet taken any action. At this juncture, the 6th respondent in his proceedings Rc.A2/197/2020, MSM,J WP_23879_2020 4 dated 08-06-2020 returned the same to the seventh respondent by marking a copy to the 4th respondent, therein the sixth respondent stated that nobody is competent to rearrange the Sub-Division in the Field Measurement Book, as per the Fair Adangal after completion of survey under Order Section 13 of the A.P. Board of Revenue Standing Orders. The stand of the sixth respondent is against to the Order 34-A (13) of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders. Further, he did not disclose when the survey was conducted and notices were issued either to the petitioner or his Vendors.
The petitioner is requesting the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 to correct the certain discrepancies in Sub-Divisions of Survey Nos. 144 and 145, Inagaluru Village, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District, as per the Fair Adangal, after conducting inspection in the ground level, sent a report to the seventh respondent on 13-08-2019 to ratify the Field Measurement Book (FMB) with regard to Survey Nos. 144 and 145 of Inagaluru Village, Srikalahasti Mandal. Though, the seventh respondent also recommended the same, he did not accept the recommendation on the ground that, he cannot re-arrange the extent in the Field Measurement Book, in view of the bar under Section 13 of the Act and rejected the same. The said endorsement is questioned now while contending that, the endorsement is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India and B.S.O.34(A) Clause (13).
It is further contended that, on account of such discrepancy, the petitioner is losing huge extent of land in different survey numbers, thereby, the petitioner is the ultimate sufferer of the action MSM,J WP_23879_2020 5 of the respondents and requested to issue a direction as claimed by this petitioner.
The sixth respondent filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations and specifically submitted in Paragraph No.2 of Page No.4, which are as follows:
"The Inspector of Survey-II of this office has submitted her report dated 09.09.2019 and stated that, for Survey Nos.144 and 145 of Inagalur Village, Srikalahasti Mandal, the sub-divisions and extents are tallied with FMB as compared with SLR copy of Inagaluru Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, but the sub-divisions are not tally with Fair Adangal of Inagaluru Village. Further, as seen from the Ryotwari patta (11) a copy of the ASO Nellore for survey No.144 and 145, the sub-divisions and check bandi was not mentioned and also sketches not enclosed for the extents given in Ryotwari pattas. The Inspector of Survey-II finally opined that the connected file of SLR copy and also Adangal since 1960 to 1970 for the Survey No.144 and 145 of Inagaluru Village of Srikalahasthi Mandal are required for comparison of the extent and pattadar names."
It is further contended that the Assistant Director of Survey, Chittoor i.e. the sixth respondent has returned the proposals through his reference Rc.A2/197/2020 dated 08.06.2020 to the seventh respondent by marking a copy to the fourth respondent i.e. Joint Collector, Chittoor stating that nobody is competent to rearrange the sub-division in the Field Measurement Book as per the Fair Adangal after completion of survey under Section 13 of the Act to the Tahsildar, Srikalahasthi. Section 13 of the Act clearly explains that, "When the survey of any land or boundary which has been notified under Section 5 has been completed in accordance with the orders passed under Sections 9, 10 or 11 the survey officer shall notify the fact in the District Gazette and a copy of such notification shall be posted in the village chavadi, if any, of the village to which the survey relates: unless the survey so notified is modified by a decree of a civil court under the provisions of Section 14; the record of the survey shall be conclusive proof that the boundaries MSM,J WP_23879_2020 6 determined and recorded therein have been correctly determined and recorded.
According to Section 14 of the Act, any person deeming himself aggrieved by the determination of any boundary under Sections 9, 10 or 11 may, subject to the provisions of Part II and III of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 institute a suit within three years from the date of the notification under Section 13 to set aside or modify the said determination and the survey shall, if necessary, be altered in accordance with the final decree in the suit and the alteration, if any shall be noted in the record.
Thus the sixth respondent/Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Chittoor has no right to re-record the Field Measurement Book and rightly rejected the recommendation under the impugned proceedings and finally requested to dismiss the writ petition.
The petitioner filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit reiterating the contentions urged in the affidavit specifically stated that the petitioner has to institute the suit within three years under Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 the notification under Section 13 of the Act from the date of notification. In the instant case, the respondents did not follow the procedure under Sections 6 and 10(2) of the Act i.e. to issue prior notice to the affected parties. On the said reason, Section 14 of the said Act is not applicable to the instant case. In the instant case, petitioner is only requesting to rectify the Field Measurement book and SLR as per the Fair Adangal of village under Order 34-B of Board Standing Orders for the land in Sy.Nos.144 and 145.
MSM,J WP_23879_2020 7 During hearing, Sri K. Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the affidavit, while contending that the question of challenging the notification issued under Section 13 of the Act does not arise or filing of a suit under Section 14 does not arise at this stage, in the absence of any details regarding date of notification, date of notices etc and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file the present petition. Hence, requested to issue a direction as claimed by the petitioner.
At the same time, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue supported the order impugned in the writ petition in view of Sections 13 & 14 of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, while contending that, Board Standing Order is only for administrative guidelines, thereby, the statute will prevail over the Board Standing Orders and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
The enforceability of the Board Standing Orders was considered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kanumuri Anji Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, candidly held that the Standing Orders are merely executive instructions issued for the guidance of officers who are to carry out the policy of the Government. The said principle was reiterated by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Smt. C. Rajamma v. The District Collector2. Further, a learned single Judge of this Court in Katta Rattamma v. Gannamaneni Kotaiah3 held that the Standing Orders are only administrative instructions and they do not have any statutory force, or force of law. Therefore, standing orders are not having legal enforceability and 1 1960 (2) An.W.R 272 (D.B) 2 1995 (1) ALT 681 3 1975 (2) An.W.R 122 MSM,J WP_23879_2020 8 they are only guidelines for the purpose of administration. Hence, Board of Revenue Standing Orders are not a law passed by the State Legislature or Parliament.
Undoubtedly, there is a discrepancy regarding the extent in the Field Measurement Book for the Survey Nos. 144 and 145 of Inagaluru Village, Srikalahasti Mandal. The petitioner is losing Ac.0- 76 cents of land on account of discrepancy in the land in two different survey numbers. Several documents are filed to show the extents of land in the village. If the entries are to remain as it is, without rectifying the mistake with reference to fair adangal of the village, the only plea raised by the respondents is that, after publication of notification in the official gazette, no authority is competent to change the extent or rectify any the mistakes except on the basis of decree passed by competent civil court in a suit filed by any of the aggrieved person. In view of these contentions, it is appropriate to advert to Section 13 of the Act, which reads as follows:
"When the survey of any land or boundary which has been notified under section 5 has been completed in accordance with the orders passed under section 9, 10 or 11, the survey officer shall notify the fact in the district gazette and a copy of such notification shall be posted in the village chavadi, if any, of the village to which the survey relates; unless the survey so notified is modified by a decree of a civil court under the provisions of section 14, the record of the survey shall be conclusive proof that the boundaries determined and recorded therein have been correctly determined and recorded"
Provided that in the case of land or boundary situated in the territories specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the States Re-organization Act, 1956 until a District Gazette is published for the districts in the said territories, a notification as required by this section shall be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette in lieu of publication in the District Gazette."
A bare reading of Section 13 of the Act, it is clear that, except by a decree of civil court in a suit filed under Section 14, no authority is competent to modify the Field Measurement Book. While interpreting Section 13, two important questions would arise.
MSM,J WP_23879_2020 9 (1) Whether the decision of the survey officer title is made conclusive under the section would affect title of the person against whom the decision was given if no suit as contemplated under Section 14 is filed; and (2) whether the decision of the survey officer determining the boundary would interrupt adverse possession of the person who was or the land or the date of the determination. The authorities, though not very clear, seem to be in favour of holding that the title is not affected by the adjudication of the survey officer (vide Kakarla Venkata Subbayya v. Sravanam Rathnammma4). On the second question the view taken is that the adverse possession which had already started is not interrupted by adjudication of the survey officer.
A decision of the survey officer passed under the Act on a dispute arising between two parties as to the boundary of a certain property is final and conclusive as to the rights of the parties if not set-aside either on appeal or by a suit brought within one year and it is nonetheless so, because the unsuccessful party who was in possession on the date of the order was not subsequently ousted from possession.
In view of specific bar under Section 13 of the Act, when a decision is notified in the gazette by the survey officer after conducting survey, by following the procedure under Sections 9, 10 & 11, as the notification is final, it can be modified in view of the decree of a competent civil court filed in a suit filed under Section 14 of the Act. But, in the present case, the respondents did not disclose the details of date of survey, issue of notice under Section 10(1) of 4 AIR 1952 Mad.681 MSM,J WP_23879_2020 10 the Act and service of order under Section 10(2) informing the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 11 of the Act and notification of the survey report in the gazette. In the absence of disclosure, the petitioner is not in a position to file any suit as per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
No doubt, no details are disclosed in the entire counter affidavit filed by the respondents, but still, the petitioner can obtain certified copy of adangal and gazette copy from the office, so as to take appropriate action.
When finality is attached to the notification under Section 13, in the absence of any decree of a competent civil court in a suit filed under Section 14 or any appeal or by an order under Section 11 of the Act, it is final. But here, the petitioner has no notice according to him. Even in the absence of any notice under Section 10(1), the petitioner is entitled to question the gazette notification by filing appropriate application before competent court. Instead of challenging the notification or filing a suit under Section 14, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to get the discrepancies rectified and correct the entries in Field Measurement Book with reference to fair adangal. But, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the extent is tallying with the land in Settlement Land Record of Inagaluru Village, Srikalahasti Mandal, but not tallying with fair adangal of Inagaluru Village. In such case, the remedy open to this petitioner is to challenge the notification issued under Section 13 and not entitled to claim relief in the present writ petition. Hence, liberty is granted to this petitioner either to file an appeal under MSM,J WP_23879_2020 11 Section 11 or a suit under Section 14, subject to limitation or by filing appropriate writ petition challenging the notification.
In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:14.09.2021 SP