Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. The learned Government Pleader denied the contention of the petitioner that the land in question is not a Government land and that the Government should approach the competent civil Court for recovery of possession. In support of his contention that the Government cannot be compelled to file civil suit for recovery of possession of the land belonging to them, and that it is for the party pleading long continuous uninterrupted possession to establish his title to the said property, he placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Raidurg Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. v. Government of A.P., [This judgment was confirmed in W.A. Nos. 1347 of 2003 and Batch dated 13-8-2003, and further appeal before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. Nos. 19763-19766 of 2003, was dismissed] and R. Jayasimha Reddy v. Government of A.P., . He, thus contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

44. A reference in this context be also made to the observations made by a learned single Judge of this Court in Raidurg Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. v. Government of A.P. (supra), which are to the following effect:

It is axiomatic that while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not decide disputed questions of title. Whether or not a person has title to the land? Whether or not the Jagirdar validly granted patta in favour of Chandni Begum! And Whether or not the persons have been in possession of the land, are disputed questions of fact. When the Government contends that the land in question is rocky terrain and not fit for cultivation and has been continuously in possession of the land, is it permissible for this Court to go into the question of title? Though the learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are not seeking declaration of title, while praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order, they are, in effect, seeking declaration of title. The effect of quashing the orders would be setting at naught the observations of the Government that the land in question is Government poramboke land as per survey and settlement records.

48. In view of my findings that disputed questions of fact have to be adjudicated in properly constituted suit, another ancillary question that arises for consideration is whether the Government which is claiming that the land in possession of the petitioner as belonging to them or the petitioner who was threatened to be dispossessed by the Government on the ground that the land in his possession belongs to them and is classified as a Government poramboke land, has to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of title to the property. The contention of the petitioner that having regard to his long standing possession of Government land, he cannot be treated as a land grabber or encroacher thereof, and if the Government contends that the land possessed by the petitioner is a Government land, the remedy of the Government, if any, is to file a civil suit and seek recovery of possession and that the respondent-revenue authorities are not entitled to take recourse to the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, for his encroachment, is misplaced. The law is well settled that the person claiming long uninterrupted possession of Government land, has to establish his title to the same by instituting a civil suit before the competent Court, and that the Government is entitled to avail any of the remedies available under the law for removing the unauthorized occupants, including by invoking the provisions under the Land Encroachment Act, and the Government cannot be compelled to recover the land by filing a suit against the person, who is in unauthorized occupation of such Government land. In this context, a reference to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Raidurg Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. v. Government of A.P. (supra), wherein it was held:

Petitioners have not produced any Revenue records nor it is their case that after the alleged bifurcation of Raidurg jagir village into Raidurg Noukhalsa and Raidurg Panmaqtha, the competent authority entered the petitioners' names in the relevant columns of pahanis and that they or their predecessors paid land revenue to the Government. In this background, whether the Government should be compelled to file a civil suit or take such necessary action as is required and permissible, cannot be a subject-matter of mandamus. When the Government had choice and options under law, it is for the Government to choose one such option for protecting their land in public interest having regard to constrains of time, litigation expenditure and the nature of evidence the Government have with them.