Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
Raidurg Co-operative House Building society Limited, Raidurg - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 03-21-03
Held : 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, in my considered opinion, while praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order, they are, in effect, seeking for declaration of title. The effect of quashing the orders would be setting at naught the observation of the government that the land in question is government poramboke land as per survey and settlement records.
The State has an option to avail any of the remedies available under law including the land Encroachment Act. When the land was surveyed as Government poramboke land and Revenue Records show as such, the petitioners cannot allege long standing occupation when pattas given to Chandni begum and Sonabai are not genuine and incorrect. Merely placing reliance on some communications among various officials, it cannot be said that there is a bona fide and genuine dispute of title. In a given case even if there is evidence of showing the possession of a person, it cannot be said that there is bona fide dispute. Long standing possession is one of the factors and the same cannot be the only factor to compel the government to go and avail remedy of civil suit. It must be remembered that by a catena of decisions it is well settled that only entries in the Revenue records do not confer any title. Nonetheless, if revenue survey is conducted as required under law and in accordance with the provisions, Sethwar can itself be evidence of title.
In none of the cases before me the petitioners have 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 constraints of time, itigation expenditure and the nature of evidence the Government have with them.
( 1 ) INTRODUCTION the core question in all the Five writ petitions is whether the Government of andhra Pradesh, the first respondent herein, committed any error apparent on the face of the record in passing the orders in Memo no. 39408/ss. 1/1994-42, dated 13-11-2001 justifying the prayer made in the writ petition to declare the same as illegal, unauthorized, against the principles of natural justice and void. All the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Shorn of the details, by the impugned order, the Government has concluded that the land admeasuring acs. 279. 22 gts. comprised in Sy. No. 66 of raidurg Village in Ranga Reddy District is government land and, therefore, there is no need to order implementation of supplementary Sethwars (See Glossary of revenue terms at the end*), which are incorrect and unwarranted. It is a decision not to implement the supplementary sethwars and nothing else. Why then, the petitioners are aggrieved? They allege that by reason of alleged agreement of sale or tenancy, or by reason of alleged long standing occupation, they have ownership rights in the land and the non-implementation of Sethwars might affect their claim that they are owners having title to the land. Background facts/allegations w. P. No. 5177 of 2002
( 2 ) THE petitioner is a society registered in 1972 under the provisions of A. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, having membership of 293 persons. In 1981, the society entered into agreement of sale with the owner for an extent of Acs. 29. 00 in sy. No. 66/3 of Raidurg Noukhalsa Village. It claims to have prepared a layout dividing the land into 280 plots of 300 Sq. yds. each. As the land is covered by the provisions of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act), they applied for exemption. They also claim that the Special Officer passed orders under Section 8 (4) of the ULC act recommending to the Government for giving exemption. The members of the petitioner society appeared to have purchased the plots and got them registered in their names from the land owners and protected tenants Jointly. After the formation of Serilingampally Municipality in 1987, the members were granted permission to construct buildings and the Municipality, it is alleged, provided B. T. roads, street lights and water tap connections. Be that as it is, when the layout was submitted to the municipality, by resolution dated 31-1-1991 the Municipality requested the Hyderabad urban Development Authority (HUDA) to regularise the layout sanctioned by the raidurg Gram Panchayat in 1973. The layout was forwarded to the HUDA for regularisation. The Government by g. O. Ms. No. 367, Municipal Administration department, dated 12-7-1989 authorised huda to take necessary action for regularisation of the layout pending change of land use. As no action was taken by huda, the society filed W. P. No. 8858 of 1999 seeking a direction to give effect to the letter of the Government dated 6-2-1999 whereby the Government requested HUDA to take necessary action subject to certain conditions.
( 3 ) THE Revenue records in the year 1954-55 till 1996, it is alleged, show the vendors of the petitioner society as pattadars of the land. They also filed necessary declaration under the ULC Act and order under Section 9 thereof was also issued. The R. D. O. , Chevella, by letter dated 30-11-1985 addressed the Assistant director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga reddy District, stating that the land of the vendors of the petitioner society was identified and on the basis of the records the petitioner society can be said to have pattedar rights.
( 4 ) IT is also stated in the affidavit that ignoring the Revenue records, the Joint collector issued a notice on 21-6-1999 calling upon the petitioners to explain as to why the land in Sy. No. 66/3 should not be declared as Government land. As the petitioners and their vendors perfected their title under the law of prescri
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
