Allowed

Pamula Ramaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC23 Sept 2014WP/1699/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a writ petition challenging a Land Acquisition Act award. The court held that relying solely on Resettlement Register entries to pass an award without notice or opportunity to actual owners holding pattadar pass books is illegal and violates constitutional rights. It set aside the award and mandated referral to a civil court.

What did the court decide?

Award No.6/2009-10 set aside; matter remanded to Civil Court under Section 30; compensation paid to deity to be returned within one month.

Pamula Ramaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.1699 of 2010

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the award No.6/2009-10 vide Rc.B/10/09 dated 21.10.2009 passed by the fourth respondent/special Deputy Collector, (L.A.), Pula Subbaiah Velugonda Project, Unit-I, Markapur, Prakasam District under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) in respect of the lands of the petitioners admeasuring

¶5

Ac.4-94 cents in Sy.No.608 and Ac.10.99 cents in Sy.No.609/1 situated at Kalanuthala Village, Peddaraveedu Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶6

2. Heard Sri Sadhu Rajeshwara Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the learned Government Pleaders for the Land Acquisition and Endowments apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶7

3. According to the petitioners, they are the absolute owners and possessors of the agricultural lands, admeasuring Ac.15-93 cents situated in Sy.Nos.608 and 609/1 of Kalanuthala Village, Peddaraveedu Mandal, Prakasam District, having purchased the same by way of a registered sale deed dated 15.04.1968 for a valuable consideration from Mr.Nabakula Nagaseshaiah and Mr.Vennam Kotaiah and the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective extents i.e., Ac.3-93 cents in respect of the first petitioner and Ac.3-00 cents each in respect of the rest of the petitioners. The respondent Land Acquisition Authorities pressed into service the provisions of the Act and a draft notification dated 15.06.2009 and a draft declaration dated 18.06.2009 were issued by the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Pula Subbaiah Velugonda Project, Ongole under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act respectively for acquisition

¶8

of the subject lands in view of submergence of the subject lands under Sri Pula Subbaiah Velugonda Project. By invoking the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with by the authorities.

¶9

4. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that the respondent Land Acquisition authorities, without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity to the petitioners herein at any point time, paid the compensation amount to Grama Devatha Tatkalika Manager i.e., to the Endowments authorities by passing a consent award simply basing on the entries in the Resettlement Register.

¶10

5. Calling in question the validity and legal acceptability of the said proceedings including the Award No.6/2009-10 issued vide proceedings Rc.B/10/09 dated 21.10.2009, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶11

6. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents 1 to 5 and 7 and reply affidavits have also been filed to the same by the writ petitioners.

¶12

7. Contentions of Sri Sadhu Rajeshwara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners:

¶13

7.1. The entire acquisition proceedings are illegal, arbitrary, null and void and opposed to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶14

7.2. Even though the petitioners purchased the subject lands by way registered sale deed as long back as in the year 1968 and though the petitioners have pattadar pass books and title deeds issued by the revenue authorities in their favour and though the adangals show the names of the petitioners, the respondent authorities, totally ignored all these documents and did not show the names of the petitioners in any one of the proceedings starting from 4 (1) notification till the conclusion by way of passing

¶15

the award nor issued any notice nor afforded any opportunity to the petitioners, as such, the entire proceedings are vitiated.

¶16

7.3. The mere entry in the Resettlement Register (RSR) neither confers title nor ownership, as such, the Land Acquisition Authorities grossly erred in considering the same as foundation and basis for passing the award and paying the compensation in favour of the respondent institution.

¶17

To bolster his submissions, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners places strong reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of MADIGA PAPANNA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

¶18

REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS^[1] , SHAIK ALI AND OTHERS v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR AND OTHERS^[2] and P. SURESH AND ANOTHER V. A.P. STATE REP. BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS .^[3] .

¶19

8. Contentions of the learned Government Pleaders and the learned Advocates for the respondents:

¶20

8.1. The respondent authorities initiated, conducted and finalized the Land Acquisition Proceedings strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and there is absolutely no illegality nor any irregularity nor there is any procedural deviation in the impugned proceedings and in the absence of the same the present writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioners herein are not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

8.2. As per the Resettlement Register (RSR), the subject lands stood classified as Inam Dry lands, standing in the name of the Manager of the village deity for the time being and the petitioners herein never participated in the proceedings nor raised any claim at any point of time, as such, the amounts were paid as per the entries in the

¶22

Resettlement Register (RSR) followed by a consent award.

¶23

8.3. The petitioners did not file any objections after publication of the notification in Form-II (A) under 5-A and failed to file any sort of documentary evidence in support of their title even assuming that their pattadar passbooks and title deeds are genuine.

¶24

8.4. Since the amounts were disbursed in favour of the institution, the writ petition is not maintainable and the only alternative for the petitioners is to institute a suit and to establish their right in the subject property.

¶25

9. In the light of the above pleadings, submissions and contentions, now the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court are:

¶26

i. Whether the impugned proceedings which culminated in the award are in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and whether the same are sustainable and tenable in the eye of law?

¶27

ii. Whether the respondent Land Acquisition Authorities are justified in passing the consent award without putting the petitioners herein on notice and simply basing on the RSR Entries and without verifying the other revenue records?

¶28

10. Right to property is a constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India which, in clear and unequivocal terms, mandates that no citizen of our country shall be deprived of or divested of his/her property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an expropriatory legislation which authorizes and empowers the State and its instrumentalities to acquire the private properties without reference to the consent of the owners, as such, the provisions of this legislation are required to be followed and adhered to meticulously and scrupulously and any deviation from the same would undoubtedly render the proceedings invalid. The authorities, functioning and discharging statutory and quasi judicial functions under the Act, are supposed to be highly cautious and should act with high degree of care and

¶29

circumspection. The issues in the present writ petition will have to be examined in the light of the said issues.

¶30

11. The material available before this Court manifestly discloses that there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the fact that the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioners, obviously after holding enquiry. Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 there is a sanctity and statutory presumption, though rebuttable under Section 6 of the said Act, in favour of the persons whose names are indicated in the said documents. In this connection, it may be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Sections 6 and 6 –A (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, which read as under:-

¶31

“6. Presumption of correctness of entries in record of rights:

¶32

Every entry in the record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or unto it is otherwise amended in accordance with the provisions of this Act. [any mortgage or charge created earlier to a mortgage or charge created in favour of a credit agency shall lose its priority if it is not entered in the pattadar pass book.]

¶33

6-A. Pass Book holder to have entries of alienation etc. recorded in pass Book:-

¶34

(1) … (2) … (3) … (4) …

¶35

(5) The title deed issued under sub-section (1) and duly certified by the Mandal Revenue Officer, or wuch other authority as may be prescribed, shall be the title deed in respect of an owner-pattadar and it shall have the same evidentiary value with regard to the title for the purpose of creation of equitable mortgage under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as a document registered in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908

¶36

has under the law.”

¶37

12. There is a sacred duty cast on the authorities to honour the said documents issued under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the authorities are expected to respect the same in their true letter and spirit. The Adangal extracts placed on record by the petitioners herein also indicate the names of the petitioners herein. It is incumbent and obligatory on the part of the authorities, functioning under the Land Acquisition Act, to verify all these records before initiating the proceedings under the Act, otherwise the very purpose of maintaining the revenue records would be nugatory and frustrated.

¶38

13. As evident from the material available before this Court, the only document which the authorities took into consideration for the purpose of initiation of the proceedings and holding of award enquiry and passing of award and payment of amount is the entry in the Resettlement Register. In this context, this Court feels it appropriate and apposite to refer to the judgments of this Court on the value and veracity of entries in the Resettlement Register.

¶39

14. In the case of MADIGA PAPANNA (supra 1), this Court at paragraphs 4, 6 and 7, held as follows:

¶40

“4. A counter affidavit is filed by Respondent No. 3 wherein it is inter alia admitted that pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in favour of the Petitioner. It is further averred that the Petitioner has obtained the same by misleading the revenue authorities. Respondent No. 3 has maintained that the land in Sy. No. 174 is classified as 'Government AW' in Re-settlement Register (R.S.R.) of 1908 and the pattadar column was kept blank with dots. Except stating that the R.S.R. has described the land as 'Government AW', no other revenue record has been referred to in the counter affidavit nor has been produced by the Respondents at the time of hearing.

¶41

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that since there is a dispute regarding title, the Petitioner will have to get his title declared by approaching the competent civil court.

¶42

7. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. In view of the settled legal position that mere entry in R.S.R. will not constitute proof of title and in the absence of any other revenue record showing the land as Government land, it cannot be said that there is a dispute regarding title. At any rate, mere registration of a conveyance deed does not create title in the transferee. If the Government feels that the property belongs to it, it can always avail appropriate remedy to assert its title and claim the property. Mere registration of the sale deed would not come in the way of the Government in asserting its right and availing appropriate remedy.”

¶43

15. In the case of SHAIK ALI AND OTHERS (supra 2), this court at paragraph 6, held as follows:

¶44

“6. From the facts noted above, while there is overwhelming evidence in respect of the Petitioners' plea that the lands are treated as private lands and registered transaction has taken place as far back as 1947 and revenue records such as pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the Petitioners' father, the stand of the Respondents treating the property as Government land, cannot prima facie be appreciated. As held by this Court as noted above, mere entries in R.S.R. or A-Register will not offer conclusive proof of ownership of the land. Therefore, I do not find any justification for Respondent No. 4 to refuse to receive the documents and register the same.”

¶45

16. In the case of P. SURESH AND ANOTHER (supra 3), this Court at paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, held as follows:

¶46

“6. Had it been a case, where the land is held by Government, the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act would have certainly operated. It however needs to be mentioned that the ownership vis-a-vis the property claimed either by the Government or by private individuals is not an abstract concept and it must satisfy its own indicia. In their counter affidavit, the respondents stated inter alia as under:

¶47

The records of Sub-Registrar, Proddatur are verified in the register of holding which is maintained by the Sub-Registrar in year of 1914 there are register transaction took place from the year 1932 onwards treating this Sy No. as patta land. The entire extent of 5.03 acres was sold to different persons at different times. Now physically on ground the private persons are in enjoyment of the land.

¶48

7. In the next sentence, it is averred that the registrations are held up by applying the prohibition contained under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 9 of 1997. The only basis

¶49

pleaded by the respondents is the R.S.R. prepared by the Revenue Department and printed in the year 1909. It appears that the respondents have taken the state of affairs to remain the same for a century, notwithstanding the change of regimes and change of Governments.

¶50

8. From their own admission, it is evident that the respondents have not only recognized the sales, which took place from the year 1932, but also have made entries in the revenue records depicting the land as patta. In all fairness, they have admitted the possession of the respective owners upon the land. Further, at no stage, they have made any semblance of claim, much less have initiated steps to recover the land. They were obviously aware that almost for one century, the land is treated as patta and is under the enjoyment of private individuals. The view taken by the 2nd respondent in his letter vis-a-vis the above land as well as the action of the 3rd respondent in not accepting the documents presented by the petitioners would constitute the typical example of arbitrariness of very high order. It was these very authorities that entertained or permitted the sales in favour of the petitioners as recently as in the year 2008. Wisdom appears to have dawned upon them thereafter, may be for wrong reasons.”

¶51

17. The above referred judgments clearly show that the RSR entries cannot be treated as conclusive evidence for determination and conferment of title. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondent/Land Acquisition authorities in initiating the proceedings, holding enquiry, concluding by passing the impugned award and paying the compensation in favour of the institution without notice and opportunity to the petitioners herein and in the considered opinion of this Court these are the acts which are highly unreasonable, preposterous, iniquitous and reprehensible besides being a clear and patent transgression and violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. As evident from the counter affidavit filed by the Inspector of Endowments, Markapur, the seventh respondent herein that an amount of Rs.17,06,000/- received from the office of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit No.I, Markapur by way of cheque in the name of the deity has been deposited by way of FDR in Andhra Bank, Markapur Branch.

¶52

18. The facts and circumstances and the ground realities narrated

¶53

supra, drive this Court towards an irresistible conclusion that the action of the respondent Land Acquisition authorities is highly arbitrary, illegal and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶54

19. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the Award No.6/2009-10, Rc.B/10/09 dt.24.10.2009 issued by the Fourth respondent/The Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Pula Subbaiah Velugonda Project, Unit-I, Markapur, Prakasam District, to the extent of the land admeasuring Ac.4.94 cents in Sy.No.608 and Ac.10.99 cents in Sy.No.609/1 situated at Kalanuthala Village, Peddaraveedu Mandal, Prakasam District. The Land Acquisition Officer is hereby directed to refer the matter to a competent Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for resolving the dispute within four months from the date of receipt of this order and the respondents 5 and 7 shall return the amount paid in favour of the institution in respect of the subject lands which is now lying by way of FDR in the Andhra Bank, Markapur Branch, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, so as to enable the Land Acquisition Authorities to take appropriate action for referring the matter as indicated supra. It shall be open for the Civil court to invest the said amount as per Section 32 of the Act and it is also made clear that in the event of the claim of the petitioners being negatived by the Civil Court, the Endowments Authorities are entitled to withdraw the amounts from the Court with interest accrued thereon. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶55

_______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶56

Date:23.09.2014

¶57

grk

¶58

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶59

WRIT PETITION No.1699 of 2010

¶60

Date :23.09.2014

¶61

grk

¶62

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶63

WRIT PETITION No.1699 of 2010

¶64

Date : -09-2014

¶65

Between:

¶66

Pamula Ramaiah and others.

¶67

… Petitioners

¶68

and

¶69

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary Irrigation Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad (Pula Subbaiah Velugonda Project (Unit-I) (Land Acquisition) and Others.

¶70

… Respondents

¶71

[1] 2011 (2) ALT 2

¶72

[2] 2011 (2) ALD 48

¶73

[3] 2009 (3) ALT 419

Pamula Ramaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pamula Ramaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gavvela Narayana Swamy Vs District Collector

M. Gangadhara Rao Vs Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Smt.Shameen Sultana Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Sri Ramalaya Committee,Malakcharla,registered society Vs The District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari District

Madugani Sudharshan Vs The Commissioner of Fisheries, Government of Andhra

R.Prabhakar Reddy Vs Union of India