D. Ajanthamma vs Joint Collector, Chittoor

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(AP) 396

2006 (6) ALT 192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
V.V.S. RAO, J.
D. Ajanthamma and others - Petitioners.
v.
Joint Collector, Chittoor and another - Respondents.
W.P.No.1437 of 1999
Decided on 21-3-2006.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. S.V. Muni Reddy, Counsel for the Petitioners.
G.P. for Revenue for the Respondents.

Headnote:A.P. (A.A.) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - Section 11(a) and (b) - Cancellation of patta - Non-compliance of principles of Natural Justice - Effect - when Govt. pleads and proves that patta relied on is a fake patta, no necessity to import Rules of audi alteram partem .
       HELD : in 1976, the revenue authorities found that the land in respect of Arani Ramana Reddy obtained patta or managed to produce patta is a fake patta. The. District Collector issued proceedings based on which the Tahsildar, Srikalahasti cancelled the implementation (earlier implemented on 10-10-1969) duly correcting revenue entries again restoring the status of the land as Government grazing land/River Poramboke. The petitioner cannot feign ignorance of this proceeding. As noticed earlier, the predecessor of the petitioners was vigilant and he filed two representations - one in 1983 and the other in 1993. This will lead to a conclusion that the petitioners are claiming right under a patta allegedly granted to the vendor of their predecessor and which was not implemented. This leads to another conclusion that the land remains the Government Poramboke/grazing land/river bed tank, and therefore, no right of the petitioners can be enforced nor can they get any right to the land if the mutation is effected. Thirdly, the record produced before this Court would show that in case/file S.R.No.122/11 (a)/65-KHT, dated 25-10-1965, the Assistant Settlement Officer, issued patta to Vemur Rosaiah Naidu and Bollampalle Krishnama Naidu in survey No.120, admeasuring Acs.9.76 situated at Brahmanapalle, hamlet of Papanapalle village. Each claim made under the Act was separately dealt with by the Assistant Settlement Officer and when in the same file, a patta is granted in respect of Brahmanapalle land, it is quite improbable that the same Assistant Settlement Officer could have granted patta in the same file in respect of different lands in different villages to Arani Ramana Reddy. The patta produced by the petitioner is ex facie a fake patta.
       The matter was heard at length on 27-02-2006. It was noticed that the Joint Collector rejected claim of the petitioners inter a alia on the ground that no authenticated orders are produced. Such orders are not produced before this Court also. This was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioners. He sought one week time to produce all the documents including the original patta granted to Arani Ramana Reddy, the vendor of Narappa Reddy. Again when the case was posted on 06-03-2006 and 07-03-2006, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not produced original patta allegedly granted to Arani Ramana Reddy. He only produced illegible Xerox copy of patta. In the absence of any such rightful patta before this Court, it is not possible to accept the case of the petitioners. An adverse inference has to be drawn against them to the effect that there is no such original patta and the Xerox copy produced before this Court is a copy of a fake patta. As seen from the file, the Joint Collector made enquiries before coming to such conclusion and this Court has no reason to defer with such conclusion, especially even (sicm when) the field maps of survey Nos.53 and 55 of Umamaheswarapuram, hamlet of Katuru village show that it is a poramboke land and on personal inspection, revenue officials found the true ground position that survey No.53 is a grazing land and survey No.55 is a River Poramboke land.
       The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of any notice, patta cannot be cancelled is a submission to be rejected. If patta is granted in respect of assignable land in a valid manner, such a ground would be available. When the Government pleads and proves that the patta relied on is a fake patta and that no such patta was granted in respect of grazing land/river poramboke, there was no necessity to import the rule of audi alteram partem. As directed by this Court, the petitioners moved miscellaneous petition to the Joint Collector and the same was considered in consonance with the revenue record, survey record and settlement record. The submission is therefore devoid of any merit.

ORDER

The petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the first respondent in R.D is (E1)/22429/93, dated 24-10-1998, as illegal, unjust and void and for a consequential direction to the respondents to restore original mutation and entries in 10(1) revenue account in respect of the lands admeasuring Acs.31.90 in survey NO.53 and Acs.9.40 in survey No.55 (hereafter called, the subject land) of Umamaheswarapuram, now situated in Katuru village, Buchinaidukandriga Mandailin Chittoor District. The first petitioner is mother and petitioners 2 and 3 are daughter and son respectively of the first petitioner. They are statedly legal heirs of one D. Narappa Reddy. By reason of the impugned order, the settlement patta issued under A.P.(Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (the Act, for brevity) to the vendor of Narappa Reddy became ineffective, as a result of which the petitioners alleged title to the subject land was not recognized. Hence, the present writ petition.

2. The brief chronology of events leading to filing of the writ petition is as follows. According to the petitioners, the subject land was originally under the possession of Arani Ramana Reddy, who obtained a patta from the estateholder. On an application made by him, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor, by proceedings, dated 01-10-1965, issued a ryotwari patta under Section 11 (a) of the Act to Arani Ramana Reddy. It is the case of the petitioners that the said patta was implemented and mutation effected on 10-10-1969. Aggrieved by this, G. Subbamma and others filed writ petition being W.P.No.1290 of 1971 seeking a direction from this Court to the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, to dispose of the revision petition filed by them. The same was disposed of observing that the Settlement Officer may dispose of the revision petition, which is pending for a long time. In the meanwhile, the Director of Settlements (DoS) sought information for initiating action under Section 5(2) of the Act (suo motu revision). The Joint Collector submitted report to DoS opining that no revision need be taken up. In 1983, the revenue authorities issued a notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Encroachment Act, for brevity) to Narappa Reddy to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the lands in survey Nos.53 and 55. The recipient of the notice submitted explanation and the competent authority passed an order under Section 6 of the Encroachment Act directing eviction. Assailing the same. Narappa Reddy filed W.P.No.9403 of 1983. By order, dated 24-11-1987, this Court set aside the notice/order under Section 6 of the Encroachment Act and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, Tottambedu, to enquire into the claim and pass orders in accordance with law. After the said order was passed, the second respondent, it is alleged, changed the entries in the revenue records showing the subject land as Government land. Aggrieved by the same, Narappa Reddy filed W.P.No.14572 of 1993 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition on 11-06-1997 giving liberty to Narappa Reddy to file application before the revenue authorities concerned for redressal while observing that the question raised in the writ petition can be decided only by revenue authorities. Thereafter, the petitioners herein as legal representatives of Narappa Reddy filed a miscellaneous petition before the Joint Collector, Chittoor, for restoration of original mutation and entries in 10(1) accounts of the subject land. By impugned order, the Joint Collector rejected the request of the petitioners for mutation and restoration of entries in revenue records. .

3. A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent opposing the writ petition along with necessary material. At the time of hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General) has placed before this Court the or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document