SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(AP) 888

High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
The District Collector
Versus
R. Venkataswamy Goud & Another
WRIT APPEAL Nos.1938 of 2001 & 2051 of 2001
Decided on : 19-10-2011

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant: G.P-for Assignment.
For the Respondents:A. Narasimha Reddy, Advocate.

Headnote:A) SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, Section 34:- It does not lie in the executive branch of the Government to declare that the respondent writ petitioners are the absolute owners of a given property by perfecting adverse possession asthis function exclusively lies with the judiciary. This power is vested in the civil courts by the provision. (Paras 11 to 16)

       B) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 162 - A.P. (TA) Revenue Act, 1317 – Fasli:-Government Order regularizing possession by collecting market value of the property cannot be found fault with as it is within its legitimate authority. (Para 16)

       C) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 162:- Executive has every right to withdraw a concession or benefit given under a G.O.by issuing a fresh G.O., if it was realized to given by mistake, fraud or misrepresentation. (Para 18)

       D) JAGIR – Jagir is a grant of agricultural land or estate to the Jagirdar during the life time and upon his death if there are no legal heirs it will revert tot the sovereign. Even if here are legal heirs, the sovereign has to regarnt the jagir. Maharani of Kolhapur has no such soverign power to grant the jagir to the predecessors of the petitioner for construction of rice mill as claimed. (Para 21)

       E) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 162 - A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, Section 6:- Writ petitioners having filed a revision petition before the Government for regularization of their unauthorized encroachment, it is not open for them to challenge the G.O., whereupon the Government had fixed a market value upon which paying the possession was sought to be regularized.

Judgment :

V.V.S. RAO, J.

1. The land admeasuring Acs.1.12 guntas in S.No.1005/KK situated at Gadwal is Government land (hereafter, subject land). It was part of the jagir known as Gadwal Samsthan. It was taken over by the Government in 1952 under Jagir Abolition Regulations. Smt.Lakshmidevamma, Maharani of Gadwal, had granted the land to M/s.Mahanandi and Lakshman Goud, the predecessors of the respondents (hereafter, the petitioners) for construction of a rice mill, namely, Mahanandeswara factory. The Tahsildar, Gadwal (the MRO) initiated eviction proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (the Act). The notice dated 23.3.1984 was issued under Section 7 of the Act directing Lakshman Goud, husband of the second petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the land and buildings constructed thereon. A month thereafter, on 22.4.1984, the Tahsildar issued order/notice under Section 6 of the Act directing eviction.

2. The petitioners filed appeal under Section 10(2) of the Act before the Sub-Collector. They contended that the original allottees raised structures six decades ago; after their death, successors have been in continuous occupation of the land which was also leased out to third parties; the land is not Government land; there is no record showing the land as Khariz Khata; the factory was assigned Municipal number and that the ownership is recorded in the name of the petitioners; and that the eviction proceedings are unsustainable. The Sub-Collector, Gadwal conducted fresh enquiry and dismissed the appeal. They then filed a revision before the Joint Collector urging that notice under Section 7 of the Act was not served on the petitioners; and due to long occupation the petitioners perfected title to the land by adverse possession. Not impressed with any of the submissions and taking into consideration the absence of any Muntakab or any other document conferring title on the petitioners, the Joint Collector dismissed the revision on 14.8.1987. The petitioners’ revision to the Commissioner of Land Revenue (CLR) was also dismissed on 17.11.1989, aggrieved by which they filed yet another revision petition before the Government.

3. It was contended before the Government that having been in occupation for over six decades and having raised structures on the land, the petitioners perfected their title by adverse possession. The Government, therefore, allowed the revision petition, and directed regularization in favour of the petitioners on payment of market value, “to meet the ends of natural justice”. The petitioners were directed to pay the market value as fixed by the District Collector.

4. After issue of the orders in G.O.Ms.No.1062, dated 23.10.1992, the first petitioner made a representation to the Hon’ble Minister for Panchayat Raj on 17.2.1993 seeking directions to the Collector to fix the market value of the subject land at the rates prevailing in 1336 Fasli when they occupied the land and constructed the factory. It is not clear from the record as to what happened thereafter. But on 01.2.1996, the District Collector issued a notice informing that the market value is fixed at Rs.250/- per Sq.yard and advised the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.15,73,000/- within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the said notice. At that stage, in July, 1996, the petitioners filed W.P.No.13497 of 1996 seeking declaration that G.O.Ms.No.1062, dated 23.10.1992 is arbitrary, illegal and for a consequential direction to quash the said order as well as the orders passed by the other authorities. Pending the said writ petition, the petitioners filed revision petition before the Government praying to set aside the notice dated 01.2.1996 issued by the District Collector. The Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.721, dated 07.10.1999 dismissing the same, aggrieved by which the petitioners filed W.P.No.25566 of 1999 seeking its invalidation.

5. The learned Single Judge heard the writ peti



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top