Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 22003
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI NATH TILHARI,MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
PRL. SECRETARY REVENUE DEPT. HYDERABAD & 2 OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
PINNAMRAJU VENKATAPATHI RAJU VISAKHAPATNAM & 6 OTHERS – Respondent
WA 1106/2014
The judgment reinforces the Public Trust Doctrine, establishing that the State cannot alienate or regularize surplus public land in violation of statutory conditions, such as the requirement for a registered purchase deed.
Headnote:(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 23(1), 23(4), 5(3) and 10(4) - Public Trust Doctrine - Allotment and regularization of surplus vacant land - Legality of G.O.Ms. No. 455 for regularization of land occupied by third parties - Requirement of a registered document of purchase as a condition precedent for regularization. (Paras 35-42, 66)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of interference - Enquiry ordered by the State into the allotment of public property, based on a legislative assurance, is not to be quashed at the stage of initiation, especially when the matter involves allegations of fraud and violation of statutory provisions. (Paras 57-58, 66)
(C) Principles of Natural Justice - Bias - An enquiry should not be stalled on a mere apprehension of bias; the appropriate remedy would be to change the enquiry officer, not to quash the entire proceedings. (Paras 60-63)
Facts of the case:
The case concerns the allotment of surplus vacant land, vested in the State under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, in favor of certain writ petitioners. The petitioners claimed to have purchased the land from the original owner via sale deeds in 1983 and 1987. The Government issued G.O.Ms.Nos. 256 and 424 regularizing the land in their favor, and subsequently G.O.Ms.No.493 withdrawing an earlier abeyance order on payment of a higher slab rate. Following allegations of fabricated documents, the State issued G.O.Ms.No.557 dated 05.09.2012 to hold a detailed enquiry into the entire matter. The writ petitioners challenged this G.O., which was allowed by the Single Judge, leading to these appeals.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the allotment/regularization of public property must strictly adhere to statutory provisions. As per G.O.Ms.No.455, a registered document of purchase was a mandatory condition for regularization, which the writ petitioners failed to demonstrate. The court further held that the decision to hold an enquiry into the matter, which involved the disposal of public property and was based on a legislative assurance, should not have been interfered with. The court also noted that any apprehension of bias against the enquiry officer should lead to a change of officer, not a stoppage of the enquiry.
Issues: The main issues were whether the State's decision to conduct an enquiry into the regularization of land was legally sustainable and whether the Single Judge was correct in quashing the G.O. for the enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the State, as a trustee of public property, is duty-bound to ensure its disposal in accordance with law. An enquiry into allegations of fraud and statutory violations concerning such disposal is not only permissible but necessary. The judgment reinforces the applicability of the Public Trust Doctrine to the allotment of public land and the principle that regularization can only be granted if the applicant meets the specific statutory criteria, such as possessing a registered deed of purchase.
Result: Writ Appeals (W.A.Nos.1090, 1106 & 1218 of 2014) allowed. The common judgment dated 21.03.2014 was set aside, and G.O.Ms.No.557 dated 05.09.2012 was revived for a fresh enquiry. The connected Writ Appeals (W.A.Nos.1429 of 2016 & 785 of 2015) were directed to be listed after seven months, subject to the outcome of the enquiry. This summary is structured to capture the essence of the judgment, aligning with the format of the provided example without naming specific individuals or organizations.
COMMON JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
Heard Sri D.Yathindra Dev, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants in W.A.Nos.1090, 1106 of 2014, 785 of 2015 & 1429 of 2016 Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1218 of 2014. Heard Sri K.Divya Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - M/s Clover Associates Private Ltd.
I. FACTS:
i) Case of the writ petitioners
2. The facts of the case are that one Mr.Addepalli Venkatappaya Sastry (in short ‘A.V.Sastry’) was the owner of the land in an extent of Acs.10-50 cents in Sy.No.1011 of Waltair ward, Visakhapatnam under the registered sale deed dated 07.05.1954 bearing document No.1387/54. He filed declarations under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short ‘ULC Act’). Certain extent of land was declared as surplus. Claim of the writ petitioners 1 & 2 namely Pinnamraju Venkatapati Raju (in short P1) and Kasi Naga Kanaka Brahmam (in short P2) was that during the year 1983 Addepalli Venkatappaya Sastry sold extents of 2,752 sq.mts. to P1 and in the year 1987 he sold an extent of 2,879 sq.mts. to P2 and delivered the possession to those petitioners. P1 made constructions in the said land in the year 1986 and P2 thereafter.
3. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.455 Revenue (U.C.I) Department dated 29.07.2002 (in short ‘G.O.Ms.No.455’) under Section 23 of ULC Act for allotment or regularisation of land with or without construction in possession of the 3rd parties. Petitioners 1 & 2 applied for regularisation under G.O.Ms.NO.455. As per the condition No.4 (e)(ii), the excess land in possession of occupier (other than the excess land holder or his successors) on which there was already a structure and even though the possession was not supported by any registered document of purchase, allotment could be made if the same was supported by any one of the primary documents viz., (1) electricity connection, (2) construction permission, (3) payment of property tax and (4) water supply connection. The petitioners 1 & 2, relying on house tax receipts, municipal assessment number and pass books as on 1985 and 1987 to show their possession and existence of structures, sought for regularization. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.256 Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 27.02.2006 (in short ‘G.O.Ms.No.256’) regularizing an extent of 2,752 sq.mts. in favour of petitioner No.1 and another G.O.Ms.No.424 Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 06.04.2006 (in short ‘G.O.Ms.No.424’) regularizing an extent of 2,870 in favour of petitioner No.2.
4. Petitioner No.3 – M/s. Clover Associates (P) Ltd., a construction firm, entered into a registered possessory agreements of sale coupled with general power of attorney dated 08.05.2006 and 02.08.2006 with petitioner Nos.1 & 2 and also with the sons of the original land owner Addepalli Venkatappaya Sastry by paying consideration. Petitioner No.3 is said to have entered into similar agreement with one Sri Rama Co-operative Housing Building Society (in short ‘ Co-operative Society’), which was having land adjacent to the land of petitioner No.1, after obtaining the requisite permission from the civic bodies, and commenced construction activity. During the year, 2006 when the Municipal Authorities tried to demolish the structures existing in the land covered by G.O.Ms.No.256 and 424, the petitioner No.3 filed O.S.No.1524 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for permanent injunction, in which initially ad-interim temporary injunction was granted which was later on made absolute.
5. Later on, on the allegation that the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 produced fabricated tax receipts and pass books to claim regularization, the Government by memo No.59377/UC.I/2006-1 dated 23.03.2007 (in short ‘memo dated 23.03.2007’) kept the G.O.Ms.Nos.256 and 424 in abeyance with a direction to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam to conduct enqu
