Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 27584
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Alok Aradhe, CJ, Anil Kumar Jukanti, J
State – Appellant
Versus
Repaka Venkataratnam – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No.910 OF 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohammed Imran Khan
For the Respondents: R. R. Kalyan, R. Kameswar Rao
A notification issued under a repealed statute is not rendered 'non est' if it is consistent with the successor Act, and revenue entries alone do not establish title or ownership in the absence of primary documentation like pattas or executed transfer deeds.
Headnote:(A) Hyderabad Forest Act 1 of 1355 Fasli - Section 4 - Notification issued under repealed Hyderabad Forest Act of 1326 Fasli - Whether notification is non est - Held, mere issuance of notification under a wrong enactment does not affect its authenticity if it is not inconsistent with the new Act - Presumption of validity exists in favour of such notification. (Para 8)
(B) Revenue Records - Mutation entries - Whether mutation confers right, title or interest - Held, mutation entries do not confer title in the absence of original supporting documentation such as pattas or transfer records. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
Two claimants sought exclusion of land from a proposed forest block, alleging they possessed pattas originally granted to 12 persons, 10 of whom purportedly transferred their shares to the claimants. The Joint Collector rejected the claims due to lack of evidence, but the Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding the forest notification non est as it was issued under a repealed Act.
Findings of Court:
The notification issued under the former Act is not void as it does not conflict with the provisions of the new Act. Furthermore, the claimants failed to produce any foundational documents (pattas or deeds) to support the alleged transfer of 600 acres, rendering the revenue entries without legal sanctity.
Issues: Whether a forest notification issued under a repealed Act is non est and whether mere revenue entries suffice to establish ownership of land claimed as private holdings.
Ratio Decidendi: A notification issued under a superseded statute remains valid if consistent with the successor legislation; furthermore, revenue records cannot substitute for primary proof of title, particularly when the underlying transfer documents are absent.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. historical context and procedural history of disputed land claims. (Para 3) |
| 2. parties argument regarding title, revenue entries, and notification legality. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. validity of notifications under repealed acts and evidentiary weight of revenue records. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. procedural finality and dismissal of belated requests. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)
Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the appellants.
Mr. R. R. Kalyan, learned counsel represents Mr. R. Kameswar Rao, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents.
2. This intra court appeal is filed against the order dated 27.03.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19107 of 2003 preferred by the appellants has been allowed.
3. Brief facts:
The appellants are respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition is filed challenging order dated 19.05.2003 passed by the Joint Collector, Khammam, as illegal and to direct the forest settlement officer i.e., Joint Collector to consider claims of the petitioners in Survey No.81 to an extent of Acs.600.00 of Kalavalanagaram Village in erstwhile Palvancha Taluk of Khammam District. Land to an extent of Acs.717.18 guntas in Survey No.81 of Kalavalanagaram Village of Pinapaka Mandal, was proposed for reserving in forest block and the same was notified under Section 4 of the Hyderabad Forest Act 1 of 1355 Fasli vide G.O.Ms.No.409/GAD/GK/III/58, dated 27.10.1949, and the same was published in the State Gazette No.21 on 07.02.1950. The proclamation under Section 6 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was issued by the Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, on 14.06.1950, inviting claims and objections. While so, the claimants, Repaka Venkataratnam and Vadiyala Venkataiah, filed claim petition before the Deputy Collector, Kothagudem, claiming that they have got pattas for Acs.600.00 of land in Survey No.81 of Kalavalanagaram Village and requested for exclusion of the said patta land from the proposed forest block. According to the claimants, pattas were granted to them in 1341 Fasli. The then Deputy Collector, Kothagudem, disposed of the claim petition by order, dated 06.11.1952, negativing the claim of the claimants. Questioning the said order, the claimants filed appeal before the Additional Collector, Khammam, and the Additional Collector, decided the appeal against the Forest Department. Subsequent to disposal of the appeal, it was informed that the Additional Collector did not have the requisite jurisdiction to hear the appeal and therefore, the matter was referred to Board of Revenue, Hyderabad, along with the entire file. But, the file was misplaced by the Board of Revenue. The Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, vide letter dated 08.10.1984 directed de novo enquiry and to build up necessary record within six months.
3.1. Thereupon, the conservator of Forests, Khammam, vide letter dated 26.07.1987 requested the District Collector to decide the claim of pattas included in Kalavalanagaram forest block and to request the Forest Settlement Officer, Khammam, to take further course of action in settling the patta claims in the proposed reserve forest block. On 25.09.1987, the Sub Collector, Kothagudem, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pinapaka, to enquire into the matter and to forward a detailed report. The Mandal Revenue Officer vide his report, dated 07.01.1990, stated that initial survey of Kalavalanagaram village was done in the year 1352 Fasli and for the land to an extent of Acs.600.00, pattas were granted in favour of 12 persons including the two claimants after collecting valuation of forest growth in Survey No.81 and that in pahani of 1349 Fasli surprisingly the entire land of Acs.600.00 in Survey No.81 was shown in favour of two persons who are Vaidyala Venkataiah and Repaka Venkata Ratnam. It is further recorded in the report that Faisal Patties were not available for verificatio
