THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL Nos.1827 and 1837 of 2008 AND W.P.No.22035 of 2007 Date: 22.10.2010 W.A.No.1827 of 2008 : Between: Poosapati Ananda Gajapathi Raju … Appellant and Government of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents W.A.No.1837 of 2008 : Between: Poosapati Ananda Gajapathi Raju … Appellant and R. Venkataratnam and others. … Respondents W.P.No.22035 of 2007 : Between: Poosapati Ananda Gajapathi Raju … Appellant and Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL Nos.1827 and 1837 of 2008 AND W.P.No.22035 of 2007 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Since the issue involved in both the writ appeals is one and the same and arise out of the common order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court and since the writ petition is also connected with the appeals, with the consent of both the parties, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment, at the admission stage itself. 2. Heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondents in both the appeals and also Sri Mavidi Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9 in W.A.No.1827 of 2008 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.A.No.1837 of 2008. 3. Both the appeals are directed against the common order, dated 18.11.2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.15109 and 23303 of 2008. 4. This case has a chequered history. In brief, after eliminating the unnecessary facts, the basic facts on record that led to filing of these two appeals are as follows. The petitioner in W.P.No.15109 of 2008, being the legal heir of late Vizianagaram Jamindar, made an application, for issuance of Pattadar Pass Books, before the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, who is the competent authority. That application was allowed and Pattadar Pass Books, in fact, were issued in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.15109 of 2008. As against the said order, the petitioners in W.P.No.23303 of 2008 and also respondent No.8 in both the writ appeals, have filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam District, contending that the petitioner in W.P.No.15109 of 2008 has no right and on the contrary they have rights over the scheduled lands, since they have been in occupation of the same since time immemorial. The said appeal was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, by order dated 5.7.2008, in Appeal Case (ROR) No.1/2007/C, with the following observations: “In view of the above, I am of the opinion that there is no need to consider the contention of the appellants that they are an absolute land owners of the schedule properties and moreover, the Respondent No.1 i.e., Sri P.Anand Gajapathi Raju is also not entitled any right over the schedule land and the Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds issued in the name of Sri Pusapati Ananda Gajapathi Raju, s/o. late P.V.G. Raju bearing PPB/TD No.545110/545109 of Nidigattu village and PPB/TD No.545142 in Annavaram village by the then Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam for the land measuring Ac.22.10 cts in S.No.49/1 to 4.24, 20/1 of Nidigattu village and land measuring Ac.30.60 cts in Sy.No.78 part of Annavaram village in Bheemunipatnam Mandal shall stands cancelled accordingly. The Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam is directed to report the above facts to the Land Reforms Tribunal and Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayanagaram to include the scheduled lands as required under the provisions of A.P. Land Reforms (COAH) Act, 1973, so as to declare the said lands as an excess lands in favour of P. Ananda Gajapathiraju, s/o. late P.V.G. Raju and other family members and to protect the properties in the interest of Government. In the result, the appeals are dismissed accordingly.” 5. From the above, it is obvious that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, was not convinced and categorically opined that the petitioners in W.P.No.23303 of 2008 cannot claim that they are the owners of the schedule property. Simultaneously, the Revenue Divisional Officer was of the further opinion that the petitioner in W.P.No.15109 of 2008 also is not entitled for any right over the scheduled lands on the ground that the disputed lands were not declared as per A.P Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings) Act 1973 and, accordingly, cancelled the Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds issued in his favour vide PPB/TD No.545110/545109 of Nidigattu village and PPB/TD No.545142 in Annavaram village by the then Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam for the land measuring Ac.22.10 cts in S.No.49/1 to 4.24, 20/1 of Nidigattu village and land measuring Ac.30.60 cts in Sy.No.78 part of Annavaram village in Bheemunipatnam Mandal. The Revenue Divisional Officer further directed to report the said facts to the Land Reforms Tribunal and Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, in order to declare the said lands as excess lands, if any, in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.15109 of 2008 and other family members. Simply, this is the purport of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 6. Challenging the said order, dated 5.7.2008, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer both the parties have filed W.P.No.15109 of 2008 and W.P.No.23303 of 2008. A learned single Judge of this Court, through the impugned common order, dated 18.11.2008, disposed of the said writ petitions with the following observations and directions: “….. They are given liberty to prefer revision now and the Joint Collector may take up the revisions and dispose of the same within three months from the date of filing of such revisions. So as to protect the interests of both the parties, there shall be status quo as on today. Both the parties are directed not to create any third party rights, either by alienation, leasing or transfer otherwise.” 7. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to passing of the final order, dated 5.7.2008, which was impugned in W.P.Nos.15109 and 23303 of 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer, had passed an order in proceedings Ac.No.1/2007/C, R.C.No.3248/2007/C, dated 15.6.2007, suspending the Pattadar Pass Books granted in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.15109 of 2008. The said order, dated 15.6.2007, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was under challenge in W.P.No.22035 of 2007 and the same was suspended by this Court by order, dated 12.10.2007, passed in W.P.M.P.Nos.28552 and 28553 of 2007 in W.P.No.22035 of 2007. During the subsistence of the said order of suspension passed by this Court, dated 12.10.2007, the Revenue Divisional Officer proceeded with the enquiry and passed final order, dated 5.7.2008, which, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be accepted. 8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellant, who is petitioner in W.P.No.15109 of 2008 and respondent No.6 in W.P.No.23303 of 2008, filed the present appeals. 9. The main contention of the petitioner in W.P.No.15109 of 2008 appears to be that the petitioners in W.P.No.23303 of 2008 are fictitious and they have never been in possession of the scheduled lands. This issue cannot be gone into by this Court, inasmuch as the same is a serious one. Of course, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bheemunipatnam, has submitted a report, dated 24.11.2006, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, stating that: “They have obtained fabricated documents. They have no right over these lands. The villagers of Thudem and Annavaram have stated that the petitioners were never cultivating these lands. The petitioners have given the Press Clippings with ulterior motto stating that they are residents of Annvaram Village. But they are non-residents and they are not lease holders of these lands to get the support of the press. They are stating that they are rightful lease holders. The contents of the Press Clipping is not correct. They have not produced any lease document in support of their claim from the MANASAS or Vijayanaragram Maharaja’s Diwan. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam has also inspected the land and enquired the villagers that they have stated that these lands belongs to P.V.G. Raju. Nobody has cultivating these lands since long time. The petitioners has no cultivative right over these lands. The disputed land is a Zeroyit land as per records. No surplus ceiling lands are declared in Annavaram Village by Sri P.V.G. Raju Garu.” 10. Yet another intriguing circumstance to be noticed is that during the pendency of the matters, before this Court, the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, had sent another report, dated 27.5.2009, pursuant to the instructions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, stating that:- “ ….. I visited the lands in Sy.No.78 (Part) of Annavaram village and also the lands in Sy.Nos.49/1, 49/2, 49/3, 49/4, 24, 20/1 of Nidigattu Village along with field staff and enquired the possession and enjoyment of the said lands. On such verification it is found that one P.N.Raju @ Sowmitri, S/o.late Ramchandra Raju being the registered GPA holder from Pusapati Anand Gajapathi Raju, S/o.Maharaja of Vizianagaram is doing cultivation activities with the help of the servants. I enquired whether the Persons namely Noolu Kanaka Surya Bagavanulu, S/o.N.T.Tatayya, Rowtu Venkata Ratnam, Putti Pulla Rao and B.K.Viswanatham or their representatives are in possession of the lands in Sy.No.78 (Part) of Annavaram Village and my enquiry reveals that the above said persons were never in possession of the said land and that they are causing all sorts of obstacles for the peaceful enjoyment of P.N.Raju. It is submitted that in respect of lands in Sy.No.49/1, 49/2, 49/3, 49/4, 24, 20/1 of Nidigattu Village, I found in my enquiry that one Thota Sneha Latha, W/o.Babu Rao is making false claim and created false patta passbooks and she is trying to take the possession of the said land with the help of antisocial elements from P.N.Raju. On verification of record it is found that my predecessor also lodged a complaint with the S.I of Police, Bheemunipatnam to take action against Thota Sneha Latha for creating false documents. In fact P.N.Raju is raising zeedimanidi crop in the said lands. It is further submitted that on verification of the revenue records, it is observed that the name of P.V.G.Raju is found in the relevant columns and it is also found that the above said P.V.G.Raju has never declared the lands mentioned above as surplus land at the relevant tie and the revenue taxes are being paid in the name of Anand Gajapathi Raju who is none other than the son of P.V.G.Raju. It is also found that pattadar passbook and title deed No.545109 was also issued in the name of Pusapati Anand Gajapathi Raju for the above lands. It is informed that Pusapati Anand Gajapathi Raju sold the said land to P.N.Raju and executed registered GPA in his favour. It is submitted that the application for mutation of revenue entries was submitted by P.N.Raju being the registered GPA Holder of Pusapati Anand Gajapathi Raju on the ground that he purchased the above land from Anand Gajapathi raju in the year 2007 and the same is under enquiry. I submit that in the circumstances mentioned above, I may be suitably directed to take action of the application of P.N.Raju seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records.” 11. From the above, it is clear that there is no conflict in the reports submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, in the year 2006 and the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, in the year 2009. Therefore, there is serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the claim of the respondents in W.P.No.15109 of 2008 (petitioners in W.P.No.23303 of 2008). 12. Another aspect to be noticed is that the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, has issued a certificate, dated 21.05.2007, which reads as under:-- “We have issued Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds to Sri P.Anand Gajapathi Raju garu for Survey Nos.49/1, 49/2, 49/3, 49/4, 24 & 201 for an extent of Ac.22.10 cents in Nidigattu Village and Survey Nos.78 for an extent of Ac.30.60 cents of Annavaram Village, after due verification of Records and after due ROR enquiry on ground. The said land is not an excess land and not an assigned land.” 13. Further, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, also confirmed the above reports through his report, dated 27.5.2009, submitted to this Court, pursuant to the orders of this Court, stating that initially the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, upon his instructions, conducted an enquiry and filed the above report, dated 27.5.2009. However, he conducted an enquiry personally visiting the village and found the respondents, who appeared before him, on 3.11.2009, and gave depositions. His enquiry further reveals that:- “….. the respondents 5, 6 and 7 never raised any crops and they are not residing in Annavaram Village and they are residing in a village in West Godavari District. The record and the report of the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, dated 27-5-2009 disclose that Sri P.V.G. Raju has never declared these lands as surplus lands and in fact these lands were in their possession and a pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued in the name of Sri Ananda Gajapathi Raju who is the son of late P.V.G. Raju.” 14. From the above and also from the record, it is abundantly clear that the disputed lands belong to Royal family of Vizianagaram and the respondents in W.P.No.15109 of 2008 have been making false claims. However, this is a serious question of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court. At the same time, there is no explicit reason for this Court to disbelieve the version of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer, as extracted above. 15. It is to be further seen that there is no contra material pressed into service by the respondents to establish their right. 16. At this juncture, it is to be noticed that, admittedly, the lands in dispute belong to the Royal family of Vizianagaram and it is the specific case of the petitioners in W.P.No.23303 of 2008 that their predecessors got the rights over the property by adverse possession, since law is well settled that the person who propounds the theory of adverse possession has to establish such a right. 17. In such a case, in fact, they have to file a civil suit for declaration before the competent civil Court, in view of the fact that pattadar pass books were issued under a statute, by a competent authority, in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.15109 of 2008, and on that score the W.P.23303 of 2008 has to be rejected. 18. In view of the above, the question that remains is -- about the nature of possession of the petitioners in W.P.No.23303 of 2008 (Respondents in W.P.No.15109 of 2008) over the schedule lands, since it was categorically recorded and is not in dispute that the scheduled lands originally belongs to Vizianagaram Rajas. In such a case, it is imperative for the authorities to decide as to the status of the petitioner in W.P.No.15109 of 2008 vis-à-vis the status of the petitioners in W.P.No.23303 of 2008 over the schedule lands. For this purpose a thorough enquiry has to be necessarily conducted as regards the serious disputed questions basing on the records as well as the ground realities. 19. As a matter of fact, there is no any further need to conduct any further enquiry in view of the repeated reports made by the authorities. However, in order to eliminate any strenuous doubt, we only feel it appropriate to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, to conduct an enquiry afresh and record findings, on merits, in accordance with law. 20. In the light of the material available in abundance in favour of the petitioners in W.P.No.15109 of 2008, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned common order, dated 18.11.2008, passed by the learned single Judge, so also the orders, dated 15.6.2007 and 5.7.2008, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, and to remit the matter back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, in order to conduct a fresh enquiry only in order to arrive at a final conclusion, basing on the material available before him, the material placed before this Court, the material made available to this Court in the form of reports and also any other material placed before him, and pass final orders, in accordance with law. 21. In the result, admittedly, since the disputed lands belong to the Maharaja of Vizianagaram, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry as to the status of the petitioner in W.P.No.15109 of 2008 and the petitioners in W.P.No.23303 of 2008 about their possession over the schedule lands, if any, if so the nature of possession, and decide the legal consequences thereof on the basis of the thorough enquiry. 22. It is clarified that such an enquiry shall be conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, personally by visiting the scheduled lands, if necessary, by availing the services of the Tahsildars and other Revenue officials of the locality to the extent relevant, and pass appropriate orders. Till such time, both the parties shall not create any third party rights over the schedule lands. 23. Subject to above observations and directions, both the writ appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs. 24. In view of the final orders passed in the present writ appeals, no further orders need be passed in W.P.No.22035 of 2007 and the same is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 22.10.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL Nos.1827 and 1837 of 2008 AND W.P.No.22035 of 2007 22.10.2010 (Msr)