Back
2008 Supreme(AP) 451
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
GODA RAGHURAM, J.
Prathap Jungle Resorts Private Limited, Hyderabad rep. by its Director Sri D. Prathap Chander Reddy and others - Appellants
Versus
Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 20104 of 2005 and Batch
Decided on 02-07-2008.
M/s. C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, R. Raghunandan, K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Senior Counsel for B. Mahender Reddy, C. Sudesh Anand and D. Prakash Reddy, Senior Counsel for D.B. Reddy, Counsel for the Petitioners.
Government Pleader for Revenue and Advocate General for the Respondents.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Andhra Pradesh (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317-F – Section 166 (8) – Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 – Section 9 – Rule-3(1), and Rule 3 (1) (iii) – A.P. C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964 – Misconduct – Alleged that behaviour of petitioner with his superior officer at the main gate of the office premises – Order of Joint Collector – Petitioners claim to be owners and to be in possession of specified extents of land in distinct portions of survey – They claim to have purchased property under registered sale deeds from their predecessors in title – Joint Collector considered that notices could not be served, it is claimed that the notices were pasted on or near the lands in question – Held, No doubt, alleged misconduct is not relatable to the official functions to be discharged by the petitioner. But the behaviour of the petitioner with his superior officer at the main gate of the office premises will certainly contravene the provisions of Rules, 1964 – Counsel for petitioner has not been able to point out how the order is illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained. Unless there is perversity in the appreciation of the evidence by the disciplinary authority or that no prudent person could have arrived at such findings, the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority, which have been affirmed by the Tribunal, cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Court therefore, see no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal court however, make it clear that the impugned punishment shall be treated as stoppage of one increment for a period of five years and not beyond if for any reason the increment of the petitioner has not been restored after a lapse of five years, .the respondents shall restore the same and pay the arrears thereof – Writ petition is disposed.
Heard Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri B. Mahendra Reddy for the petitioner in W.P.No. 23830 of 2005, Sri D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri D.B.Reddy for the petitioners in W.P.No. 20104 of 2005, other learned counsel for the petitioners in the other writ petitions and the learned Advocate General for the respondents in the several writ petitions.
2. The petitioners assail the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district-first respondent, in Case No. D-5/2658/01 dated 25-08-2005 whereby the second respondentthe Mandai Revenue Officer, Rajendra Nagar was directed to rectify the entries under Section 166 (B) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.
3.The petitioners claim to be owners and to be in possession of specified extents of land in distinct portions of survey Nos. 65/1 to 65/33 of Khanapur village, Rajendranagar Mandai, Ranga Reddy district. They claim to have purchased the property under registered sale deeds from their predecessors in title.
4. The 2nd respondent appears to have addressed a letter dated 15-05-2001 to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District stating that wrong entries were recorded in respect of certain extents of land and sought appropriate action. Thereupon the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District issued notices proposing an enquiry under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the 1971 Act'). Some of the notices were served on the predecessors in title of the petitioners and wherever the Joint Collector considered that notices could not be served, it is claimed that the notices were pasted on or near the lands in question.
In some instances (as in the case of petitioners in W.P.No. 20104 of 2005), having come to learn of initiation of proceedings under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, the petitioners got themselves impleaded and participated in the proceedings under Section 9 of the 1971 Act. The Joint Collector entertained the complaint of the 2nd respondent; declared the lands described in the Revenue Records as survey Nos. 65/1 to 65/33 as belonging to the Government; directed the 2nd respondent to rectify the entries, under Section 166 (8) of the Andhra Pradesh (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317-F (for short 'the APLR Act'); and to record them as 'Kharij Khatha Sarkari'. The petitioners are aggrieved thereby and thus the writ petitions. The petitioners claim uninterrupted title, ownership and open and transparent possession of the lands for over sixty years.
5. In W.P.No.23830 of 2005 the petitioner claims to be the owner, to be possession of and cultivating the land of an extent of AC.25-00 in survey No. 67/17 of Khanapur village for over fifty years and to having purchased the property from the pattedar one Jaffar Mirza under a registered sale deed dated 07-04-1977 registered on the file of Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad West. This petitioner claims that this property was mutated in his name under the provisions of the 1971 Act.
6. The order impugned is common to all the writ petitions. The core challenge in the writ petition is projected by Sri Ramakrishna Reddy and Sri D. Prakash Reddy learned senior counsel on three principal grounds (a) that the Joint Collector was not competent to exercise power under Section 9 of the 1971 Act when it is the case of the State that the land belongs to the Government, since the provisions of the 1971 Act are inapplicable to Government lands qua Section 12 of the said Act; (b) that the Joint Collector could not have exercised power either under Section 9 of the 1971 Act or Section 166 (8) of the APLR Act to direct deletion of entries in the revenue records after a long lapse of time (in this case asserted to be sixty years or more) and; (c) that the impugned order of the Joint Collector is invalid for recording reasons for the decision based on factual conclusions which were not put to the petitioners or any other affected parties in
