Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Defendant No.2 - Mandal Revenue Officer filed written statement which was adopted by defendant No.1 - District Collector. It is their case that, land in Survey No. 59 of Kondapur Village is admeasuring Acs. 57.09 guntas; plaintiffs are encroachers over the said land; the revenue collected was encroachment fees; alleged written permission is temporary in nature; no amount was fixed for payment of land revenue and the land was not an absolute assignment by the date the alleged patta rules were amended and GOMS No. 1406, dated 25-07-1958 was in force; the alleged permission is a created one to grab valuable lands and that the signature of the Tahsildar is dated 21-12-1961 and the date of issue of certificate is 13-12-1961 and that itself shows doubt on the validity of patta, therefore, they are fraudulent in nature and that there was prohibition of assignment of lands within ten miles belt area of Hyderabad city in terms of GOMS No. 1122, dated 29-06-1961; Gairan lands are not available for assignment and they denied the ownership and it was asserted Kondapur Village falls within 10 miles belt area from Hyderabad City, therefore, when there was a ban through GOMS No. 1122, dated 29-06-1961, the question of assignment under the superseded rules i.e. Laoni Rules, 1950 does not arise. They also asserted that 1988-89 onwards, Government is in possession of the land and they paid revenue as encroacher to the Government. The subject land is already covered with Chandra Raja Rajeswara Rao foundation Ac.6.00, RTA RR District Ac. 5.00, APSRTC Ac. 10.00, Jeer Education Trust Ac.5.00, weaker section colony Ac.10.00, graveyard Ac.3.00 and the balance land available is Ac.10.19 only out Ac.57.09 guntas and the balance land is also in possession of Government, therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for injunction.

10. Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether plaintiffs have established their case while praying the relief of declaration and injunction?

2. Whether the Court below is justified in granting decree without considering the evidence on record in proper perspective ?

11. It is the definite case of plaintiffs that either themselves or their ancestors were granted patta under Rule 9 (g) of Laoni Rules, 1950 on 13-12-1961 and they were trying for mutation in revenue records and in that connection, they filed Writ Petitions which were allowed and that there was an order in Writ Appeals No. 1689, 1690 and 1691 of 1998, dated 20-12-2000 whereunder the Hon'ble Division Bench directed plaintiffs to approach the civil Court seeking declaration, as there is serious dispute with regard to title etcetera.

13. It is important to note, the pattas on which plaintiffs are relying are not tallying with Form G patta prescribed under the Laoni Rules, 1950. There is no clause temporary in the prescribed form. Whereas in the suit documents there is a clause that delivery is temporary in nature. If really, it is 9(g) patta granted to plaintiffs, there will not be a condition stating that it is temporary in nature. As already observed, there is no such expression in the prescribed Form G shown in Laoni Rules. Another glaring illegality is that patta was issued on 13-12-1961 and it was signed by the then Tahsildar on Hyderabad West on 21-12-1961. Therefore, issuance date is earlier than the actual date of signing by the Tahsildar. It throws any amount of doubt to believe the pattas as genuine i.e. Exs. A-1, A-25, A-42, A-64, A-79, A-102, A-116, A-131, A-156, A-169, A-187 and A-200 for two reasons: one, these pattas are not tallying with the prescribed Form G patta shown in Laoni Rules, 1950, pattas cannot be readily believed. Under Laoni Rules, when 9 (g) pattas were issued, there is no clause stating that it is temporary in nature. Secondly, date of issue is eight days before the actual signing by the Tahsildar i.e. 21-12-1961. These anomalies are to be explained and satisfied by plaintiffs who are seeking declaration of title. In this case, plaintiffs have not made any attempt to clarify these doubts. However, the Court below believed the pattas on the ground pattas must have been prepared earlier and thereafter, signed by the Tahsildar. This kind of interpretation by the court below is totally wrong and not acceptable.

16. However, the Court below held that there is no repeal of Laoni Rules in the revised rules of assignment issued through GOMS No. 1406, dated 25-07-1958. It failed to understand that the said GO was issued in supersession of earlier orders. Therefore, the attempt made by the Court below stating that there is no repeal and Laoni rules will also prevail even after issuance of GOMS No. 1406 is unwarranted.

17. Burden of proof:

Ordinarily, in a suit for declaration, burden lies on plaintiff. That apart, as per Sections 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act, burden lies on plaintiff to establish that they have valid patta in their favour particularly, in a context where defendants have taken a plea that under the revised policy, the Rules were changed vide G. O. Ms. No. 1406, dated 25.07.1958 (Ex. B-21). But, plaintiffs have not made any attempt how they got patta under the old Rules framed in 1950, when Rules were revised in 1958 in supersession of earlier Rules on 13.12.1961 by which time revised rules were in vogue. Added to that, there was ban created through G. O. Ms. No. 1122, dated 29.06.1961 (Ex. B-26) not to assign the land within 10 miles from Hyderabad city. Therefore, defendants have demonstrated by filing Exs. B-21 and B-26 that there was no possibility to issue patta on 13.12.1961. This stand of defendants could not be repelled by plaintiffs by adducing any sort of evidence. On that ground also, plaintiffs miserably failed to discharge the burden cast upon them. Hence, the case as set up by plaintiffs that they were granted 9G patta based on Laoni Rules cannot be accepted. However, the Court below gave findings basing on oral evidence that even after issuance of Ex. B-26 G.O.Ms. No. 1406, dated 25.07.1958 that pattas were issued under Laoni rules and further said there is no expressed provisions in G. O. Ms. No. 1406 repealing Laoni rules and there is nothing like implied repeal of Rules. From a reading of the lengthy Judgment of Court below, it appears, the said Court had made out a case for plaintiffs. In fact, through G.O. Ms. No. 1406, revised Rules were framed in 1958 in supersession of earlier Rules. Therefore, the Court below is not right in saying that Laoni Rules were not repealed. The finding given in para-No. 39 of the Judgment is incorrect and not in accordance with law.