*THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P V SANJAY KUMAR +WRIT APPEAL No. 416 OF 2002 AND 554 OF 20003 %30-09-2008 W.A No. 416 of 2002 #SRI VARAHA LAXMI NARASIMHA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM, SIMHACHALAM, rep. By its Executive Officer, .. appellant Vs. 1.S.V. Narasimham and 4 others … RESPONDENTS <GIST >HEAD NOTE: ! COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: MR. M ADINARAYANA RAJU. ^COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.1:MR.D V SITARAMA MURTHY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2: .G P FOR REVENUE ?CASES REFERRED: 1. AIR 1982 AP 300 2. 1971 (1) An W R 27 *THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P V SANJAY KUMAR +WRIT APPEAL No. 416 OF 2002 AND 554 OF 20003 %30-09-2008 W.A.No. 554 of 2003 1. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chinagadili, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District. … Appellant and 1. S.V. Narasimham and 4 others. …… Respondents <GIST >HEAD NOTE: ! COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: MR. M ADINARAYANA RAJU. ^COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.1:MR.D V SITARAMA MURTHY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2: .G P FOR REVENUE ?CASES REFERRED: 1. AIR 1982 AP 300 2. 1971 (1) An W R 27 THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P V SANJAY KUMAR Writ Appeal Nos.: 416 of 2002 And 554 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: ( Per the Hon’ble Smt Justice T.Meena Kumari) 1. Challenging the order dated 03-01-2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, allowing writ petition No. 18559 of 1997, which was ﬁled seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings initiated under Sections 3 and 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 and granting pattas in favour of the 2nd respondent- Devasthanam in respect of the land in an extent of Ac 5- 98 cents in Sy.No.318 Part of Kallukonda, in Adavivaram village, Visakhapatnam District and further extent of Ac 6.50 cents in Sy.No. 296-A of Budagalametta in Adavivaram village, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction that the petitioner therein alone is entitled for possession and enjoyment of the said land to the exclusion of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Devasthanam preferred W.A.No. 416 of 2002 and the Government preferred W.A. No. 554 of 2003. 2. Since these two appeals arise out of a single judgment in the writ petition, and the question involved in these two appeals is common, we dispose of these two appeals by a common judgment. 3. The appellant in W.A. No. 416 of 2002 is Sri Varaha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Simhachalam, rep. by its Executive Oﬃcer, and the respondent No.1 herein is the writ petitioner and the other respondents are the respondents in the writ petition. For convenient sake, the parties are hereafter referred to with their original status as arrayed in the writ petition. 4. The writ petitioner questioned the action of the 2nd respondent through its impugned proceedings initiated under Sections 3 and 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and granting patta in favour of the 2nd respondent-Devasthanam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Devasthanam’) in respect of the land in an extent of Ac 5-98 cents in Sy.No.318 Part of Kallukonda, in Adavivaram village and further extent of Ac 6.50 cents in Sy.No. 296-A of Budagalametta in Adavivaram village, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction that the petitioner alone is entitled for possession and enjoyment of the said land to the exclusion of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 5. The case of the writ petitioner was that his forefathers were Archakas of Sri Madhava Swamy Temple, which was an integral part of Vizianagaram Samshtanam. The then Mahararaja of Vizianagaram granted Inam in 1825 for purpose of performing Puja to Lord Madhava Swamy. It was averred that Adavivaram village was constituted after 1904 from part of Madhavadhara village for convenience of survey and settlements and for administrative reasons, but, still it continued to be Inam land in favour of the Archakas and the same was conﬁrmed by the Inam Commissioner. It is the case of the petitioner that Maharaja constituted Devasthanam and gifted certain lands to the Devasthanam and that in 1929 the 2nd respondent-temple instituted O.S. Nos.303 and 308 of 1929 against the ancestors of the petitioner claiming title and possession of the land in the said suit. According to the petitioner, the suit was dismissed on 11-5-1931 holding that the temple had no title and also possession to the suit schedule land and the said judgment has become ﬁnal. The said disputed land was subjected to partition by the ancestors of the petitioners and in that partition an extent of Ac 5.98 cents in Sy. No. 318 and Ac 6.50 cents in Sy.No. 296-A fell to the share of the petitioner’s father by virtue of a partition deed dated 30.4.1976 and consequent on the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the properties and that they are paying taxes to the 2nd respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the Act, the respondents refused to receive the taxes. When the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 attempted to encroach the land, which was being cultivated by the petitioner, the petitioner ﬁled a complaint with the appropriate authorities and according to him the Adangal shows the possession of the petitioner, the taxes were paid to the 2nd respondent in Vizianagaram Kingdom in 1905 and accordingly the petitioner tried to establish that his ancestors and himself were in possession of the property. The petitioner also ﬁled a W. P. No. 15473 of 1996 seeking a declaration that the temple has no authority to dispossess or interfere with his possession and this Court granted interim stay of dispossession. According to the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted under Section 7(1) of the Act and on 18.5.1996, an order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer directing issuance of ryotwari pattas to the temple over an extent of Ac 3302.45 cents. According to the petitioner, no notice was issued to him in the enquiry conducted under Section 3 and also during the proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that the entire enquiry proceedings which were initiated under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act were behind his back to the extent of land held by him and the same are not binding on him and it cannot be said to have covered the land mentioned in the order of the M.R.O., dated 18-5-1996. 6. Denying the above averments, a counter has been ﬁled by the Devesthanam. It is stated that the judgment in O.S. Nos. 303 and 308 of 1929 has no relevancy inasmuch as the survey numbers mentioned in the suits are Sy. No.36-A, 37, 38 and 39 and therefore the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the Civil Court decree. It is also stated that a notice has been issued in Form-I by the competent authority while conducting an enquiry under section 3 (3) of the Act where the lands are situated and, some of the cultivating tenants also appeared at the time of hearing and they conceded that the inam lands covered by TD No. 1173 were held by Devasthanam. It is also stated that under Section 3(7) of the Act, every decision arrived at by the Tahsildar is binding on all the persons and institutions claiming interest in such land notwithstanding that such persons are ﬁled any application or adduced any evidence who have participated in the proceedings. The proceedings dated 9- 8-1973 had became ﬁnal and neither the Government nor any person interested has carried the matter in appeal. The Devasthanam carried the matter in appeal under Section 3(4) of the Act for the extents of poramboke and wastelands. It is also stated that the order of the Deputy Tahsildar has been set aside by an order dated 31-8-1978 by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer and remitted the matter back to the Special Deputy Tahsildar for conducting fresh enquiry with reference to their possession as on 21-6- 1975. After the remand, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer conducted an enquiry in respect of poramboke and wastelands in Adivivaram village and by his order dated 25-5-1989 declared that an extent of Ac 2600-00 cents in Sy.No. 275 part in Adivivaram village and an extent of Ac 725-21 cents in other survey number in the said village are cultivable and cultivated as on crucial date as the properties of the Simhachalam Devasthanam. The said decision had become ﬁnal. It is also contended that the appeal ﬁled by the Devasthanam to the extent of Ac 2667- 20 cents in Sy.No. 275 of Adivivaram village, was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer by order dated 28.2.1990. The revision was also dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, on the ground that substantial extents in the same survey number have already been held in favour of the temple. It is also contended that after the disposal of the revision by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land records, the matter was taken up by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer under Section 7(1) read with Section 4 of the Act. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer by order dated 18-5-1996 issued ryotwari pattas in favour of the Devasthanam for an extent of Ac 3312-45 cents holding that as per the old record the lands mentioned in Annexure-I though classiﬁed as communal land, are cultivable as on the crucial date and commercial complex etc. have also come up. The patta proceedings are in respect of the land covered by the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer dated. 25.5.1989. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer made another enquiry for grant of ryotwari pattas in respect of the lands covered by the proceedings of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) under Section 3(3) of the Act. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam, by his order dated 14.8.1996 granted ryotwari patta for an extent of Ac 1026-03 cents in the name of Devasthanam. The Commissioner sought to revise the orders of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer for granting pattas in respect of the lands in Adivivaram village and ultimately by his order 23-10-1997 upheld the pattas granted by the M.R.O through his order dated 14-8- 1996 in respect of an extent of Ac 1,036-03 cents, but cancelled the pattas in respect of other lands granted by M.R.O, dated 18-5-1996 for an extent of Ac 3302-45 cents. As against the said order, the Devasthanam ﬁled writ petition in W.P. No. 32800 of 1997 and obtained interim suspension of the same. 7. In the background of the above contentions, the learned single Judge has proceeded to decide the question as to whether the proceedings issued by the competent authority under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act in respect of the lands are tenable under law or not? 8. After considering the entire material on record, the learned single Judge observed that the main case of the writ petitioner rests on the ground that his interest in the land in dispute was the inam land which was granted by Maharaja of Vizianagaram in 1885 to his ancestors to perform Puja to Lord Madhava Swamy. This was part of Samsthanam and his fore fathers are Archakas of the said temple. It is his further contention that the Devasthanam itself, way back in the year 1929, had ﬁled a suit in OS No. 303 and 308 of 1929 against his ancestors which was, after contest, dismissed by judgment dated 11.5.1931 and the said judgment became ﬁnal. It is also his case that the said lands were subjected to partition between the ancestors of the writ petitioner and by virtue of the partition deed dated 30-04-1976 the disputed land fell to the share of father of the petitioner and from him, the petitioner inherited the said property. His contention rests on the ground that the proceedings, which were initiated by the Special Deputy Collector under Section 3 and also under Section 7 of the Act are without notice to his father and himself who are possessors of the land and issuing notice to some of the cultivators cannot be said to be a notice to the petitioner and hence the orders passed by the Authorities under Section 3 and 7 of the Act is not binding on him. 9. Further, a contention is sought to be raised by the Devasthanam that the pattas granted earlier under Section 3 and 7 of the Act were subsequently cancelled in part through the proceedings dated 18.5.1996 of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, who held that lands areas already occupied in an extent of Ac 656.70 + 88.22 + 2557.53, which are as claimed in Schedule-III, are the properties of the Simhachalam Devasthanam and the remaining land of Ac 2667.20 in S. No. 275/1A, which is vacant, is declared as vested in Government as per Section 2(A) of the Act, free of all encumbrances. It is also contended that The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer further ordered to issue ryotwari pattas under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act for the extent of Ac 3302.45 cents in Annexure I, II & III of his order. The disputed lands according to both the parties are in Sy.No. 318 and Sy.No. 296-A. The Commissioner of Land Revenue by his order dated 23-10-1997 had suo mottu revised the orders of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer and thereby cancelled the pattas granted by the M.R.O, except for Acs. 1,036.03 cents as mentioned in Annexure I of the M.R.O’s order dated 14.8.1996. 10. The learned single Judge further observed that a perusal of the orders passed by both the authorities would go to show that no notice has been issued to the petitioner or his father and the learned Single Judge having found that no notice was issued to writ petitioner and also relying upon the law laid down by this Court in SRI ANJANEYA SWAMI TEMPLE, NANDIKOTKUR vs., BADDULA LAKSHMIAH[1], wherein, in the proceedings for grant of patta, parties interested in the property were not given notice under Section 3 (3) of the Act, it was held that the enquiry was held behind their back and in such circumstances, it was held that the decision arrived at by the Revenue Court cannot bind the parties against whom any such decision had been arrived at, held that the proceedings do not bind the petitioner to the extent of land held by him. 11. It is also held by the learned single judge that the order passed under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act without putting the notice to the interested persons would not bind on any person emanated under the proceedings. The learned single judge having found that having suﬀered the decree in the suit ﬁled by the Devasthanam, the Devasthanam cannot be said that they have no knowledge and they never tried to implead the respondents as parties to the proceedings under Section 3 and also under section 7, and that after going through the material placed by the petitioners that their inam ﬁgured in the Gilman and occupation register in respect of the lands in Sy. No. 318/2 (part) and 6(A), held that the proceedings did not bind the petitioner to the extent of the lands held by him. It is also observed by the learned single judge that though the Government was directed to produce the records with reference to the title of the land, yet no records were produced before the court. It is also found that the name of the possessors were found in the Adangals and having accepted that no notice was issued to the petitioner and as the entire proceedings were behind his back, such act of the authorities is violative of the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Act and also violative of principles of natural justice and therefore the learned single judge allowed the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present appeals are filed. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the order of the learned single Judge. Though some third parties ﬁled WAMP No.1948 of 2004 in W.A.No. 416 of 2002 to permit them to come on record, however, the same is dismissed as not pressed as per the order dated. 6.9.2008. NOTICE 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Devasthanam argued that as the Act does not contemplate any notice or personal notice, the contention of petitioners that the authorities ought to have issued a personal notice to them is against the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in Malleswara Swami Vari Temple, Dharmavaram by the Executive Oﬃcer vs., Juttiga and others, (1971 (1) An W R 27) to support his contention that in a proceedings under Section 7 of the Act the correctness or otherwise of the order passed under Section 3 of the Act cannot be gone into and as no personal notice is contemplated under the Rules, there is no such requirement and in the absence of such requirement there is no need to issue notice and in view of the subsequent events also the writ petition ﬁled by the petitioner is to be dismissed. Learned counsel further relied on an earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court between SRI ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, NANDIKOTKUR, VS., BADDULA LAKSHMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1982 Andhra Pradesh 300 and submitted that no rules have been extracted in the said judgment and that in the absence of any Rules being considered, the facts in the above case have no relevance to the case on hand and in the absence of the rules being considered by the Bench, it is diﬃcult to conclude the nature of the notice to be issued and more so a personal notice. It is further argued by the learned counsel that ﬁling of the suits by Devasthanam and the contentions raised in the said suits are entirely diﬀerent with that of the writ petition before the learned single Judge and so also the survey numbers are different. 14. In reply thereto the learned counsel for the 1strespondent/ writ petitioner has contended that as Devasthanam itself had ﬁled suits in the year 1929 claiming the lands which were held by the ancestors of the petitioner that was granted by Maharaja of Vizianagaram for performing Puja to Lord Madhavaswamy temple and the properties were inherited by the father of the petitioner by virtue of the partition deed in the year 30-04- 1976. It is also contended that since the proceedings conducted by the authorities under Sections 3 and 7 of the I.A. Act were behind the back of the petitioner and is without any notice, the same are void by virtue of the law laid down by this court in Sri Malleswara Swami Vari Temple, v., Juttiga and others.(1971 (1) An W R 27). 15. In view of the above arguments advanced before us the main issue to be decided is whether a personal notice is necessary for the proceedings under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act? 16. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, the fact remains in this case is that the Devasthanam itself ﬁled civil suits against the ancestors of the petitioner in O.S. No. 303 and 308 of 1929 claiming title and possession over the lands but the same were dismissed by the judgment dated 11-5-1931 holding that the temple has no title and possession to the suit schedule land. The said judgment had become ﬁnal. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the suit lands fell to the share of his father by virtue of the partition deed dated 30-4-1976 and from whom he inherited the said property and became the owner of the lands by virtue of partition deed dated. 30-4- 1976. 17. In order to decide the said question, it is relevant to note Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition and Conversion Act ,1956 which reads as follows: “3. Determination of inam lands: (1) As soon as may be, after the commencement of this Act, the Tahsildar may suo motu and share on application enquire and determine; (i) Whether a particular land in his jurisdiction is an inam land; (ii) Whether such inam land is in ryotwari, zamindari or inam village; (iii) Whether such inam land is held by any institution (2) Before holding such an enquiry, Tahsildar shall cause to be published in the village or town where the inam lands are situate a notice in the prescribed manner requiring every person or institution claiming an interest in any such inam land, to ﬁle before him, a statement of particulars in respect of items (i), (ii) and (iii) in sub-section (1) within the prescribed time. (3) The Tahsildar shall thereafter give the persons or institutions concerned a reasonable opportunity of adducing any evidence in support of their cases and may also examine any relevant document in the possession of the Government and give his decision in writing in regard to items (i), (ii) and (iii) in sub-section (i) and communicate the decision to the persons or institutions concerned. (4) Any person or institution aggrieved by a decision of the Tahsildar under sub-section (3), may appeal to the Revenue Court sixty days from the date of communication of the decision and the Revenue Court may after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders on the appeal as it thinks fit. (5) The decision of the Revenue Court under sub- section (4), and in case no appeal is ﬁled, the decision of the Tahsildar under sub-section (3) shall be final. (6) Every decision of the Revenue Court under sub-section (4) and if no appeal is ﬁled within the period speciﬁed in sub-section (4) every decision of the Tahsildar under sub-section (3) shall as soon as possible be published in the District Gazette, and in such other manner as may be prescribed. (7) Every decision of the Revenue Court, and subject to such decision, every decision of the Tahsildar under this Section, shall be binding on all persons and institution claiming an interest in any such inam land, notwithstanding that such persons or institutions have not ﬁled any application or statement, or adduced any evidence or appeared or participated in the proceedings before the Tahsildar or the Revenue Court, as the case may be.” As per Section 3, the Tahsildar may suo motu or on application, enquire and determine the nature of the land, whether patta land, fallow or inam land and whether the inam land is ryotwari patta and zamindari or inam village, whether such inam land is held by any institution. 18. As per Sub-section (3) of Section. 3 of the Act, it is the duty of Tahsildar to give to the persons or institutions a reasonable opportunity for adducing any evidence in support of their cases, and may also examine any relevant documents in their possession to give his decision in writing. If any person is aggrieved by such decision, the aggrieved person can appeal to the Revenue Court within 60 days from the date of communication of the order. 19. It is also relevant to note Section 7 of the Act which reads as follows:- “(1) As soon as may be after commencement of this Act and subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), the Tahsildar may suo motu and shall, on application by a person or an institution, after serving a notice in the prescribed manner on all the persons or institutions interested in the grant of ryotwari pattas in respect of the inam lands concerned and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and examining all the relevant records, determine the persons or institutions entitled to ryotwari pattas in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 and grant them ryotwari