Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
SARVEPALLI RAMAIAH (DIED) AS PER LRS AND OTHERS – Appellants
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AND OTEHRS – Respondent s
Civil Appeal No. 7461 of 2009
Decided on : 14-03-2019
(a) Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 – Section 2-A r/w section 3(4) – District Collector declaring the disputed land as "Peddacheruvu Tank" – District Collector, on correct appreciation of evidence, holding that ‘pattas’ were fabricated – High Court rightly dismissed petition for implementing the pattas. (Para 13)
Per Indira Banerjee, J. (Concurring)
(b) Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 – Section 2-A r/w section 7(1) – Act coming into force on 14th December, 1956 – Appellants not applying for ryotwari patta till 1980 – Inams Deputy Tehsildar allegedly issuing ryotwari patta – The land notified as Peddacheruvu Poramboke (tank) in 1984 u/s 3(3) and (4) – Notification not challenged – Appellants filing writ petition in 1990 for implementation of the pattas – Under direction for High Court District Collector examined the matter a rejected the same – Appellants again filed writ petition in 1995 wherein High Court directed District Collector to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders – District Collector held that pattas were fabricated – Appellants challenged order of District Collector in a writ petition which has been summarily dismissed – Held, no infirmity. (Para 21, 22)
(c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Judicial review – Grounds available for – Perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and procedural irregularity – Instantly order of District Collector based on materials – Not perverse or irrational – Judicial review is directed, not against the decision, but the decision making process – Court does not sit in appeal over the decision impugned, nor does it adjudicate hotly disputed questions of fact. (Para 23, 26)
(d) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Relief can be refused on ground of delay, laches, acquiescence and/or omission of the appellants to assert their right, if any, within a reasonable time. (Para 29)
(e) Environmental law – Preservation of water bodies – Land in question declared a lake – Appellants not challenging gazette notification notifying the land as lake – Could not be alienated even if dry – High Court rightly dismissing the writ petition. (Para 32, 33)
(2006) 6 SCC 543; (1997) 3 SCC 715; (2006) 3 SCC 549 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Appellants’ predecessor-in-interest obtained a saswatha patta dated 31.12.1940 from Sri Hathiramjee Math for dry land admeasuring 6.00 acres T.D. No. 464 and predecessors of the appellants and the appellants have been in possession ever since. They also obtained ryotwari patta dated 29.09.1980 in respect of admeasuring 6.00 acres of land corresponding to Inam No. 464 in Survey No. 234; and also obtained another ryotwari patta on 14.12.1980 for an extent of admeasuring 5.00 acres corresponding to Inam No. 464 in Survey No. 234.
The District Collector held that a notification dated 03.09.1984 was issued under Section 2-A of the Act wherein the land in question was classified as "Peddacheruvu Tank" and rejected the prayer of the appellant for implementation of patta by holding that pattas issued to appellant Sarvepalli Ramaiah by the Deputy Tahsildar were fabricated.
The appellant filed Writ Petition which was dismissed by the Single Judge. The appeal was dismissed by Division Bench.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Per R. Banumathi, J.
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 22.02.2006 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 1495 of 2004 in and by which the Division Bench upheld the order of the Single Judge thereby declining to interfere with the order of the District Collector in refusing to grant ryotwari patta in favour of the appellants.
2. Case of the appellants is that their predecessor-in-interest obtained a saswatha patta dated 31.12.1940 from Sri Hathiramjee Math for dry land admeasuring 6.00 acres T.D. No. 464 and predecessors of the appellants and the appellants have been in possession ever since. It is the case of appellants that they have obtained ryotwari patta dated 29.09.1980 in respect of admeasuring 6.00 acres of land corresponding to Inam No. 464 in Survey No. 234. Similarly, the appellants also obtained another ryotwari patta on 14.12.1980 for an extent of admeasuring 5.00 acres corresponding to Inam No. 464 in Survey No. 234. Appellant Sri Sarvepalli Ramaiah has filed Writ Petition No. 2759 of 1990 before the High Court seeking direction to the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural for implementation of the patta granted to him by the Deputy Tahsildar vide order dated 29.09.1980 by making entries in the revenue. The said writ was disposed of by the High Court by order dated 19.03.1990 whereby the High Court directed the authorities to satisfy with reference to the relevant records whether the patta is genuine or not and if found to be genuine, they should be implemented.
3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Rural in his Ref. Roc. C.213/89 dated 20.06.1990 sought for clarification from the District Collector whether to implement the order of granting ryotwari patta to appellant Sarvepalli Ramaiah. The District Collector did not grant approval; rather issued a Paper Notification on 14.03.1991 in Andhra Jyothi daily Telugu Newspaper vide Roc. B9.00701/1990 dated 12.03.1991 stating that Sri Shaik Kasumaiah who worked as Inams Deputy Tahsildar Chandragiri, Chittoor District in the year 1980, issued Ryotwari pattas and the same are not valid and the subsequent sale deeds are also not valid.
4. Since, the District Collector did not accord the approval for issuance of ryotwari patta, the appellant filed Writ Petition Nos. 29664-65 of 1995 and reiterated the prayer made in the earlier Writ Petition No. 2759 of 1990. The said Writ Petitions were disposed of by order dated 28.11.2001 directing the District Collector to conduct enquiry after giving opportunity to the appellant and pass appropriate order. After holding enquiry and giving opportunity to the appellant, the District Collector by order dated January, 2003 held that a notification dated 03.09.1984 was issued under Section 2-A of the Act wherein the land in question was classified as "Peddacheruvu Tank" and rejected the prayer of the appellant for implementation of patta by holding that pattas issued to appellant Sarvepalli Ramaiah by the Deputy Tahsildar were fabricated.
5. Challenging the order of the District Collector, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 5807 of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that the findings recorded by the District Collector about the nature of pattas that they were fake was based on correct appreciation of evidence. The learned Single Judge further held that in view of the ban contained in Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act, the tank bed lands cannot be alienated or assigned. In appeal, the Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge that the land is classified as "Peddacheruvu Tank" which vests in the government and in view of the bar contained in Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act and the same cannot be transferred. The Division Bench further held that the appellant did not challenge the notification dated 03.09.1984 issued under the Inams Abolition Act, despite the fact that the order passed by the Collector makes the specific reference to the entry recorded at
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
