* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No.631 OF 2004 % 18.11.2011 # The Commissioner, Survey, Settlement & Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad, And others. ... Appellants VERSUS $ Indupuru Raghava Reddy And others. ... Respondents < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for Appellants: Government Pleader for Revenue (AA) ^Counsel for Respondents: Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy ? Cases referred 1) (1929) 57 MLJ 654 2) (1957) 1 MLJ 104 (DB) 3) AIR 1965 SC 338 4) (1979) 4 SCC 40 : AIR 1980 SC 91 5) 1982 (1) APLJ 421 (DB) 6) (2007) 3 SCC 700 7) (1987) 1 SCC 424 8) (2000) 4 SCC 406 = AIR 2000 SC 1535 9) (2001) 2 SCC 538 10) (2009) 4 SCC 94 11) AIR 1982 AP 414 12) AIR 1967 SC 661 13) AIR 1972 AP 1 (FB) 14) (2003) 8 SCC 413 (para 44) = AIR 2003 SC 3397 15) (2004) 11 SCC 497 (para 19) 16) AIR 1972 AP 161 : 1972 (2) An.W.R. 41 17) 1982 (1) APLJ 421 18) 1997 (2) An.W.R. 112 (DB) 19) 1959 (2) MLJ 513 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No.631 OF 2004 18.11.2011 Between: The Commissioner, Survey, Settlement & Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad, And others. …. Appellants AND Indupuru Raghava Reddy And others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No.631 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) Introduction The Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Government of Andhra Pradesh and two others are the appellants in this appeal filed against the order dated 10.06.2003 of the learned single Judge setting aside the order of the Commissioner who had confirmed the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and Inams Special Deputy Tahsildar (SDT, for brevity). The core issue in this appeal is whether the respondents’ claim for grant of patta in respect of waste land admeasuring Acs.44.68 (hereafter, petition schedule land) under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (the Inams Act, for brevity) was validly rejected by the competent authority on the ground that it is a waste land which stood transferred and vested in the Government under Section 2-A of the Inams Act. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties as in the writ petition. Background Jadagogula Agraharam, Hamlet of Juvvaladinne Village with an extent of Acs.812.33 in survey No.321/B is inam village. The petitioners claim that their grandfather purchased Acs.111.52 under registered sale deed dated 25.11.1938 from the original inamdars. Again on 18.12.1938, another extent of Acs.302.67 was purchased. In a subsequent family partition, father of the petitioner got Acs.133.60 towards his share and statedly their mother purchased another extent of Acs.44.66 under sale deed, dated 14.06.1971. The petitioners claim that the total extent of Acs.178.43¾ is in their possession where they were raising crops. The Inams Act came into force on 14.12.1956. The authorities completed formalities and took over the inam village by 1977. In the meanwhile, the State of Andhra Pradesh inserted Section 2-A in the Act by A.P.Amendment Act No.2 of 1975 with effect from 20.06.1975. The SDT then passed orders declaring Acs.727.32, out of an extent of Acs.812.32 as coming within the purview of Section 2-A and that it stands vested in the Government. The petitioner then filed appeal. The RDO allowed the appeal on 09.07.1978 and remanded the matter to SDT for fresh enquiry after giving an opportunity to the petitioners. In the meanwhile, the petitioners filed W.P.No.1820 of 1978 questioning the validity of Section 2-A of the Act which was dismissed on 23.12.1983. The matter was carried in appeal to Supreme Court. The civil appeal was dismissed on 03.01.1997. After remand by the RDO, the SDT conducted enquiry and passed orders on 15.05.1989 declaring that an extent of Acs.533.11 shall vest in the Government under Section 2-A. Insofar as the land admeasuring Acs.88.68 in survey No.1298 is concerned, the SDT held that half of it admeasuring Acs.44.68 in survey No.1298 being waste land shall vest in the Government. The petitioners again filed appeal before the RDO claiming ryotwari patta. Even while the appeal was pending, the SDT by order dated 06.11.1990, granted patta only to an extent of Acs.44.00. The patta for the waste land was denied. The RDO also dismissed appeal on the same day. It appears some time thereafter the waste land admeasuring Acs.44.68 was assigned to persons belonging to weaker sections. The petitioners filed revision under Section 14-A of the Inams Act before the Commissioner against the order of the RDO dated 06.11.1990. The revision was dismissed on 14.09.1992. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners filed W.P.No.15473 of 1992. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of the Commissioner, declared that the petitioners are entitled for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of entire extent of land and directed them to approach the concerned authority for grant of patta. Submissions The Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General) submits that the original authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority consistently came to the conclusion that lands claimed by the petitioners being waste lands vest in the Government, and therefore, a patta cannot be granted to the petitioners. This is a finding of fact based on evidence. The learned Judge, therefore, was in error in interfering with the finding of fact ignoring the evidence on record. Secondly, he would submit that the interpretation of the term ‘waste land’ by the learned single Judge is not sound. The land which is a waste land on the date of coming into force of the Inams Act or Section 2-A thereof could well be converted into arable land subsequently but the same cannot have any effect on the interpretation of the term ‘waste land’ used in Section 2-A of the Inams Act. He would also urge that unless and until the person is in actual possession and cultivating the land on the date of coming into force of Inams Act, patta cannot be claimed, and the learned Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the title of the petitioner leads to presumption that they are in possession and occupation of the land. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the object of the Inams Act was never to take the land of Inamdars or purchasers who are also entitled for ryotwari patta under Section 10-B of the Inams Act. The term ‘waste land’ should be understood as the lands which are forever desolate and unfit for cultivation. If the lands could be brought to cultivation by incurring expenditure, the same cannot be treated as ‘waste land’ under Section 2-A of the Inams Act. He points out that the Government issued orders assigning the balance land of Acs.44.00 to persons belonging to weaker sections, which would show that the land is not waste land. He referred to Sri Rajah Bommadevara Naganna Naidu Bahadur v Yelamanchili Patchayya[1], K.Gopalaswami Ayyangar v Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam[2] (hereafter, Athmanathaswami Devasthanam (1)) , Athmanathaswami Devastanam v K.Gopalaswami[3] (hereafter, Athmanathaswami Devasthanam (2)), State of Gujarat v Gujarat Revenue Tribunal[4] and N.Bujjanna v Tahsildar, Rapur[5]. Discussion of the point for consideration Whether denial of patta to petition schedule lands on the ground that they are waste lands is justified? Before considering this core issue, we may, in brief, refer to legislative history of Inams Act. After the British replaced Hindu and Muslim Rulers of the Country, there were two systems of land tenures. Under the Zamindari system, the sovereign granted a permanent settlement to one person, who collected the land revenue from the pattadar and paid a portion to the State. In the ryotwari system, however, the State itself fixed the land revenue and collected it from the pattadar. In addition, there was a system of inams, in which the inamdar gave occupancy rights and collected premium and a portion of the usufruct from the occupant or cultivator. In Zamindari, the inamdar or the ryot/occupant of the land had exclusive right of control over the land and derived income from agriculture. In respect of public lands, the Sovereign was the paramount owner. The poramboke lands set apart for public purpose or for communal use such as village sites, threshing floors, roads, paths, water courses and the like, assessed waste lands available for occupation by private persons not forming part of the land assigned to others were included in the public lands. Till 1869, unauthorized encroachments were generally dealt with as criminal trespass attracting imprisonment. In that year, the High Court of Madras ruled that the procedure adopted under the penal code was illegal. The Government thus authorized the District Collectors to evict the trespassers by charging them assessment under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. This charge of penal assessment was sometimes prohibitive. On that ground it was declared illegal by Madras High Court. The composite State then enacted Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (later adopted as A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905). Under Section 2 thereof, all public roads, streets, lanes and paths, the bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, the bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks below high water mark, and of rivers, streams, nalas, lakes and tanks and all canals and water-courses and all standing and flowing water, and all lands wherever situated are declared to be the property of the Government subject always to all rights of way, public rights, easement and customary rights of other land owners legally subsisting. Even the public roads and streets vested in any local authority are deemed to be the property of the Government. But if such classes of lands are the property of any Zamindar, poligar, jagirdar, shrortriemdar or any other person holding under ryotwari tenure, they stand excluded from being the property of the Government. Thus from times immemorial, in common law, all public lands are treated as the property of the Government and only exception being the public lands forming part of the Zamindari, ryotwari or inam tenures. The Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 essentially regulates the holding of land in permanently or temporarily settled estates which are included in inam villages. This Act streamlined the rights of landholders and cultivating ryots and conferred certain limited rights on the ryots with regard to the heritability and improvements to the land. This enabled the Government to gain control of all communal lands which are not ryoti lands or private lands. Section 3(16) of Estates Act defined ryoti land as to mean cultivable land in an estate other than specified common lands. After attaining independence or thereabout many provincial States realized that historically Zamindari system left adverse effects on the land, the agriculture, the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. So as to abolish the Zaminadari system, Madras State enacted Estates Abolition Act, whereunder the Government acquired all Zamindari rights. The estates were taken over and occupancy rights were conferred by granting ryotwari patta. The conversion into ryotwari was essentially motivated by the idea that the land should belong to the tiller to establish contact between the Government and the actual cultivator dispensing with agency of Zamindar. On abolition of Estates, all communal lands, waste lands, poramboke, forests, mines and minerals stood transferred to the Government and vested in them free from all encumbrances; all rights and interests created in or over estate ceased and extinguished; and the Government after removing obstruction could take possession of the estate, but shall not dispossess any person of any land in the estate in respect of which he is prima facie entitled to ryotwari patta. Although “the estate” was defined in Estates Act to include any inam village by reason of Explanation to Section 3(2) thereof, the inam tenures could not be converted into ryotwari tenures, because the inam villages are not covered by the Estates Abolition Act. So as to confer the benefit of ryotwari tenure, even in respect of inam lands, the Government decided to undertake separate legislation. The Inams Abolition Act was enacted providing for conversion of all inam lands into ryotwari tenure. Section 2(c) defined ‘inam lands’ to mean any land in respect of which the grant of inam had been made, confirmed or recognized by the Government but does not include ‘inam’ constituting an estate under the Estates Act. In the implementation of the Inams Act, the Government faced certain difficulties with regard to the recognition of the rights of the occupants/inam lands in ryotwari and Zamindari villages. The Government, therefore, amended the Inams Act by A.P.Act No.20 of 1975 inter alia to provide for recognizing the occupancy rights possessed by tenants and for vesting in the Government all types of communal lands in inams. For this purpose, Section 2-A was inserted which came into force with effect from 20.06.1975. Relevant provisions At this stage, we may quote definitions of relevant words and phrases as well as relevant provisions from Estates Act, Estates Abolition Act and Inams Act. Estates Land Act, 1908 3 (16) “Ryoti land” means cultivable land in an estate other than private land but does not include- (a) beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage surplus or irrigation channels; (b) threshing-floor, cattle-stands, village-sites, and other lands situated in any estate which are set apart for the common use of the villagers; (c) land granted on service tenure either free of rent or on favourable rent if granted before the passing of this Act or free of rent if granted after that date, so long as the service tenure subsists. Estates Abolition Act, 1948 2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, - (1) all expressions defined in the Estates Land Act shall have the same respective meanings as in that Act with the modifications, if any, made by this Act; 3. Consequences of Notification of estate:- With effect on and from the notified date and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act- (a) the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1802, the Estates Land Act, and all other enactments applicable to the estate as such except the Andrha Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, shall be deemed to have been repealed in their application to the estate; (b) the entire estate (including minor imams (Post- settlement or pre-settlement) included in the assets of the zamindari estate at the permanent settlement of that estate; all communal lands and porambokes; other non- ryoti lands; waste lands; pasture lands; Lanka lands; forests; mines and minerals; quarries; rivers and streams; tanks and irrigation works; fisheries; and ferries, shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances; and the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Irrigation Cess Act, 1865 and all other enactments applicable to ryotwari areas shall apply to the estate; (c) all rights and interests created in or over the estate before the notified date by the principal or any other land-holder, shall as against the Government cease and determine; (d) the Government may, after removing any obstruction that may be offered, forthwith take possession of the estate, and all accounts, registers, pattas, muchilikas, maps, plans and other documents relating to that estate which the Government may require for the administration thereof: Provided that the Government shall not dispossess any person of any land in the estate in respect of which they consider that he is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta- (i) if such person is a ryot, pending the decision of the Settlement Officer as to whether he is actually entitled to such patta; (ii) if such person is a landholder pending the decision of the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal on appeal, if any, to it as to whether he is actually entitled to such patta; (e) the principal or any other landholder and any other person whose rights stand transferred under clause (b) or cease and determine under clause (c), shall be entitled only to compensation from the Government as provided in this Act; (f) the relationship of landholder and ryot shall as between them, be extinguished; (g) ryots in the estate and persons holding under them shall, as against the Government, be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognized or conferred on them by or under this Act, and any other rights and privileges which may have accrued to them in the estate before the notified date against the principal or any other landholder thereof shall cease and determine and shall not be enforceable against the Government or such landholder. Inams Act, 1956 2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- (c) “Inam land” means any land in respect of which the grant in inam has been made, confirmed or recognized by the Government, land includes any land in the merged territory of Banaganapalle in respect of which the grant in inam has been made, confirmed or recognized by any former Ruler of the territory but does not include an inam constituting an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 (Madras Act 1 of 1908); 2-A. Transfer to, and vesting in the Government of all communal lands, porambokes etc., in inam lands:- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act all communal lands and porambokes, grazing lands, waste lands, forest lands, mines and quarries, tanks, tank-beds and irrigation works, streams and rivers, fisheries and ferries in the inam lands shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances. The above provisions need to be interpreted and understood without ignoring the enacting history of Estates Abolition Act and Inams Act referred to supra. It is essential to know the purpose of making a law so as to understand the Sections or provisions in such law. The literal rule of interpretation is a Golden Rule. If the language is plain, interpretation involves just reading the plain language to understand the law and intention behind it. In National Insurance Company v Laxmi Narain Dhut[6], the Supreme Court summed up the rules of interpretation as below. "Golden Rule" of interpretation of statutes is that statutes are to be interpreted according to grammatical and ordinary sense of the word in grammatical or liberal meaning unmindful of consequence of such interpretation. It was the predominant method of reading statutes. More often than not, such grammatical and literal interpretation leads to unjust results which the Legislature never intended. The golden rule of giving undue importance to grammatical and literal meaning of late gave place to 'rule of legislative intent'. The world over, the principle of interpretation according to the legislative intent is accepted to be more logical. .. When the law to be applied in a given case prescribes interpretation of statute, the Court has to ascertain the facts and then interpret the law to apply to such facts. Interpretation cannot be in a vacuum or in relation to hypothetical facts. It is the function of the legislature to say what shall be the law and it is only the Court to say what the law is. (emphasis supplied) Contextual and purposive interpretation The Court as an interpreter often faces a situation where a provision of law on plain reading might give meaning which was not the intention of the legislature. In such a situation, the Court is not precluded from construing the law keeping in view the purpose of the legislation. The purposive construction warrants reference to the context in which the law is made or a word or phrase occurs in a provision or the object or the purpose for which the statute was enacted. It needs momentary ignorance of the plain words and know the spirit of such law making. This is necessary to avoid absurdity as well as the harm never intended by the legislature. Francis Bennion in his Statutory Interpretation described purposive interpretation as under. “A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by – (a) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose, or (b) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose. Justice Frankfurter of U.S. Supreme Court in an article titled as Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes (47 Columbia Law Reports 527), observed that, “legislation has an aim, it seeks to obviate some mischief, to supply an adequacy, to effect a change of policy, to formulate a plan of Government. That aim, that policy is not drawn, like nitrogen, out of the air; it is evidenced in the language of the statutes, as read in the light of other external manifestations of purpose”. This principle of purposive and meaningful interpretation has been followed by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. I n Reserve Bank of India v Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited[7] it was held: Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. In Allahabad Bank v Canara Bank[8], interpreting the provisions of Recoveries of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the apex Court held that the banks or financial institutions need not obtain leave of the Company Court to invoke the jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovering the debts. In K.Duraiswamy v State of Tamil Nadu[9], it was held that “the mere use of the word ‘reservation’ per se does not have the consequence of ipso facto applying the entire mechanism underlying the constitutional concept of a protective reservation specially designed for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to enable them to enter and adequately represent in various fields. The meaning, content and purport of the expression will necessarily depend upon the purpose and object with which it is used.” In Central Bank of India v State of Kerala[10], the Supreme Court referred to Peerless General Finance and other precedents and laid down that the rule of contextual interpretation, “requires that the Court should examine every word of a statute in its context. In doing so, the Court has to keep in view the preamble of the statute, other provisions thereof, pari materia statute, if any, and the mischief intended to be remitted. Context often provides the key to the meaning of the word and the sense it carries. Its setting gives colour to it and provides a cue to the intention of the legislature in using it”. Construing waste lands in Section 2A of the Inams Act In interpreting “waste land” in Section 2A of the Inams Act, the context in which it is used and the purpose for which Section 2A of the Inams