Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH
V. Ramasubramanian, N. Balayogi, JJ.
Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
S. Kamalamma and Ors. – Respondents
W.A. No. 516 of 2017
Decided On : 11-12-2018
A.P. (A.A) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 - Sections 5(2), 7(d) and 11(a) - Settlement Patta - Grant of - Application - Allowed by Settlement Officer without calling upon revenue to produce pre-abolition orders - Director of settlement set aside order as application was made after lapse of 22 years - Subject land was registered as Swarnamukhi River Poramboke - Said officer had no power to grant patta in respect of river poramboke - Order of director of settlements reversed by Chief Commissioner of land administration and appeal holding that settlement officer was right and director of settlement was wrong - Writ petition filed by respondents - Allowed rejecting plea of fraud by Tahsildar on ground that question of fraud was earlier raised and rejected - First writ petition was dismissed on ground of delay - Fraud and fabrication was confirmed only after dismissal of writ petition - Order which is product of fraud cannot escape scrutiny solely on ground that order of settlement officer was upheld in previous proceedings - Any proceeding emanated from any authority, is liable to be set aside once fraud is established - Writ appeal allowed - Order of single Judge set aside - Writ petition dismissed (Paras 20,21, 32 and 34)
Facts of the case:
Settlement officer directed grant of patta under section 11(a) of Estate Abolition Act, 1948 was set aside by Director of settlement under section 5(2) of said act. Revision was filed under section 7(d) and allowed by Chief commissioner of land administration and the same was challenged by writ petition. Writ petition was dismissed in admission stage. Writ appeal was also dismissed after hearing both parties. Contention of bar to filing of second writ petition as finality is attached to proceedings of chief commissioner of land administration.
Findings of the court:
Opportunity granted by appellate authority is no substitute for opportunity that was available before original authority. No finality attached to order of Settlement Officer, merely because of reversal of order of Director of Settlements by Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and the dismissal of the writ petition and writ appeal filed by the State as against the order of the Director of Settlements. There was congenital deformity in the whole proceedings. The order of the Director of Settlements, suo motu revising the order of the Settlement Officer, was set at naught by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. This violation got white washed with the dismissal of the writ petition in limine on the ground of delay and laches and hence the confirmation of the order of the learned Judge in the writ appeal, would not cure such deformity/defect that goes to the root of the matter. What was clearly found to be part of the River Swarnamukhi in the pre abolition records was treated as a private property without reference to the pre abolition records and a patta issued by the Settlement Officer, who attained notoriety in Chittoor District. In fact, the manner in which the said Settlement Officer by name "Sri A.D.V. Reddy" issued pattas left, right and centre provoked to this Court to observe that apart from the various types of pattas known in revenue jargons, this officer created one more category known as "A.D.V. Reddy Pattas". It is too late in the day for anyone to doubt the proposition that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and that no finality can ever attach to a product of fraud.
JUDGMENT :
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. The State has come up with the above appeal questioning an order of the learned Judge setting aside an order of the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer with costs of Rs. 20,000/- and further directing the appellants to issue pattadar pass book to the writ petitioners (the respondents herein) under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Pradesh) and Mr. A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The respondents herein filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 24980 of 2009 challenging the proceedings of the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, dated 04-8-2009, declaring the entire land in Survey No. 251 as a river and also directing the cancellation of all forged and fake entries in the Fair Adangal. The case of the writ petitioners was that the husband of the 1st respondent herein and the father of the respondents 2 and 3 by name Ramanaiah was granted Saswatha Patta by the then Mahant of Sri Hathiramji Mutt on 05-3-1943; that as such, Sri Ramanaiah became the owner of the land of an extent of Ac. 9.00 in Survey No. 251/1 in Vedanthapuram Village, formerly of Chandragiri Taluk, Chittoor District; that the said Ramanaiah approached the Settlement Officer claiming ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948; that the Tahsildar contested the application on the ground that the land was part of Swarnamukhi river poramboke and not a ryoti land; that the Settlement Officer overruled the objections of the Tahsildar and passed an order dated 19-01-1982 granting settlement patta in favour of Ramanaiah; that thereafter Ramanaiah was granted pattadar pass book by the Mandal Revenue Officer; that the said Ramanaiah thereafter availed a loan on the said land from S.V. Grameen Bank, Tirupati and raised a mango garden; that however the Director of Survey and Settlement took up the case by way of a suo motu revision in R.P. No. 251/84 and set aside the Settlement Officer's order; that questioning the order of the Director of Survey and Settlement dated 30-4-1990, Ramanaiah filed a revision before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration; that the said revision was allowed by the Chief Commissioner by an order dated 20-8-2000; that thereafter the said Ramanaiah made representations to the Mandal Revenue Officer seeking the issue of pattadar pass book; that however the Tahsildar filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 22069 of 2003 questioning the order of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration dated 20-8-2000; that the said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Judge by an order dated 21-10-2003; that a writ appeal in W.A. No. 2322 of 2003 filed by the Mandal Tahsildar was also dismissed by a Division Bench on 31-3-2009; that during the pendency of the writ appeal, Ramanaiah died on 06-01-2009 leaving behind him, the 1st respondent herein as his widow and the respondents 2 and 3 as his sons; that even after the orders passed by this Court, the Mandal Tahsildar did not grant patta; that however the Joint Collector passed an order dated 04-8-2009 declaring the entire land in Survey No. 251 to an extent of Ac. 200.68 as Swarnamukhi river; that the Joint Collector also cancelled the previous orders and directed the Mandal Tahsildar to take action under Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Rivers Conservancy Act, 1884; that the Joint Collector also directed to evict all persons in occupation of the said land except those who are members of a Co-operative Joint Farming Society and that therefore the respondents were compelled to challenge the order of the Joint Collector.
4. The Tahsildar filed a counter to the writ petition contending inter alia that as per the village accounts of Vedanthapuram in Tirupati Rural Mandal, the land in Survey No. 251 corresponding to Paimash Nos. 192, 196, 198
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
