HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.13506 of 2013 DATE: 20-10-2014 Between:
Ramichetty Venkataswamy S/o. late R.Chennaiah, Agriculture, Aged about 72 years, Residing at D.No.1-4-494/6, L.I.C. Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
.. Petitioner and The District Collector, Chittoor District and two others.
.. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.13506 of 2013 ORDER:
Petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of the lands to an extent of Ac.4.90 cents in Sy.No.38/3 and Ac.6.34 cents in Sy.No.40/2 of Daminedu village of Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. Petitioner claims that he purchased the said properties on 30.11.1963 through an unregistered sale deed from Tadakamalli Narasimha Chary. Full sale consideration was paid and he was put in possession of the said properties. Ever since petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said properties. Petitioner claims that Tadakamalli Narasimha Chary was inamdar of the village. Petitioner has applied for grant of patta. After conducting thorough enquiry, the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor, granted patta vide proceedings dated 31.01.1966. He was also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Petitioner intend to settle the properties standing in his name among his family members and also to dispose of the portion of the properties and with the said objective when he approached the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta (3rd respondent), the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that as informed by the revenue authorities the said properties belong to Government and, therefore, no deed of conveyance can be processed. Shocked and surprised by this statement petitioner approached the 2nd respondent requesting to inform in writing the reasons, but the 2nd respondent only orally informed him that Daminedu village settlement cases are pending before the 1st respondent and as per the instructions of the 1st respondent, he has requested the 3rd respondent not to entertain the deeds of conveyance on these lands. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is instituted.
2. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, deposed by Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal. The Tahsildar denies the status of Narasimha Chary as inamdar. It is contended that the land in Sy.No.38/3 to an extent of Ac.4.90 cents is classified as ‘kunta’, locally called as ‘ Muthareddi Gunta’ and land in Sy.No.40/2 to an extent of Ac.6.34 cents is classified as ‘kunta’, locally called as ‘Bathareddi Gunta’. These lands are communal poramboke lands and vested in Government. According to Section 3(16) of the Estate Land Act, 1908 and Section 3(b) of Estates Abolition Act, 1948, all the communal poramboke lands vests in Government and Government is rightful owner. Therefore, no authority has competence to grant ryotwari patta to the petitioner. It is asserted that Office of the Settlement Officer was located in Nellore and after abandonment of the Settlement Office at Nellore, all the records pertaining to Chitoor District were handed over to the Chittoor District authorities in the year 1990. No ryotwari patta was granted to anybody and no such record bearing S.R.No.126/11(a)/65 related to the subject land is in existence. The District Collector, in his reference letter Dis.No.F6/3738/2013, dated 23.05.2013, informed that the purported S.R. file was not received from the defunct Settlement Office, Nellore. It is further contended that if the lands are cultivable lands, the lands would be classified as dry lands or wet lands and would have been assessed. Prior and after survey operations, nobody is in possession of those lands, water bodies are existing on those lands and classified as ‘kunta poramboke’. At no point of time, petitioner approached the revenue authorities claiming the ownership of the lands.
3. The inconsistency in the contentions of the petitioner is pointed out in paras-9 and 13 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. It is asserted that before issuing order dated 31.1.1966, no notice was issued to the Tahsildar, Chandragiri, and no enquiry as alleged was conducted and without issuing notice to the Tahsildar, Chandragiri and conducting enquiry, no such patta could be issued. It is further pointed out that in the order dated 31.1.1966 relied upon by the petitioner, it was mentioned as Saswatha patta takid dated 18.05.1943 was given, whereas petitioner stated that he purchased these lands on 30.11.1963 through unregistered sale deed. It is contended that no such Saswatha patta takid was issued to the purported inamdar or to any person and no weightage can be given to unregistered documents. It is further contended that the alleged documents are not valid documents. It is further contended that Sy.Nos.38/3 and 40/2 of Daminedu village are mentioned in the said documents stated to have been executed on 30.11.1963, by which time the survey operations were not taken up and no survey number was assigned to paimaish numbers. Since the lands are classified as ‘Kunta poramboke’, petitioner was never in possession and enjoyment of these lands. The attestor of the documents never worked as Mandal Revenue Officer, Chandragiri. It is thus alleged that in order to grab the Government lands, fabricated documents are created.
4. Denying the contentions in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, petitioner filed reply affidavit. It is now contended that the registering authority has no competence to go into the title of the property on which deed of conveyance is presented before him unless a notification is issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. It is contended that the 2nd respondent, who deposed to the counter affidavit, has issued adangal copy dated 20.07.2012 declaring the petitioner as owner and possessor of the lands of these survey numbers, copy of which is enclosed as annexure-3 of the reply affidavit. The Settlement Register copy furnished to the petitioner on an application filed under Right to Information Act shows that as per the orders of the District Collector, Chittoor and Additional Settlement Officer, the name of the petitioner was incorporated in the Settlement Register. He denies the description of the lands as ‘Kunta poramboke’ and, therefore, the provisions relied upon by the respondents are not attracted. Petitioner also denies the allegations of non-receipt of file. Petitioner filed copies of S.L.R., rough patta, ryth pass book, adangal and proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chandragiri, dated 25.03.1974, land tax temporary receipts, auction notice etc., in support of his contentions.
5. In response, an additional counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, deposed by Sri K.Venkataramana, Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal. It is now alleged that extract of adangal in which the name of the petitioner is reflected as pattadar and enjoyer, is verified and revealed that the said copy was obtained from Mee-seva center and contained the digital signature of the Tahsildar. It is contended that no such document was issued by the concerned Tahsildar. The Adangal which was computerized was manipulated intentionally without the knowledge of the Tahsildar and the same was issued without his knowledge with a digital key signature. The manual adangal for the Fasli 1422 (corresponding calendar year 2012) reflect the original classification as water bodies in respect of both survey numbers. Having noticed that the Village Revenue Officer was indulging in illegal activities, he was placed under suspension. The adangal copy dated 20.07.2012 is fabricated document contrary to the actual ground position. Having noticed the wrong entry, the same was rectified immediately in the month of November, 2012.
6. Though further replies are filed by the petitioner, he has not filed adangal copy issued after the rectification claimed to have been made by the Revenue authorities in November, 2012, which would reflect the name of the petitioner as pattadar and enjoyer.
7. The claims and counter-claims would only show that there is a serious dispute to the ownership of the land. The revenue authorities disputing the claim of the petitioner that he was granted Saswatha patta and he purchased the land from the original inamdar. They deny existence of such inam on those lands. It is their categorical assertion that the land claimed by the petitioner as his own land, is part of ‘kunta poramboke’ and the said ‘kunta poramboke’ is still in existence. The lands are part of water bodies and those lands are communal lands. They denied the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner.
8. The petitioner is aggrieved by the directions issued by the respondents 1 and 2 to 3rd respondent not to register the properties of petitioner. In the facts of this case no mandamus as sought by the petitioner can be issued when there is a serious dispute on ownership claim of petitioner.
9. The writ Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact on the ownership and status of the land in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Court cannot decide title dispute. The relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted when there is a serious dispute on the status of the land claimed by the petitioner as owned by him in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has to avail ordinary civil remedy to assert his title.
10. In Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment
[1]
Corpn. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd., , Supreme
Court held as under:
“21 The primary purpose of a writ of mandamus is to protect and establish rights and to impose a corresponding imperative duty existing in law. It is designed to promote justice (ex debito justitiae). The grant or refusal of the writ is at the discretion of the court. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or to establish a legal right, but to enforce one that is already established. While dealing with a writ petition, the court must exercise discretion, taking into consideration a wide variety of circumstances, inter alia, the facts of the case, the exigency that warrants such exercise of discretion, the consequences of grant or refusal of the writ, and the nature and extent of injury that is likely to ensue by such grant or refusal.
22. Hence, discretion must be exercised by the court on grounds of public policy, public interest and public good. The writ is equitable in nature and thus, its issuance is governed by equitable principles. Refusal of relief must be for reasons which would lead to injustice. The prime consideration for the issuance of the said writ is, whether or not substantial justice will be promoted. Furthermore, while granting such a writ, the court must make every effort to ensure from the averments of the writ petition, whether there exist proper pleadings. In order to maintain the writ of mandamus, the first and foremost requirement is that the petition must not be frivolous, and must be filed in good faith. Additionally, the applicant must make a demand which is clear, plain and unambiguous. It must be made to an officer having the requisite authority to perform the act demanded …….”
11. In State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh held as under:
[2]
, Supreme Court
“7. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion, that the writ petition was misconceived insofar as it asked for, in effect, a declaration of writ petitioner’s title to the said plot. It is evident from the facts stated hereinabove that the title of the writ petitioner is very much in dispute. Disputed question relating to title cannot be satisfactorily gone into or adjudicated in a writ petition.”
12. The writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary jurisdiction which can be availed only where glaring injustice is pointed out requiring affirmative action by writ Court. Article 226 vests wide discretion in the Writ Court. While exercising such discretion Court is required to take into consideration various factors which have a bearing on the issue involved. Public interest is paramount for Courts consideration. In the case on hand ownership claim of petitioner is opposed by State. State claims the lands in issue as communal lands. Thus, Court cannot lean in favour of the petitioner to grant relief claimed by him.
13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies to establish his ownership to an extent of Ac.4.90 cents in Sy.Nos.38/3 and 40/2 of Daminedu Village of Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. No costs.
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 20.10.2014 kkm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.13506 of 2013 Date: 20.10.2014 kkm
[1] (2013) 5 SCC 470
[2] 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306