IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 28712 of 1998 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Seeking to have the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, dated 29.01.1997, declared as arbitrary and illegal, the petitioners herein, (42 in number), have invoked the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. Several orders were passed by this Court directing the second respondent to hold an enquiry to find out whether the petitioners were in possession of the lands claimed by them and whether they were eligible for being granted pattas. The second respondent framed the following issues for consideration. 1. Nature of the land. 2. Whether the petitioners were in actual possession of the lands claimed by them for long? 3. Whether they were entitled to any pattedari rights under the rules? On Issue No.1, the Joint Collector, on a detailed examination of the revenue records including the Sethwar, concluded that the lands in question were Government lands classified as “Kancha Sarkari”. On Issue No.2, the second respondent noted that the pahanis, for the years 1952-53 and 1954-55, showed that an extent of Acs.252-22 gts of land was then under cultivation. He also examined the pahanis for the years from 1951 to 1969 which showed that an extent of Acs.40.00 to Acs.50.00 was in dry cultivation and occupation of the villagers of Nanakramguda. He thereafter analysed the evidence and concluded that the lands had been encroached upon subsequent to the year 1969. Details of the land and the years in which it was encroached, is extracted in a tabular form in the impugned order. On the evidence on record, the second respondent concluded that cultivation by the encroachers over the lands in question was not continuous from 1969-70 and that a portion of the lands were brought to cultivation by the encroachers from the year 1980-81 onwards. He also held that the discontinuous nature of the cultivation of the land in question by the encroachers revealed that they were not entirely dependent on this land for their livelihood, and that they were only interested in grabbing the land, and not to live by means of cultivation, in as much as land value, in and around Hyderabad, had skyrocketed. On verification of the settlement records, the second respondent held that even at the time of initial survey in 1910 A.D., the lands in Survey Nos.203, 210, 211 and 212 were shown as Government lands, that the Akarbandi register prepared after survey in the year 1321 fasli i.e. 1912 A.D. had been verified, that the entries in Akarbandi register, in respect of the lands in question, revealed that the said lands were recorded as poramboke and that the Sethwar of Manikonda village, prepared in the year 1322 fasli i.e. 1912 A.D., also showed that these lands were classified as Government lands. The second respondent concluded that, since the records established that the Government was the absolute owner of the said lands even during the regime of the Jagirdars, the petitioners request for grant of patta would not come under the purview of the rules of pattedari rights framed under the Jagir Abolition Act, 1358 F, that, since in Jagir villages, the Jagirdar has no right to grant any patta in respect of Government lands and, as he was only entitled to enjoy the usufruct, the fact remained that the suit lands, both during the jagir tenure and after its abolition, continued to remain vested in the State Government. He held that the rules for grant of pattedari rights, framed under the Jagir Abolition Act, 1358-F, were not applicable in the instant case. The second respondent, thereafter, examined the petitioners request for regularization of the encroachments under the assignment rules. He noted that these lands were situated in the outskirts of Hyderabad City and that the Government as far back as in the year 1961, vide G.O.Ms.No.1122 dated 30.06.1961, had issued orders imposing a ban on assignment of Government lands which were situated in a radius of 10 miles from the municipal limits of Hyderabad and, as the suit lands fell within a radius of 10 miles of the Municipal limits of Hyderabad, the request of the petitioners for grant of pattas, in respect of the land in question, could be acceded to. Sri C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the petitioners, would contend that the findings in the impugned order are contrary to the averments in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, that, even according to the second respondent, the petitioners were in possession during the said period and, the mere fact that they did not cultivate in all the years in question for several reasons including the drought conditions which prevailed then, would not necessitate the conclusion that they were not in continuous possession. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners were in fact in continuous possession of the lands in question and that they were entitled to be granted pattas. According to the learned counsel even if the land is held to be Government land, reliance placed by the Joint Collector on G.O.Ms.No.1122 dated 30.06.1961 was erroneous and that, in any event, the Government had, subsequently in G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16.02.2008, taken a decision to regularize all encroachments. Learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate General, would seek to sustain the order of the second respondent. He would state that, while exercising certiorari jurisdiction, this Court would not sit in appeal over findings of the fact recorded by the second respondent and, as it is not even the case of the petitioners that the order suffers from perversity or that the findings are based on no evidence, no interference was called for. He would further submit that the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.814 dated 09.11.1987, had handed over the entire extent to HUDA. This fact is, however, disputed by Sri C.Hanumantha Rao who would contend that only a part of the land had been handed over to HUDA. Sri M.Dhanamjaya Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent-HUDA, would adopt the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader and state that the impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity necessitating interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. He would contend that the petitioners’ were not justified in placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16.02.2008 as the impugned order was passed much prior thereto in the year 1997. According to the learned counsel, even if this Court were to direct the Government to consider the case of the petitioners, under G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16.02.2008, the third respondent should be given an opportunity of hearing since their rights would be prejudicially affected. The order of the second respondent is an elaborate and well considered order. Findings of fact recorded therein do not necessitate interference, in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the order does not suffer from any errors of law apparent on the face of the record. There is nothing on record which necessitates the conclusion that the findings recorded by the second respondent are perverse or are based on no evidence. The revenue records, elaborately referred to and relied upon by the second respondent, show that these lands were classified Government lands as early as in the year 1910. The petitioners claim for grant of patta under the Jagir Abolition Regulations is, therefore, not tenable. With regards their claim for regularization of encroachments, the second respondent has relied on G.O.Ms.No.1122 dated 30.06.1961 to hold that, since the lands fall within a 10 K.Ms. radius of the Municipal limits of Hyderabad, they could not be assigned. The order of the second respondent does not suffer from any such infirmity as to necessitate interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Before parting with the case, the submissions of Sri C.Hanumantha Rao, based on G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16.02.2008 must, however, be noted. Under the said G.O., the Government is said to have taken a decision to regularize all encroachments. The validity of the order of the second respondent dated 29.01.1997 cannot be judged on the basis of a subsequent G.O. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition on this ground. Since Sri C.Hanumantha Rao has stated that the petitioners have made an application, under G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16.02.2008, it is but appropriate that the Government considers their request in accordance with law. Needless to state that, before any order is passed in this regard, the Government shall hear all parties concerned, including the third respondent. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________ 18.03.2009 cvrk