Back
1994 Supreme(AP) 132
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
Kanti Naramma - Appellant
Versus
Agent to Government - Respondent
Decided On : 03-03-94
A non-tribal who fabricates a document and tampers with revenue records to support a claim to tribal land is not entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
LAND TRANSFER REGULATION - TRIBAL LANDS - EVICTION OF NON-TRIBAL OCCUPANTS - VALIDITY OF SALE DEED - RES JUDICATA - DISCRETIONARY RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation (Regulation I of 1959) - Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, Section 67-A - Constitution of India, Article 226.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a non-tribal, challenged the order of eviction passed by the authorities under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation (Regulation I of 1959) (Land Transfer Regulation) in favor of the 3rd respondent, a tribal. The petitioner claimed that she had purchased the land from the 3rd respondent's father in 1952 and had been in possession since then. The authorities, however, found that the sale deed was fabricated and that the petitioner had come into possession of the land after the crucial date of 1-12-1963, thereby attracting the presumption of illegal transfer under the Land Transfer Regulation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's claim of purchase in 1952 was not supported by any genuine evidence and that the sale deed was fabricated. It also found that the petitioner had tampered with the revenue records to incorporate the name of her predecessor-in-title. The court further held that the petitioner was not entitled to rely on the doctrine of res judicata as the earlier order dropping the proposed action under the Land Transfer Regulation did not constitute a final decision on the merits of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale deed dated 23-4-1952 relied upon by the petitioner was genuine. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to rely on the doctrine of res judicata to challenge the eviction order. 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sale deed was not genuine based on the following factors: (a) suspicious features such as over-writings, condition of the stamps, and the date of endorsement of the stamp-vendor; (b) the absence of boundaries of the land and the addition of S. No. 16 after S. No. 77; (c) the land revenue Pass Book starting only from the year 1972-73; and (d) the tampering of the Pahanis to incorporate the name of the petitioner's predecessor-in-title. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to rely on the doctrine of res judicata as the earlier order dropping the proposed action under the Land Transfer Regulation did not constitute a final decision on the merits of the case. The court noted that the earlier order was passed without considering the crucial question of the genuineness of the sale deed and that the petitioner had failed to challenge the subsequent eviction order passed by the authorities. 3. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution as she had fabricated a document and tampered with the revenue records to support her claim. The court found that these actions disentitled her to the equitable relief sought.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) QUESTIONING the order dated 30-3-1989 passed by the 1st respondent in cm A No. 19 of 1986 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated 8-8-1985, the present writ petition is filed. By the impugned order dated 8-8-1985, the 2nd respondent directed eviction of the petitioner from an extent of Ac. 13-20 guntas situate in S. Nos. 77 and 16 of Kamalapuram village of Singareni mandal, Khammam District and restoration of possession to the 3rd respondent herein who is a tribal.
( 2 ) THE relevant tacts are these : The 3rd respondent filed a representation on 2-1-1978 complaining to the concerned authorities that his father was the pattedar of the land and it was illegally occupied by the petitioner and her son. On that complaint, an enquiry under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation (Regulation I of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the land Transfer Regulation ) was initiated and notice was issued to the petitioner. In the course of enquiry, the 3rd respondent produced an order dated 10-5-1966 passed by the Revenue Divisional officer, Kothagudem in O. S. No. 6/65-67a recognising the Shikmidari right of his father and granting him a patta certificate. The petitioner pleaded that the land was purchased by his brother Koleti Narayana from the petitioner s father and two other tribals of the same family through an unregistered sale dated 23-4-1952. Sri Koleti narayana made a gift of the land to the petitioner towards pasupu Kumkuma . Pursuant to the gift, the petitioner (or her son) had been in continuous possession paying land revenue. The 2nd respondent passed an order on 7-8-1984 stating that the 3rd respondent s father and Koleti Narayana were joint pattedars of the land as per the pahanis and that the land was under the occupation of Koleti Narayana prior to 1963. He had also referred to the fact that the respondent before him (petitioner s son) filed an unregistered sale-deed dated 23-4-1952 executed on a stamp paper. As the transaction was prior to 1-12-1963, the 2nd respondent observed that no action was possible under Regulation I of 1959. He also observed that the Petitioner could approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem seeking restoration of possession under section 67-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act. After the death of the petitioners father Jawadi rajaiah who was a party to the earlier proceedings, the 3rd respondent filed an application once again on 28-1-1985 relying upon the patta certificate issued to his father and requesting eviction of the petitioner s son and others who were in unlawful occupation of the lands in question. On this complaint, once again, an enquiry was initiated by the 2nd respondent and a notice dated 1-7-85 was issued to the petitioner. The parties filed documents in support of their respective cases. The 2nd respondent held that the so-called sale-deed dated 23-4-52 was a fake document. The 2nd respondent referred to the various suspicious features- over-writings, condition of the stamps, the date of endorsement of the stamp-vendor, etc. It was also mentioned that the boundaries of the land were not given and S. No. 16 was added after S. No. 77. The 2nd respondent referred to the land revenue Pass Book and commented that it started only from the year 1972-73. He also found that the columns in Pahanis were tampered with, incorporating the name of koleti Narayana, as evident from the over-writings with different ink. He therefore came to the conclusion that the transaction was hit by Sec. 3 (1) of Regulation I of 1959 and the alleged sale not having been proved, the occupants were liable for eviction. The agent to Government (1st respondent) confirmed this order. The learned Agent, apart from adverting to the various suspicious features noted by the 2nd respondent, relied upon the order dated 10-5-1966 passed by the R. D. O. , kothagudem. In that order, the following are the observations made:"sri Jawa
