Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, HARINATH N., JJ.
District Collector, SPSR Nellore District & Another and Others - Appellants
Versus
Epuru Seshadri Reddy SPSR Nellore District And Others - Respondents
Writ Appal No.780 Of 2015
Decided On : 30-09-2024
For the Respondents: K. Aruna (SC), A.V. Sivaiah.
IMPORTANT POINT
Ownership established through valid title documents prevails over ambiguous land classification in revenue records.
Headnote:
Land - Ownership - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The court affirmed the ownership of the land based on revenue records and directed compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Fact of the Case:
The 1st respondent claimed ownership of agricultural land taken for a power station without proper acquisition or compensation. The appellants argued it was government land, but the court found the 1st respondent had valid title documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the 1st respondent's ownership based on pattadar passbook and title deeds, ruling that the land was not government property despite being marked as 'Dotted Land' in records.
Issues: Whether the land in question was government land and if the 1st respondent was entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the classification of land as 'Dotted Land' does not negate ownership rights established by valid title documents.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the entitlement of the legal heirs to compensation and rectification of revenue records.
JUDGMENT :
The 1st respondent had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.32826 of 2012, contending that the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4.52 cents in Sy.No.239/4A and 239/4B of Nelatur Village, Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District, belonging to him, was taken over for the purposes of Development of Environmental Belt to a Power Station, without acquiring the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or payment of compensation.
2. This contention of the 1st respondent was denied, by the appellant, herein on the ground that the said land was government land, which was marked as a dotted land in the revenue records and as such, the question of payment of compensation, to the 1st respondent, would not arise.
3. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, after considering the submissions made on both sides had held that the 1st respondent was the owner of the land in view of the issuance of pattadar passbook and title deeds issued to him and consequently the 1st respondent was entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A direction was also given to the respondents therein to initiate the process of acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. The appellants herein, being aggrieved by the said order dated 22.07.2013, have approached this Court, by way of the present appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1st respondent had passed away and respondents 3 to 6 herein were impleaded as legal heirs of 1st respondent by an order dated 30.07.2024.
5. The contention of the appellants is that the land was marked as ‘Dotted Land’ in the Revenue Register and that would automatically mean that the land is ‘Government Land’. It is contended that mere issuance of pattadar pass book or title deed by mistake would not confer any right or title on the 1st respondent herein.
6. Sri A. V. Sivaiah, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 would contend that a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Vinjamuri Raja Gopalachary and Others vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, 2016 (2) ALD 236 had given certain guidelines whereunder dotted lands would have to be treated as private lands where the private persons were in possession and their names were also entered in the revenue records. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge had also held that mere classification of the land as ‘Dotted Land’ in the revenue resurvey register is not sufficient to support a claim that the lands are not patta lands and reliance is placed on the Judgment followed by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal.
7. A perusal of the record placed before us shows that the 1st respondent had been issued pattadar pass book and title deed showing him as the owner and possessor of the aforesaid Ac.4.52 cents of land. The name of the petitioner was also mutated in the revenue records by assigning KhataNo.86 for his land. The only ground on which the appellants dispute the title of the 1st respondent was that dots have been placed against the entry in relation to this land.
8. Even though there was some ambiguity about the nature and title of the land against which dots have been placed in the revenue registers, the same has now been clarified by a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Vinjamuri Raja Gopalachary?s case. The guidelines set out in Vinjamuri Raja Gopalachary and Others vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad are as follows:
(i) The authorities mentioned in the guidelines, which are obliged to prepare lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d), to be sent to the registering authorities under the provisions of Registration Act, shall clear
