HON’BLE SHRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO.13687 OF 1992 BETWEEN Kovvuri China Ramireddy ………Petitioner And District Collector, East Godavari District & another. ………Respondents ::O R D E R :: Counsel for the Petitioner : Shri N.A.R.Murthy for Shri P. R. Prasad Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Government Pleader for Social Welfare Dated: 13.09.2006 Per G.S. SINGHVI, CJ This petition filed for quashing order dated 4.2.1992 passed by District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada (respondent No.1 herein) is illustrative of how Settlement Officer, East Godavari District connived with the petitioner to deprive the innocent tribals of their legitimate right over the land. The Facts: Land comprised in Survey Nos. 20/3 and 21/4 measuring 0.55 hectares and 2.26 hectares respectively situated in Ravigudem Village of Addatheegala Mandal, East Godavari District belonged to the tribals. One Shri Ch. Venkanna Dora claiming himself to be Muttadar of Ducherthi is said to have leased out the land to the petitioner. In 1973, the petitioner filed an application under Regulation 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulations, 1969 (for short, ‘the Regulations’) for grant of ryotwari patta by claiming that he was in cultivating possession of the land and was paying taxes. His application was registered as Case No.3625/1973. The Settlement Officer relied on the so-called enquiry report submitted by the field staff and passed an order for grant of ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner. When this came to the notice of the Government, Deputy Director of Settlements was asked to conduct an enquiry into the matter. After examining the record of the office of the Settlement Officer, Rajahmundry, the Deputy Director submitted report with the following observations: “No independent enquiry was made by the Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer’s order was based on the enquiry report of the field staff. The order was issued in a printed form. The relevancy of the documents was not discussed. No exhibits were marked. It requires suo motu revision.” Thereafter, Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Authority, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District filed an appeal for cancellation of patta granted to the petitioner. In the memorandum of appeal, the Project Officer raised the following points: “i) Vast extent of tribal lands passed into the hands of non-tribals illegally. A large number of non-tribals managed to obtain pattas from the Settlement Officer under various enactments and pattas were granted without taking into consideration the provisions of the enactment under which pattas were granted. ii) Pattas were granted to non-tribals by merely showing that they have been continuously in possession of land for more than eight years for which they are seeking pattas without taking into consideration whether such possession of the land was void or contrary to the other provisions of the relevant enactment as tribals who would have got back the land either by assignment or by re- induction into the land if pattas were not granted are not in a position to understand the legal complication and fight the costly litigation. iii) The appellant is a tribal and his ancestors were in possession of the schedule lands. The appellant filed I.T.R.P. seeking eviction of the respondents and proceedings were initiated in L.T.R.P.No.494/80 and orders could not be passed as the respondent filed W.P.No.3138 of 1978 and obtained stay order and the writ petition was dismissed later. iv) The Settlement Officer did not make proper enquiry as required under provisions of (a) and (b) of Sec.5 of Regulation 2 of 1969. v) The respondent is a non-tribal and as such, patta cannot be granted to him unless he satisfied the conditions laid down in Section 5 of Regulation 2 of 1969. vi) The respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof as laid down in Section 3 of Regulation I of 1959 that until the contrary is proved, any immovable property situated in the agency track and in the possession of a person who is not a member of a S.T. shall be presumed to have been acquired by the person and his predecessors in possession through a transfer made to him by a member of Scheduled Tribe. The respondent failed to adduce evidence to show that his alleged possession is not contrary to Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act I of 1917 or A.P. (S.A.) Land Transfer Regulation No.1of 1959. vii) In Case No.3625/73, dt.16.12.1974, the Settlement Officer, Peddapuram, has not examined the issues regarding Land Transfer Regulations and he has only taken into account that the non-tribal has been in continuous possession of the petition schedule land since 8 years prior to the notified date and issued ryotwari patta without referring to the provisions of the L.T. Regulations. viii) The petition schedule land was reclaimed by the tribal petitioners. ix) Any transfer of immovable property in the Agency tracts by the person whether or not such a person is a member of Scheduled Tribe shall be absolutely null and void if such transfer is made in favour of a person who was not a member of Scheduled Tribe. The transaction is hit by Act I of 1917. x) Mere continuous possession of the land in the Agency tracts by a non-tribal for a period of 8 years immediately before the notified date as contemplated under Section 5 of A.P. Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation No.2 of 1969 is not sufficient, but such possession or occupation should be lawful. xi) The respondent failed to place material to show that the land was in continuous possession of non-tribals since coming into force of Act I of 1917 and the respondent or his predecessors have been paying kist subsequent to the notified date.” Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, before whom the appeal was filed, transferred the same to respondent No.1, who was delegated with the power of the appellate authority vide G.O.Ms.No.741, Revenue (JA) Department, dated 9.8.1990. On receipt of notice issued by respondent No.1, the petitioner appeared through his advocate and prayed for dismissal of the appeal by claiming that the same was barred by time. He also defended the patta granted by the Settlement Officer by asserting that he was in cultivating possession of the land and was paying taxes. After considering the material placed before him and the arguments advanced by the advocate appearing for the petitioner, respondent No.1 passed order dated 4.2.1992, whereby he cancelled the patta granted to the petitioner. Paragraph 5 of that order reads as under: “5. I have carefully considered the grounds of appeal and the points urged by the Advocate for the appellant and the points submitted by the respondent and also perused the connected records. The respondent stated before the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Mutta Abolition, Addateegala that he took lands in S.No.20/3 (Hc.0.55) and 21/4 (Hc.2.26) from the Mattadar of Ducherthi on lease and was cultivating the same and paying taxes, that he has not alienated these lands to anybody, that he filed the cowls from F.1368 to F.1370 and from F.1371 to 1376 and F.1377 to F.1379 and again from F.1380 to F.1382, that he also filed some tax receipts and requested for ryotwari patta. In his statement before the Special Tahsildar, he deposed that he did not obtain permission from the Collector under Regulation I of 1959. I have carefully perused the lease deeds filed by the respondent before the Settlement Officer. In all, five lease deeds were filed. They relate to F.1368, 1371, 1374, 1377 and 1380. All lease deeds are printed forms apparently executed at one time as is evident from the ink signature of the Muttadar Ch.Venkanna Dora. The lease deed of F.1368 was originally written as F.1378 and later corrected as F.1368. Similarly, the lease deed of F.1380 was originally written as F.1370 and latter corrected as F.1380. There are corrections on the dates put under the signature of the muttadar. The tax receipts filed also are open to serious doubt. For example, Book No.8 was used for issue of receipts. Receipt No.6 for Rs.6.75 relating to F.1370 was passed on18.4.1980. Receipt No.24 for Rs.6.75 for F.1375 was passed on from the same receipt book on 15.2.1966 , again receipt No.26 was issued on 10.1.1967 for F.1376 for Rs.6.75 from the same book. It is absurd to believe that only receipt No.25 covered the collection for the whole year from 15.2.1966 to 10.1.1967. It is equally absurd that the same receipt book No.8 was in operation from 18.4.1969 to 10.1.1967. It is amply clear that a receipt book bearing No.8 was some how obtained and receipts were manipulated only to circumvent the provisions of the Act. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with the grounds of appeal and the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and hold that the ryotwari patta was obtained by the respondent by foul means. I accordingly set aside the proceedings of the Settlement Officer, Mutta Abolition, Peddapuram in his Case No.3625/73, dt.16.12.1974 and allow the appeal. In the result, the ryotwari patta iassued to the respondent stands cancelled.” The petitioner questioned the aforementioned order by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and succeeded in persuading the learned Single Judge to stay the operation of order of respondent No.1 by claiming that interim orders have been passed in similar writ petitions filed against the orders passed by respondent No.1. It is clearly borne out from the record of the case that the learned Single Judge entertained the writ petition apparently because counsel appearing for the petitioner projected that Writ Petition Nos.5624, 8876, 8889 and 13693 of 1992, 5619 and 15927 of 1994 and 9627 of 1991 had already been admitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the appeal filed against the order of the Settlement Commissioner was barred by time inasmuch as the same had been instituted after eight years of the issue of patta and respondent No.1 committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the same. Learned counsel then argued that the finding recorded by respondent No.1 on the fabrication of record by the petitioner is perverse, inasmuch as the same is not based on any evidence. Learned Government Pleader supported the order under challenge and argued that the Court may not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for restoration of a patently illegal action of the Settlement Officer, who granted patta in favour of the petitioner without making enquiry and without examining the documents produced by the latter in support of his claim. At the outset, we may say that three of the similar writ petitions bearing No.5630, 8896 and 13693 of 1992 have already been dismissed by the learned Single Judges on 04.04.1994, 03.04.2002 and 16.12.2002 respectively and, in our considered view, dismissal of similar petitions is sufficient to negate the petitioner’s challenge to the order passed by respondent No.1. De hors the above, we are convinced that the finding recorded by respondent No.1 about fabrication of the record by the petitioner in connivance with the then Settlement Officer of East Godavari District is based on a correct appreciation of evidence and there is no warrant for issue of a writ of certiorari to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.1 for cancellation of the patta issued in favour of a non-tribal in respect of the land belonging to the tribals. I n B.Subbaraju v. Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Revenue Records[1], a learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the action initiated by the Director of Settlements in 1983 for suo motu revision of ryotwari patta granted in 1974. Paragraph 15 of that judgment reads as under: “In the case on hand, the Forest Authorities were not the respondents in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer. The petitioners claimed ryotwari patta on the ground that the lands in question are agricultural lands. There is no material before the Settlement Officer to show that these lands consist of forest growth or that they are not agricultural lands. Though Sri K. Chandraiah, I.A.S., Director of Settlements felt that this matter requires a suo motu enquiry, his successor did not proceed with the suo motu enquiry on the ground that the reports of the District Collector and the District Forest Officer show that the lands did not contain forest growth and that they are agricultural lands. But after the inspection by the team, the true facts as to the lands in question came to light. Hence, the District Forest Officer and the Divisional Forest Officer wrote to the Director of Settlements that there is thick forest growth in the lands in question and they requested the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Lands Records to have personal inspection. Thus the matter assumed importance and took a turn. Sri Achanta, I.A.S., Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Lands Records had given notice to the petitioners and conducted personal inspection in the presence of the representatives of the petitioners and gave his inspection report which reveals that the earlier reports of the District Forest Officer and the District Collector which were prior to the inspection made by team are not at all correct and are travesty of truth. The inspection report of Sri Achanta, which is available, reveals the actual physical features of the lands in question. If all these are appreciated in their proper perspective, I have no hesitation to say that there is satisfactory prima facie material for suo motu enquiry. There is a continuous correspondence after the Settlement Officer granted pattas without prior enquiry. The reports of the District Forest Officer and the District Collector at one stage are not based on actual facts and are misleading. The actual facts revealed both by the inspection reports of the team appointed by the Government and of Sri Achanta clearly establish that there is a thick forest growth with the trees, the particulars of which are given above in detail in the lands in question and there are hills and streams in these lands and the gradient of the land is higher than 10% and there is no cultivation in the area of Ac. 360-55 cents in extent and to say that the lands are cultivated is travesty of truth. Hence, I hold that the proposed suo motu enquiry is necessary and it is within the reasonable time, and I find no substance in the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners.” I n Gudimetla Narasimha Murthy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[2], the learned Single Judge upheld the delegation of power under Regulation 35(2)(e) read with Regulations 4(4) and 9 of the Regulation. Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of that judgment read as under: “ 9. On a true and fair construction of regulation 35 it is apparent that there are no limiting words to diminute the exercise of the rule making power. Regulation 35 (2) (e) is also clear and enables the making of a rule to provide for delegation of powers conferred by the Regulations on a specified authority to any other authority, officer or person. In the light of such plenitudinous grant of rule making power, no applicable interpretive principles warrant a constructing interpretation as suggested on behalf of the petitioners. 10. The other contention on behalf of the petitioners does not also warrant acceptance. Regulation 2 is the definitions clause and Clause (e) thereunder defines 'Director of Settlements' to mean the officer appointed as such by the Government. It is not that the Director of Settlements appointed under other enactments is automatically the Director of Settlements but the officer appointed as Director of settlements under the Regulations is the Director of Settlements. The Regulation also does not set out any qualifications as a condition precedent to hold the office of the Director of Settlements. Regulation 4 posits the appointment and functions of Settlement Officer and sub-regulation (4) thereof inheres in the Director of Settlements the power either suo motu or on an application to cancel or revise any order or proceedings of the Settlement Officer. In this textual and contextual setting, no legitimate inference is possible that a certain degree of specialisation or expertise was legislatively intended in the office of Director of Settlements. A wide swathe of discretion was conferred on the Government to identify an officer to be appointed as a Director of Settlements. In the absence of any signal from the substantive legislative scheme enabling an inference as to a degree of expertise in the office of Director of Settlements, the impugned rule cannot be invalidated on a speculative apprehension that the Director of Settlements requires a certain degree of skill and expertise and such skill or expertise is lacking in the District Collector to whom the power is delegated by the impugned rule. The presumptive validity of subordinate legislation continues and nothing is brought out on behalf of the petitioners that militates against that presumption. 11. On the aforesaid analysis I find no infirmity in the delegation of power of the Director of Settlements available under Regulations 4 (4) and 9 of the Regulations in favour of the District Collectors qua G. O. Ms. No. 741 dated 9-8-1991 and consequently the challenge to the said G. O. must fail.” We respectfully agree with the views expressed in the aforementioned judgments and hold that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference with the order passed by respondent No.1. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/- because he has unlawfully retained possession of the land belonging to the tribals for a period of more than three decades. The amount of costs shall be deposited with Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within a period of two months from today. The Member Secretary of Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority should inform the Court in writing about the deposit of costs by the petitioner so that if it becomes necessary, the Court may issue appropriate direction for recovery of the amount of costs by use of coercive methods. G.S. SINGHVI, CJ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J 13.09.2006 ksld [1] AIR 1985 AP 329 [2] 2002 (6) ALT 344