HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18460 of 2010 Date :15.04.2011 Between : E. Tapodhan Kumar. …..Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18460 of 2010 ORDER: When the interlocutory applications are listed for hearing, on the request made by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents, the writ petition itself is heard and is being disposed of by this order. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the recommendations made by the 3rd respondent-District Collector to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad in Letter No.12/14208/2008, dated 27.05.2010. By the above letter, the 3rd respondent-District Collector has recommended for rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner for regularisation of plot admeasuring 500 sq. yards as per the orders of Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16th February 2008. 3. Necessary facts in brief, for disposal of the writ petition are as under : The petitioner claims that he is the owner and possessor of plot admeasuring 500 sq. yards covered by Plot No.11 in Sy.No.129/56, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. It is his case that the aforesaid land is inherited by him from his maternal grandfather Late Sri B.Ranga Swamy, pursuant to a memorandum of oral partition and family settlement. It is his case that Late Sri B.Ranga Swamy purchased an extent of Ac.2.10 gts., in the year 1964 vide registered sale deed bearing document No.1640 of 1964, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, and pursuant to such purchase, he came into possession of the above said piece of land. It is stated that when Government claimed the above said piece of land admeasuring Ac.2.10 gts., and took steps to evict his grandfather Late B.Ranga Swamy, initially, he filed a suit along with one other plaintiff, in O.S.No.609 of 1981 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the Government, seeking declaration that they are absolute owners and possessors of the said land, but the said suit was initially dismissed by a judgment and decree, dated 24.09.1982, as against which, CCCA.No.44 of 1983 was preferred before this Court, which was allowed and remanded for fresh consideration by the trial Court. It is stated that subsequently, after remand, the suit was dismissed by a judgment and decree, dated 10.11.1998, which is also again challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing CCCA.No.22 of 1999, which is pending. It is stated that as the late grandfather of petitioner Sri B.Ranga Swamy had died, all his legal heirs including the petitioner herein, came on record and there is an injunction granted in favour of plaintiff during the pendency of the suit and said order also continued by this Court in CCCA.MP.No.3033 of 1999. 4. When such appeal filed by the petitioner claiming declaration of title to the aforesaid piece of land is pending, the Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, notifying the guidelines for regularisation of unassigned Government lands, where, disputes are pending with private parties. It is the case of the petitioner that though he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land by virtue of inheritance from his Late grandfather, to give a quietus to the litigation, he has applied for regularisation of aforesaid land by producing necessary documents. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the guidelines notified by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, the District Collector is empowered to transfer the rights in respect of land upto an extent of 250 sq. yards, by scrutinizing the proposals at the District Level Committee, headed by him and all the applications for transfer of rights in respect of land above 250 sq. yards, shall be sent to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. It is his case that for the land to an extent of 500 sq. yards, the Committee headed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has to scrutinize the applications and he is the authority to order for transfer of rights upto an extent of 500 sq. yards. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the above said orders of the Government, on the application made by the petitioner in prescribed form, inquiries were conducted and the 3rd respondent has recommended in favour of the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that as he is claiming regularisation to an extent of 500 sq. yards, same was placed before the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad and the said Committee also recommended in favour of the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that after the Committee headed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has scrutinized and approved the proposals sent by the District Collector, and directed the 3rd respondent to take further follow-up action for collecting the payments subject to withdrawal of CCCA.No.22 of 1999, the 3rd respondent, who participated in the State Level Regularisation Committee Meeting held on 19.04.2010, has issued the impugned proceedings, to reject the claim of petitioner on irrelevant grounds, which run contrary to the very guidelines notified by the Government. 5. A perusal of the impugned proceedings issued by the District Collector, addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, issued in Letter No.12/14208/2008, dated 27.05.2010, shows that the 3rd respondent has mainly recommended for rejection on the ground that the land in question is Government land and title of the land is already settled in lower Court in favour of the Government and the applicant is not having necessary documents as contemplated under Clause (5) of G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that location of land in prime area, by itself, is not a ground to reject his claim. It is his case that even the guidelines notified by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.166, are applicable for vacant lands subject to payment of additional surcharge for the lands located in prime areas. It is also his case that at no point of time, the piece of land was identified for any specified public purpose, as such, his claim cannot be rejected. It is stated that as the proposals were already scrutinized and considered by the competent Committee headed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, as such, it is not open for the 3rd respondent-District Collector to make any recommendations contrary to the proposals of the said Committee. It is also the case of the petitioner that the very object of the Legislation is to regularize the lands, where there are bonafide disputes between the private parties and the Government and when the appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of suit is pending, it cannot be said that the title of land is settled in favour of the Government. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has already produced required documents in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166, and after making necessary inspections, recommendations were made, and as such, it cannot be said that he has not fulfilled the requirements under Clause (5) of G.O.Ms.No.166. 7. The 3rd respondent-District Collector has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that in view of the dismissal of suit in O.S.No.609 of 1981, the title and possession of land shall stand in favour of Government. At the same time, it is admitted that CCCA.No.22 of 1999 filed by the petitioner, is pending consideration and there are exparte injunction orders granted against the Government. It is stated that the unregistered Memorandum of Oral Settlement, dated 01.12.1985, is not the document recognized under clause (5) of G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008. It is also stated that as the said land is required for public purpose in terms of sub-clause (j) of Clause (10) of G.O.Ms.No.166, petitioner is not entitled for transfer of rights in respect of the aforesaid piece of land. In the counter, while admitting that the proposals were scrutinized by the Committee headed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, it is stated that the matter is again referred to the Tahsildar, Shaikpet, for re- verification of facts, upon which, the Tahsildar has sent his proposals stating that the subject land is covered by litigation in CCCA.No.22 of 1999 and the land is located in a prime area and that there is no sign of possession by the petitioner. It is stated that, in view of the report sent by the Tahsildar, the District Level Committee has re-verified the matter and rejected the request of the petitioner and issued the impugned proceedings on the grounds as stated in the aforesaid proceedings. 8. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner Sri L.Venkateshwar Rao, that the petitioner is the rightful titleholder and possessor of the plot in question, which, he inherited from his Late grandfather, who acquired the land totally admeasuring Ac.2.10 gts., by registered sale deed, as early as in 1964. It is his case that in view of the un-ending litigation and to give a quietus to the litigation, he made application pursuant to the orders of Government. As per the guidelines notified by the Government, it is submitted that even for the unauthorized encroachments of the Government land, the said G.O. is applicable and although the petitioner is a bonafide claimant, having title and possession by virtue of registered sale deed, acquired through his late grandfather, inspite of the same, on irrelevant and untenable grounds, his claim is sought to be rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that on the application submitted by the petitioner, proposals were scrutinized by the District Level Committee, which has recommended to the State Level Committee, and even the State Level Committee, headed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, has approved the said proposals and issued directions to the 3rd respondent-District Collector, to take up follow-up steps. In that view of the matter, it is not open for the 3rd respondent again to take up the matter and to recommend for rejection. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent is also one of the members of the State Level Committee headed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, and being a party to the said Committee, which has approved the proposals in favour of the petitioner, it is not open for the 3rd respondent to take any contra view. It is further submitted that all the grounds mentioned in the impugned proceedings are untenable, which run contrary to the object and spirit of the orders issued by the Government itself. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the respondents, having given such benefits to the unauthorized encroachers of Government land, though the petitioner is a bonafide claimant and is seeking regularisation, inspite of holding valid title and possession to the property, such claim is negated without assigning valid reasons. 9. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents that while it is true that the State Level Committee headed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has approved the proposals in favour of the petitioner, but subsequently, the 3rd respondent has inquired into the claim of the petitioner and issued the impugned proceedings. It is submitted that although the petitioner claims for regularisation, he is not complying with the requirements in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008. 10. At the outset, I deem it appropriate to refer to the salient features of the policy notified by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008. While reviewing various orders issued from time to time right from 1995, comprehensive guidelines were issued by the Government for transfer of rights on certain occupations/ encroachments of specified categories of unassigned Government lands situated in the State, by way of structures or otherwise, on payment basis. Various competent authorities are notified under clause (9) of the G.O., which reads as under : “( 9 ) COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR TRANSFER OF RIGHTS : The District Collector concerned shall receive all applications for Transfer of Rights in respect of Unassigned Government Lands and conduct a detailed inspection through the Mandal/Divisional Authorities. After finalizing the eligibility of the applicants, Transfer of Rights shall be done as per the following criteria: (i) application for Transfer of Rights upto an extent of 250 Square Yards be scrutinized by the Committee at District level under the Chairmanship of District Collector and final orders of Transfer of Rights will be issued by the District Collector concerned duly following procedure as per the policy. (ii) Applications for Transfer of Rights above 250 Square Yards shall be sent to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, by the Collector. These proposals shall be scrutinized by the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad shall issue orders of Transfer of Rights upto an extent of 500 square yards and the proposals above 500 square yards shall be sent to the Government. (iii) All the applications for Transfer of Rights above 500 Square Yards shall be sanctioned by the Government and orders will be communicated of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad and Collector concerned for implementation.” 11. As per the guidelines notified by the Government, it is clear that the said policy is applicable for the vacant lands, plots etc. As per Clause (9) of the aforesaid G.O., transfer of rights in respect of land upto an extent of 250 sq. yards is to be scrutinized by the Committee at the District level under the Chairmanship of the District Collector and he is also the authority to issue final orders of transfer of rights. With regard to transfer of rights for the land above 250 sq.yards, such proposals are to be sent to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad. The proposals are required to be scrutinized by the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, who shall issue orders for transfer of rights upto an extent of 500 sq. yards and the proposals in respect of land above 500 sq. yards, shall be sent to the Government, and all the applications for transfer of rights above 500 sq. yards shall be sanctioned by the Government and orders shall be communicated to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad. 12. In this case, it is to be noticed that the petitioner has placed on record the application submitted by him for transfer of rights. In support of his claim, he has filed the registered sale deed bearing No.1640 of 1964, dated 03.09.1964, and Memorandum of Oral Partition and Family Settlement and also the death certificate of Late Sri B.Ranga Swamy. After due inspection of the petitioner’s application by the District Level Committee, it made its recommendations vide Proceedings, dated 22.09.2009, issued in Letter No.12/5270/2009. Paragraph 3 of the said proceedings reads as under: “The above land was inspected by the District Level Committee and the application was placed before the District Level Committee held on 14-09-2009. The District Level Committee has recommended the case for regularisation of Government land encroached to an extent of 500 Sq.Yds., and requested to forward the application to the C.C.L.A., A.P., Hyderabad for placing the same before the State Level Committee Headed by Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad for taking action.” 13. As per the guidelines issued by the Government for fixation of market value, respondents have quantified an amount of Rs.35,93,750=00, which is inclusive of 25% of surcharge on the ground that the sight is located in prime area. In addition to the documents filed by the petitioner along with the original application, further documents like the Xerox copies of electricity pass books are also filed before the Tahsildar. After verification of such documents, the Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal also addressed a letter, dated 15.02.2010, issued in Letter No.E/11464/2008, to the Collector, forwarding the attested copies of such electricity passbooks after verification with the original passbooks. In view of the recommendations made by the District Level Committee, the proposals were also placed before the State Level Committee, headed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, in the meeting held on 19.04.2010. In annexure II to the proceedings, the name of the petitioner stands at Serial No.1. The Committee headed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, has approved the recommendations of the District Level Committee. In Column No.12 of Annexure II at Serial No.1, the electricity passbooks produced by the petitioner from March 1987 to December 1990 were also taken note of. While fixing the amount payable by the petitioner, in Column No.15 at Serial No.1, so far as petitioner herein is concerned, it is noted as, “Approved with depreciation from 1987, subject to withdrawal of CCCA No.22/99”. A perusal of the said proceedings also indicate that the 3rd respondent is also a party to the proceedings, dated 19.04.2010. While the proposals were approved by the Committee headed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, for which, the 3rd respondent is also a member, it appears on the query again, the impugned recommendations are made by the 3rd respondent. The claim of the petitioner is recommended for rejection by impugned proceedings by the 3rd respondent, mainly on the ground that the land is a vacant land on the ground, it is situated in a prime area and is required for public purpose and that the title of the land has already been settled in lower Court in favour of the Government and the applicant does not have necessary documents as required under Clause (5) of G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008. 14. In this case, it is to be noted that the land is a vacant land and is situated in a prime area, are irrelevant for the purpose of considering the claim of petitioner. In terms of the guidelines issued by the Government, the policy is applicable to vacant lands and also to the lands, which are situated in prime areas. As per the guidelines notified by the Government, if the claimants are satisfying the other criteria in terms of the said guidelines, the further surcharge of 25% on the market value, is leviable. In that view of the matter, it is not open for the 3rd respondent to recommend for rejection on the ground that it is a vacant land and also the land is in a prime area. Even the claim that the same is required for public purpose, is also no ground for rejection of petitioner’s application, as the application of the petitioner pursuant to the policy notified by the Government is entertained and recommendations are made in favour of the petitioner by the District Level Committee after making necessary inquiries and such recommendations are approved by the State Level Committee in the meeting held on 19.04.2010. In that view of the matter, without identifying the land for any specified public purpose, merely stating that the land is useful for public purpose, the application of petitioner cannot be rejected, when the petitioner is fulfilling the criteria notified by the Government for transfer of rights in respect of the property. Even the settlement of dispute in the lower Court is also no ground, as the policy notified by the Government is applicable even for unaurhorised occupations. When the petitioner is claiming that his grandfather has purchased an extent of Ac.2.10 gts., the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that the title of the land is settled in favour of the Government. It is to be noticed that it is not a title suit filed by the Government for declaration of title, but it is the suit filed by the petitioner herein, which ended in dismissal, as against which, the petitioner has already filed an appeal, which is pending in CCCA.No.22 of 1999 before this Court. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the title has been settled in favour of the Government. Even assuming that there is dispute with regard to title, that cannot be a ground to reject the claim in view of the policy notified by the Government, when the petitioner is fulfilling the criteria notified in the Government order. Even the third objection that the petitioner is not having required documents as required under clause (5), also cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that along with the application filed by the petitioner, he has filed the earliest registered sale deed, which was obtained by his Late grandfather and also it is claimed by the petitioner that there was an oral partition, which is recorded in the subsequent Memorandum. It is well settled that a Memorandum, recording earlier partition, is not required to be registered under law. In addition to the said document, it is also to be noticed that the petitioner, along with other claimants, has filed the electricity passbooks and other documents, which were inquired into by the Tahsildar and were confirmed by him. In view of the electricity passbooks and title deed i.e. registered sale deed, bearing document No.1640 of 1964, dated 03.09.1964, it cannot be said that the applicant does not have necessary documents as required under Clause (5) of G.O.Ms.No.166. It is also to be noticed that the grandfather of the petitioner claims title to the entire piece of land including the land claimed by the petitioner to an extent of 500 sq. yards by virtue of the registered sale deed, which was executed as early as on 03.09.1964. It is also to be noticed that when there was a claim by the Government, the Late grandfather of the petitioner himself has filed a suit as early as in 1981 for declaration of title and although the suit was dismissed after remand by this Court, it is stated that the CCCA preferred by the petitioner is still pending consideration. The very pendency of proceedings from 1981 makes it clear that it is a bonafide litigation between the petitioner and Government, and in any event, as this Court is of the view that the petitioner is fulfilling the criteria notified by the Government, and in view of the approval of the proceedings of the District Level Committee by the State Level Committee headed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, it is not open for the 3rd respondent to make any recommendations again for rejection of the claim of the petitioner. From the very policy notified by the Government, it is clear that for the land admeasuring more than 250 sq. yards, the Committee headed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration is the authority to consider the proposals and the said authority is vested with the power to order transfer of rights in favour of claimants, as such, in view of the proceedings of the Committee headed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 19.04.2010, it is not open for the 3rd respondent-District Collector to make any recommendations contrary to the earlier recommendations made by the District Level Committee, approved by the Committee headed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. In any event, this Court is also of the view that all the grounds mentioned in the impugned letter issued by the 3rd respondent, are irrelevant and not based on any material, and they also run contrary to the very objective of the policy notified by the Government. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned recommendations made by the 3rd respondent-District Collector are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the recommendations made by the 3rd respondent in Letter No.12/14208/2008, dated 27.05.2010, are hereby quashed, with a further direction to the respondents to take further steps as per the recommendations of the Committee headed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, in the meeting held on 19.04.2010, as per the policy notified by the Government, by