IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2825 of 2009 Between: 1 M. Ashok Reddy S/o. Sai Reddy R/o. Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 2 T. Jaya Babu S/o. Narayana R/o. Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 3 H. Sadanandam S/o. Chandraiah R/o. Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 4 P. Lingam Goud S/o. Kasaiah R/o. Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 5 J. Mallesham S/o. J. Yadaiah R/o. Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 6 P. Bagyamma W/o. Dass R/o. Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 7 G. Balraj S/o. Sattaiah R/o. Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 8 P. Ravi S/o. Kasaiah R/o. Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 9 Srinivasa Chary S/o. Eswaraiah R/o. Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 10 K. Ilaiah S/o. Mallaiah R/o. Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 11 P. Laxmipathi Goud S/o. Late Channarayudu R/o. Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, at 177, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Tahsildar / Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Mohd. Mohsin Ali Mazhar S/o. Late Mohd. Khader Ali R/o. H.No.16-1-14/9/A, Zakar Hussain Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. 6 Mohd. Muthaher Ali S/o. Late Mohd. Khader Ali R/o. H.No.16-1-14/9/A, Zakar Hussain Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. 7 Garimalla Ravindra Nath S/o. Late G. Prabhakarr Rao R/o. Flat No.305, Pramukha Patels Green Hills Colony, Road No.3, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. 8 Gudusu Eshwaramma W/o. G. Yadaiah, R/o. H.No.1-72, Mangalpally, Patelguda Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District No.E4/5997/2004, dated 14.11.2008 at 177, Khairtabad, Hyderabad as illegal and without jurisdiction; (ii) declare the proceedings of the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Hyderabad vide R.P.No.16053 of 2004, dated 4.12.2006 as illegal and without jurisdiction; (iii) consequently set aside. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.2825 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners challenge the order, dated 14.11.2008, passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the second respondent herein. It is essential to state the relevant facts, in brief, to appreciate the contention of the petitioners. The land in survey No.106 was recorded as patta in the name of Mohd. Ibrahim. The survey number was sub-divided into four parts and with effect from the year 1965-66, names of Syed Anwar Hussain, Syed Ahmed Hussain, Syed Abdul Salam Baig and Abdul Aziz Ali Baig were recorded as pattadars in the place of Mohd. Ibrahim. Subsequently, respondents 5 to 8 and certain others purchased the land. The Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam, the fourth respondent herein, initiated proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), on the ground that the land in question was initially paigah property and thereafter, became assigned land and that the transfer in favour of respondents 5 to 8 is hit by the provisions of the Act. After considering the explanation submitted by the recipients of notices, he passed an order, dated 22.01.2002, directing resumption of the land. Respondents 5 to 8 filed an appeal before the third respondent under Section 4-A of the Act. The appeal was dismissed through order, dated 28.07.2003. The same was confirmed by the Joint Collector, the second respondent herein, through order, dated 22.05.2004. Against the same, a revision was filed before the Government, the third respondent herein. Through its order, dated 04.12.2006, the Government remanded the matter to the second respondent. On such remand, the second respondent passed the impugned order, dated 14.11.2008, setting aside the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, holding that the subject matter of the proceedings was not the Government land, at all. The petitioners, who are group of persons, have made applications for assignment of land, in the event of respondents 5 to 8 being evicted and the land be resumed to the Government. Their contention is that the view taken by the second respondent cannot be sustained in law. According to them, the paigah property is nothing but the land owned by the Government, and it would partake the same character, even after the death of original grantee and succession by the legal heirs. Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in his earlier order, dated 22.05.2009, the second respondent has taken a view that the land belongs to the Government and assigned valid reasons in support of his conclusion, whereas in the impugned order, he has taken diametrically opposite view. He contends that the second respondent ignored the entries in the original records and thereafter the proceedings under the Act. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the second respondent had strictly followed the observations made by the first respondent in the order, dated 04.12.2006 as well as the Department of Survey and Land Records. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8, submits that the Mandal Revenue Officer initiated proceedings under the Act, without even ascertaining the nature of the land, and just proceeded on assumptions. He contends that the first respondent had pointed out the glaring mistakes committed by respondents 2 to 4 in the respective orders passed by them and remanded the matter with specific directions on the relevant aspects. Learned Senior Counsel contends that before passing the impugned order, the second respondent has examined the views of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and those of the Department of Survey and Land Records and had arrived at just and proper conclusion. The circumstances under which the impugned order came to be passed have already been stated with an amount of brevity, in the preceding paragraphs. Proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Act. The primary requirement for initiation of such proceedings is that the land must belong to the Government and that it was assigned to beneficiaries by incorporating conditions, prohibiting alienation. The fourth respondent proceeded on the assumption that paigah properties are per se the Government lands. Neither he has referred to any provision of law, nor did he discuss the factual basis for it. The appeal preferred by respondents 5 to 8 was dismissed and in the revision, the second respondent made certain observations in his orders, dated 04.12.2006. He proceeded on the assumption that any land, which is not subject to levy of land revenue, becomes the Government land. While deciding the further revision presented before it, the first respondent called for the reports from the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records and that of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. In his report, dated 24.06.2006, the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records made the following observations: “2 . …The joint Collector has come to a conclusion that the land in question is Government land on the following assumptions extracted from his own order”. (i) Generally in the case of patta land assessment must be mentioned in the relevant column of Sethwar and in the case of Government land their shall not be assessment. In this case assessment is not shown in the relevant column. This itself is crystal clear that the subject land is Government land. (ii) Generally supplementary sethwars will be issued in respect of Government land and patta land acquired for public purposes. In view of the above facts undoubtedly the land in Sy.No.106 of Mangalpally village is Government land assigned. 3. Both these assumptions of the Joint Collector are totally erroneous and emanate from his land of knowledge of the revenue laws and survey procedures. He himself mentions that the land in question is Pot Kharab. Since this entire Sy.No. was treated as Potkharab there will be no assessment recorded in Sethwar enough through, it is a patta land. 4. The joint Collector has shown his gross ignorance of the survey law and procedure in making his statement that supplementary sethwar is issued only in respect of Government lands. Supplementary sethwar is to be issued whenever there is change in the status of any land mentioned in the sethwar and this status can be either a change of ownership, or change in boundary, or change in nature or even change in assessment. It is highly erroneous to presume that the land is Government land just because a supplementary sethwar is issued. Whenever a land, whether the whole or part of survey number changes its fertility and nature and thereby there is a change in assessment, a supplementary sethwar ought to be issued. The very fact that the bandobast izafa was sanctioned in Jamabandi goes to show that this land was not Government land. For the government land assigned the remark would be bandobust izafa (laoni patta) and not mere bandobust izafa. 5. In the instant case the Joint Collector has also showed his total lack of understanding survey records. He should have ought to know that a classer register and Wasul Baqi are registers prepared prior to Sethwar and notices are issued basing upon the Wasul Baqui to the pattadars inviting objections if any case of discrepancy between Wasul Baqi or Sethwar or Classer register or Sethwar it is the Sethwar, which is to be accepted as final and authentic version. In the instant case the possibility of Sy.No.106 being recorded as PP in the initial stages and declared as Paiga on appeal could not be ruled out to explain the entry in Sethwar as Paigah. 6. The question whether the land in dispute is Government or Patta land is to be decided in the instant case basing on the total gamut of facts as well as a proper appreciation of the Revenue Rules and Procedures which is not done by the Joint Collector in the instant case”. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration expressed almost similar views. On a perusal of these reports, the 1st respondent felt that the matter needs to be re-examined. Accordingly, remanded the case to the 2nd respondent. On such remand, the 2nd respondent has undertaken extensive discussion, with reference to the contentions urged by the concerned parties. The report of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, and the opinion rendered by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, vide proceedings dated 24-04-2003, were extensively referred to. A specific and categorical finding was recorded holding that the lands do not belong to the Government. This finding is based upon the relevant records. With this finding, the very proceedings initiated under the Act vis-à-vis the lands become untenable. Basically the petitioners cannot be said to be affected parties nor adversaries to respondents 5 to 8. Even otherwise, they are not able to point out any factual or legal defect in the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Dt.16-02-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. GJ/KO