* THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN + WRIT PETITION NO : 25265 of 2000 % 06-06-2006 # Smt.Rani Sundarammani Petitioner Vs. $ Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Respondent Secretary, Revenue Department and 3 others ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Challa Sitaramaiah ^ Counsel for respondents: Special Government Pleader < Gist: >Head Note ? [1] 1997(2) SCC 267 2 AIR 1970 SC 1975 3 AIR 1967 SC 1140 4 AIR 1980 SC 91 5 (2002)1 ALT 466 6 (2003)1 ALT 3 7 AIR 1967 SC 1269 8 1974(2) SCC 706 9 1990(1) SCC 440 10 AIR 1993 SC 880 111998(8) SCC 749 122000(7) SCC 522 13(1991)1 SCC 308 14(1999)1 SCC 488 151991 (Suppl) 2 SCC 228 16(1976)3 SCC 160 17(1997)1 SCC 156 18(1989)3 SCC 612 19(1996)6 SCC 223 20(1996)11 SCC 257 21(1998)2 ALT 623 22(1964)2 SCC 706 23(2005)2 SCC 689 24(2002)3 ALT 168 25(2002)3 ALT 389 26(2004)3 ALT 371 27(2004)4 ALT 498 28AIR 1962 AP 518 291957 SCR 738 30(1980)4 SCC 570 31(1992)1 SCC 414 32(1992)4 SCC 61 331993(Suppl)1 SCC 306 34(2000)6 ALD 376 35(2002)3 ALT 739 36(2003)4 ALT 611 37(2003)5 ALT 143 38(2003)6 ALT 307 39(2004)3 ALT 221 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 25265 of 2000 ORDER: 1. The action of the respondents, in placing large extents of land in Yerranagavari Palle village and in paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala hamlet in Chittoor District in the Prohibitory Book Register, is under challenge in this writ petition. Consequential directions are sought to implement G.O.Ms.No.439 dated 13.3.1957 and to include the name of the petitioner, in the revenue records, as the owner of these lands. 2. The facts, to the extent necessary, are that Punganoor Zamin estate was notified on 07.09.1950 and was finally taken over by the Government, under the A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Act 26 of 1948), on 22.07.1952. When the Zamin was notified and taken over a representation was submitted by the Zamindar to the government on 17.11.1952 stating that certain lands purchased by his ancestors more than 80 years before abolition of the Estate, and which were his personal property, did not form part of the “Estate”. G.O.Ms.No.439 dated 13.03.1957 was issued by the Government wherein it was noted that, from out of the villages mentioned in the schedule to the petition of the Zamindar of Punganur, three villages i.e., Annagaripalle, Bonthavaripalle and Bharanipalle had been take over by the government under the Estates Abolition Act and the forests therein vested in the government. With regards the remaining 32 villages, the government agreed with the views of the Board of Revenue and considered that the claim of the landholder was untenable in all cases except in respect of the forest areas of Yerranagavaripalle village and those covered by paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala hamlet. The government directed that all the forest areas situated in or near the 32 specified villages, except the forests of Yerranagavari Palle village and those covered by Paimash Nos. 120 to 139 of Penubalakala, shall be deemed to have vested in the government along with the main Punganur Zamindari with effect from 22.07.1952 (the date on which the said Zamindari was taken over by the government). The Director of Settlements was requested to include the forest revenue derived from all the forest areas referred to in the G.O, except the forests of Yerranagavaripalle village and Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala hamlet, in the computation of the basic annual sum relating to Punganur Zamin, if he had not already included it, and to revise the advance compensation, if necessary. The government also approved the proposal of the board of revenue regarding declaration of the forests and directed that the officers of the forest department should get the boundaries of the forests, in all the 32 villages, demarcated with chains so that the survey staff could take up survey of the areas with the least possible delay and complete it expeditiously at the minimum cost. W.P.No.320 of 1957 was filed by the Zamindar seeking to have G.O.Ms.No.439 dated 13.03.1957 quashed. This Court held that the question, as to whether the land formed part of an estate, must be decided on a consideration of several documents which could not be done within the limited scope of writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court considered that the just and equitable course, from the point of view of all parties, would be to refer the aggrieved party to a suit wherein he could adduce all available evidence and there would be a judicial consideration of all evidence adduced and findings would be arrived at which in their turn could be canvassed, if necessary, in a court of appeal, if not in more than one court. Having regard to the fact that this question could not be satisfactorily disposed of in a writ petition, this court directed that the petitioner should seek his remedies, if any, in a properly constituted suit. Without going into the merits of the contentions of the respective parties this court, by order dated 12.02.1958, dismissed the writ petition on this preliminary ground. 3. Sri A. Raja Reddy and 13 others, of Penubalakala hamlet of Peddakapalli village of Punganur Taluk, requested the Settlement Officer to grant a ryotwari patta in their favour for an extent of Ac.27.55 in Sy.No.210 and Ac.1605.70 in Sy.No.211 of Peddakapalli village. The Settlement Officer, Nellore, conducted an enquiry under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act. After a detailed consideration of the evidence, adduced on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents, the Settlement Officer, by order dated 2.5.1970, ordered that ryotwari patta be granted in favour of Sri A. Raja Reddy and 13 others for an extent of Ac.381.00 and that the rest of the land be notified as assessed waste according to the existing classification in the village accounts. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 2.5.1970, the respondent Sri S. Seshadri Naidu and other preferred R.P.No.94/70 before the Director of Settlements, Hyderabad. Against the very same order, Sri A. Raja Reddy preferred R.P.42/71 and the Collector preferred R.P.41/72. While these Revision Petitions were pending adjudication the government, in exercise of its powers under section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, issued G.O.Ms.No.1427 dated 29.03.1972, proposing to constitute the land, within the boundaries specified in the schedule to the notification, as a reserve forest and to appoint a Forest Settlement Officer to consider objections, if any, and determine the existence, nature, and extent of any rights, claimed by or alleged to exist in any of the persons in, or over, any land comprised within such limits or to any forests in such land and to deal with the same as provided in Chapter II of the Act. 5. The petitioner herein filed an affidavit, sworn to on 01.08.1972, before the Director of Settlements, stating that she and her sons were interested in the proceedings, that the matter had been proceeded without impleading them as parties, without notice to them and without their knowledge, that on learning about the pendency of the proceedings she was advised that she should implead herself in the matter and submit her case to safeguard her interests and the interests of other heirs of the late Zamindar of Punganur. The petitioner requested, the Director of Settlements, Hyderabad, that she and the other petitioners, i.e., the sons and daughters of the Ex-Zamindar, be impleaded as parties to the proceedings, i.e. R.P.No.94/70 and batch. 6. On 11.04.1975 the petitioner herein, as an individual, submitted a declaration under Section 8(1) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The said declaration makes no reference to her ownership of the lands in Yerranagavaripalle village or those in Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala hamlet. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Madanapalle, in C.C.No.883/PGN/75 dated 10.05.1976, held that since the declarant was an individual, she was entitled to hold one standard holding and, since the total standard holding held by her was more than the ceiling area under Section 4(1) of the Act, it was determined under Section 9 of the Act that the declarant held 0.0534 standard holding of land in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date i.e., 01.01.1975. 7. The Director of Settlements heard all the three Revision Petitions i.e., R.P.Nos.94/70, 42/71 and 91/72, together and took note of the fact that the petitioner herein had also filed a representation against the grant of patta. After taking note of several contentions, including the contentions advanced by the counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner herein, the Director of Settlements, in his order dated 08.04.1976, held that the grant of patta by the Settlement Officer was based upon documents which were patently bogus and that the entire case bristled with shady deals and fabrications aimed at swallowing huge extents of government land. The Director of Settlements cancelled the pattas granted by the Settlement Officer, Nellore, in favour of Sri A. Raja Reddy and 13 others, in respect of the first set of lands of Ac.381-00, and directed that they be placed at the disposal of the government. In view of the detailed analysis, of the documentary evidence produced by the Settlement Officer, Nellore, the Director of Settlements held that the claim of the petitioner in R.P.42/71 could not be sustained and was accordingly rejected. With regards the second set of lands, relating to the extent of Acs.1145.35, which the Settlement Officer had himself rejected, the Director of Settlements confirmed the order of the Settlement Officer. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Director of Settlements, Sri A. Raja Reddy filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue and in as much as the Board, in its order dated 24.05.1976, declined to grant stay of the order of the Director of Settlements, he filed W.P.2075/76 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 06.10.1976, dismissed the writ petition holding that it was for the Board of Revenue, in its discretion, to decide as to whether to grant stay or not and that this Court would be reluctant to entertain a writ petition against an interlocutory order, refusing to grant stay, while the revision was still pending before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue was directed to dispose of the revision as expeditiously as possible. 9. The Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, heard the revision petition, filed by Sri A. Raja Reddy and others, under Section 7(d) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948, against the common order of the Director of Settlement, Hyderabad in R.P.No.94/70 & batch dated 08.04.1976. The Commissioner, after perusing the connected records and on considering the arguments, by order dated 23.09.1982, held that the Director of Settlements had examined all aspects in detail in an analytical manner, had given cogent reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of patta and that the order of the Director of Settlement was a well augmented document calling for no interference. The order of the Director of Settlement was confirmed and the revision, filed by Sri A. Raja Reddy and others, was rejected as being devoid of merits. 10. After the revision petition had been dismissed, the petitioner herein submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of A.P. On receipt of the said representation, which was forwarded to him, the Chief Conservator of Forests informed her, vide letter dated 03.11.1982, that the areas of Erranaguvaripalli village were not covered by reserve forest. 11. Sri A. Raja Reddy filed W.P.8368/82, before this Court, against the order of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Reforms. This Court, by order dated 28.12.1987, set aside the order of the Commissioner, passed in Revision on 23.09.1982, and remanded the matter for consideration afresh. 12. During the pendency of the revision petition, before the Commissioner, the Divisional Forest Officer, vide letter dated 15.07.1997, informed the Mandal Revenue Officer that, as per the instructions of the government in memo dated 31.03.1997 and as instructed by the government on 17.06.97, the forest block of Avulapalle was notified under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, vide G.O.Ms.No.1427 dated 29.03.1972, and that the land in Avulapalle forest block included the land in Sy.No.211 of Peddakapalli village. The M.R.O. was requested to enter the particulars in the prohibitory order book. The District Collector, vide proceedings dated 31.07.1997, requested the M.R.O to enter the said lands in the Prohibitory Order Book of his Mandal and to intimate this fact directly, to the Divisional Forest Officer (West) Chittoor, under intimation to the Collector. 13. The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Revenue, Hyderabad, pursuant to the Revision Petition filed by Sri A. Raja Reddy being remanded by this Court on 28.12.1987, took note of the fact that, at the time of inspection by the Dy.Tahsildar, Chittoor on 08.06.1967, the claimed land was a big block of forest, there were no ridges or any manner of demarcation showing enjoyment of each individual, that the same was the position on 11.06.1966 when location work was taken up by the Ex-Circle Office, Chittoor and Taluk Surveyor along with the Tahsildar, Punganur and that it was found not to be ryoti land. The Commissioner, by his order dated 22.06.1998, dismissed the revision petition filed by Sri A. Raja Reddy. A copy of the order passed by the Commissioner was communicated vide proceedings dated 02.07.1998 14. The Petitioner herein submitted a representation on 14.09.1998 to the Collector bringing to his notice that, under Section 68 of the Estates Abolition Act, the government was empowered to issue lawful instructions necessary for implementation of the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act. While drawing attention of the Collector, to the proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.439 dated 13.03.1957, the petitioner stated that her right to these forest areas must be deemed to have been recognized under Section 20(1) read with Section 68 of the Estates Abolition Act and as such the area had to be demarcated and the petitioner’s name included as its owner in the revenue records of these areas. The petitioner stated that these forest areas were situated outside the reserve forest and the Forest Department had no control over it since the areas were private forests of the Ex-Zamindar. The petitioner requested that the various areas in yerranagavaripalli village, those covered by paimash Nos.120 to 139 lying in Pedda Panjani Revenue Mandal be demarcated and included in the revenue records of the respective villages as patta lands in the name of the petitioner, the legal heir of the Zamindar. 15. The Revenue Divisional Officer, in his report dated 16.04.1999, informed the District Collector that, under G.O.Ms.No.439 dated 13.03.1957, no ryotwari patta was granted to the zamindar, that the forest areas covered by paimash Nos.120 to 139 were not taken over by the government and that the Forest Department had been ordered to get the boundaries of the forest surveyed including the forest covered by paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala hamlet. The R.D.O further stated that, after survey, no ryotwari patta was granted to the petitioner for the above lands and hence the petition deserved no consideration. The R.D.O. requested that a suitable endorsement be issued in this regard to the petitioner. The office of the District collector, in its endorsement dated 03.06.1999, informed the petitioner herein that an enquiry was conducted on her representation dated 14.09.1998 to enter her name in the revenue records of the lands in Sy.No.211 of Peddakapalli village, that the R.D.O, Madapanalli and M.R.O in their reports dated 16.04.1999 and 10.02.1999 respectively, had stated that an extent of Ac.1274.70 in Sy.No.211 of Pedakapalli village was in the possession of the forest department and had been entered in the prohibitory order book register and that, as ryotwari patta was not granted to the applicant, it was not possible to enter her name in the village accounts. 16. The petitioner submitted another representation to the Collector on 30.06.1999 informing that, according to G.O.Ms.No.439 dated 13.03.1957, the areas which were not taken possession of by the government, along with the main estate, were left to the control of the ex-zamindar and hence the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act did not apply to areas which were the private property of the Ex-Zamindar and there was no need to get a ryotwari patta for these areas. The petitioner submitted that only demarcation and inclusion of the areas in the revenue records remained to be done by the revenue department. She requested that the forest areas in Yerraganganapalli village and those covered by paimaish Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala hamlet, lying in Sy.No.211 of Peddakapalli village, be demarcated and included in the revenue records of the respective villages as patta lands in her name as she was the legal heir of the late Ex-Zamindar. 17. The M.R.O., vide proceedings dated 07.02.2000, informed the District Collector that he had verified the Punganur erstwhile taluk record room and that the pre-abolition records in respect of paimaish Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala hamlet were not traced out. While informing that certain other records had already been submitted to the Collector of Chittoor District, the M.R.O stated that the entire Penubalakala hamlet of Peddakapally village was notified and had been taken over by the government on 22.07.1952 as per the notification issued under Section 1(4) of the Estates Abolition Act 1948, but as per G.O.Ms.No.439 dated 13.03.1957, the government had clarified and directed the authorities that all the forest areas situated in or around the 32 village specified in the G.O, except the forest of Erranaguvaripally and those covered by Paimaish Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala, be deemed to have been vested with the government along with Punganur Zamindari with effect from 22.07.1952, on which date the said zamindari was taken over by the government. The M.R.O stated that the forest areas of Erranaguvaripally were not covered by the notification issued under Section 1(4) of the Estates Abolition Act and did not vest in the government. While informing that the notification was not available in the office, the M.R.O stated that the lands had already been located and surveyed as Sy.No.210 and 211 measuring an extent of Ac.27.05 and Ac.1605-70 respectively. The Collector was requested to take necessary action in this regard. The Collectorate, in its endorsement dated 17.05.2000, informed the petitioner that she had earlier been given endorsement dated 03.06.1999, in response to the petition submitted by her earlier, informing that her request for implementation could not be considered in view of the entry of the lands in prohibitory order book. 18. According to the petitioner, the lands claimed by her as her personal property, were not included in the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.1427 dated 29.03.1972. Petitioner would refer to the recitals in G.O.Ms.No.1427 dated 29.03.1972 wherein it is stated that the boundary line runs generally towards west excluding P.No.86 of Ronanda village and SN-211 of Peddakapalli village from station 127 to 159, on the basis of survey and demarcation done by the survey party, North West Range, Chittoor as per G.O.Ms.No.439 dated 13.03.1957, and thence the boundary line runs generally westwards along with the northern boundary of Annamgaripalli block upto station No.175 with the bearings and distances mentioned therein. According to the petitioner the numbers shown, in columns 1 and 2 of G.O.Ms.No.1427 dated 29.04.1972, are station numbers and not survey numbers, the 3rd column is in respect of degrees and the 4th column is the distance in links. Petitioner would refer to the letter of the Divisional Forest officer, dated 15.07.1997, to contend that areas notified as reserve forest could alone be entered in the Prohibitory Order Book Register. According to the petitioner, since the notification in G.O.Ms.No.1427 dated 13.03.1957 excluded Yerranagavaripalli village and the forest areas in Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala hamlet of Peddakapalli village, the said notification was in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.439 dated 13.03.1957. Petitioner would refer to the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 16.04.1999 and contend that the question of making an application for being granted ryotwari patta would arise only in cases where the lands, for which such a patta is sought for, are vested in the government on abolition of an estate and not where the lands form part of the personal property of zamindar and have been specifically excluded from the “Estate” taken over by the government under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act. Petitioner would contend that the action of the respondents, in placing these lands in prohibitory order book register, without notice to her and without giving effect to G.O.Ms.No.439 dated 13.03.1957, was wholly illegal, ultra vires, opposed to the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act and in violation of principles of natural justice. According to the petitioners, the forest lands of Yerranagavaripalle village and the land in Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of Penubalakala hamlet, were her personal property, these lands did not vest in the government on the abolition of the Estate, the government in calculating the compensation did not take the revenue from these lands into account, the lands were not notified under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act and therefore the respondents could not lay claim on these lands and deprive the petitioner of her property. Petitioner would contend that the notification, under the Forest Act, would state that the boundary line was fixed excluding Sy.No.211 of Peddakapalli village as per G.O.Ms.No.439 dated 13.03.1957 and, inasmuch as Paimash Nos.120 to 139 of an extent of Ac.27.05 was found to be located in Sy.No. 210 and Ac.1605.70 in Sy.No.211, these lands could have been entered in the prohibitory order book only if these areas fell within the Reserve Forest. Since these lands were admittedly not within the Reserve Forest, and the Conservator of forest on 03.11.1982 had clearly stated that Yerranagavaripalle village was not covered by the notification under the Forest Act, these lands could not have been entered in the Prohibitory Order Book. According to the petitioner, the Settlement Officer could only adjudicate on the rights of claimants, for being granted ryotwari patta, in respect of lands vested in the government, on the abolition of the Estate, and since the land claimed by the petitioner did not form part of the estate, and had been accepted by the government as the petitioner’s personal property, it was not open to the respondents to retain control of the said lands contending that they were forest lands, for it would then amount to depriving the petitioner of her property without payment of compensation. Petitioner would contend that the government and its departments were acting like ordinary litigants driving her from one authority to another, that it is only when the District Revenue Officer, in his letter dated 03.06.1999, informed that these lands formed part of the forest areas and were in possession of the forest department, did the petitioner come to know that these lands were included in the Prohibitory Order Book Register. The petitioner would question the action of the respondents in treating the lands as forest lands and in placing them in the Prohibitory Order Book as illegal and opposed to G.O.Ms.No.439 dated 13.03.1957. She would contend that the method and procedure adopted by the respondents in placing these lands in the Prohibitory Order Book Register, without making any enquiry and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, was wholly illegal, ultra vires and in violation of principles of natural justice. 19. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3 Sri S.S. Rawat, the then District Collector, Chittoor, filed counter affidavit, which was sworn to and signed on 29.08.2004. He would submit that an extent of Ac.1605.70 cts in Paimash Nos. 120 to 139 co-related to Sy.No. 211 and an extent of Ac.27.65 cts, in Sy.No. 210 of Penubalakala village is covered by forests, that the government is in possession of these lands and these lands have been shown in the revenue records as assessed waste from the time of survey i.e., from