IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 497 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07/08/2008 in WP NO : 11265 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Govt.of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 T.Munaswamy S/o.Munaswamy R/o.Vengalampalli Village @ Endrapalli Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 T.Muni Krishnaiah S/o.Munaswamy R/o.Vengalampalli Village @ Endrapalli Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 T.Venkata Muni S/o.Munaswamy R/o.Vengalampalli Village @ Endrapalli Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 T.Srinivasulu S/o.Munaswamy R/o.Vengalampalli Village @ Endrapalli Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellants: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondents: MR.G.V.SHIVAJI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.A.NO. 497 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri. Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) 1. This is a writ appeal preferred by the State against the order of learned single Judge in W.P.No. 11265 of 2002 dated 7.8.2008 allowing the writ petition filed by respondents herein. 2. We have heard learned Government Pleader for Assignment in support of the appeal and learned counsel for the respondents. We had also directed the learned Government Pleader for Assignment to produce the records and after due consideration of the matter, we have reserved the case for judgment. The appeal is now being disposed of by this judgment. 3. The present writ petition, out of which the appeal arises, is the second round of litigation. The case of the respondents herein is that prior to 1950 their father was doing business in manufacturing of brass vessels and after sustaining heavy loss in the said business, the family had to work as agricultural labours in the village. After selling all the properties and clearing debts; the father of the respondents had applied for assignment of some Government lands, as they were landless poor persons. Thereupon the Tahasildar, Srikalahasti, after conducting enquiry, assigned five acres of land to each of the respondents in S.No. 319/1 on 30.4.1968. The said land has since been developed by them by cultivating the said land with the help of pipe line from nearby river. They also established a metal factory on lease. Some where in 1981-82 they received a show cause notice for cancellation of their assignment which ultimately resulted in passing of cancellation order dated 22.5.1982 on the ground that the respondents are rich people having a metal factory on lease. Questioning the said order an appeal was preferred by the respondents, which was partly allowed by holding that the respondents can collectively retain 5 acres of land and balance of land can be resumed. Questioning the said order a writ petition being WP No. 1580 of 1987 was filed by the respondents and one of the issues which arose for consideration was whether the father of the respondents had sold all the lands, which he had possessed, under registered sale deed dated 12.4.1952 to discharge the debts incurred in their business and it is only thereafter that the assignment in question was made. According to the appellants, the sale of land is not substantiated by the respondents and thereby their eligibility for the assignment itself was doubted by the appellants and consequently the assignment was cancelled. This Court, while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, pointed out that the crucial issue, as to whether on the date of assignment the respondents were having any property or not, has not been established and accordingly this court set aside the impugned order and the second respondent in the writ petition i.e., the Joint Collector, Chittoor, the appellant No.2 herein, was directed to conduct a fresh enquiry by giving notice to the respondents herein as to whether their father had sold out the entire property in 1952 under a registered sale deed dated 12.4.1952. It was also held that if that is found to be true, the respondents are entitled to 20 acres of land as assigned to them in 1968. 4. While the said order of this court attained finality, a fresh enquiry was conducted by the Joint Collector and he also relied upon the report of Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikalahasti. During the said enquiry, the respondents herein filed a counter specifically asserting that their father T. K. Munuswamy sold away the land to N. Munemma w/o Yellaiah for a consideration of Rs.3,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 10.4.1952 and also a house site to one K. Dharmaiah Chetty of Tirupati for a consideration of Rs.700/- vide registered sale deed dated 25.3.1952 and only thereafter the assignment of five acres of land was made to each of the respondents. The Mandal Revenue Officer in his report confirmed that all the respondents were residing jointly and the respondents had produced sale deeds pleading that their father sold away patta lands in 1952 but found that even under the survey settlement records the aforesaid land stands registered in the name of T.Munaswamy, the father of the respondents and as per survey settlement accounts the respondents’ family was having an extent of 26.86 cents of dry land apart from the assigned land. Since the said land was owned by the father of the respondents, the assignment was sought to be cancelled. The Joint Collector accordingly found that the respondents were wealthy pattadars and ineligible to hold the assignment and consequently cancelled the same. 5. The respondents questioned the said order before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, who has briefly referred to the history of the case and by a short paragraph, concurred with the views of Joint Collector and dismissed the revision petition. Questioning the same, the respondents have filed W.P.No. 11265 of 2002 which has been allowed under the impugned judgment. 6. In this appeal the learned Government Pleader for Assignment has asserted that the theory of sale of all the lands by the father of respondents under the aforesaid sale deed of 1952 is not established and therefore he contended that the impugned orders canceling the assignment are justified. The learned Government Pleader also produced some revenue records to show that the lands, said to have been sold under the aforesaid sale deeds, are still held by the father of respondents. 7. Smt. Vijaya Laxmi, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents-writ petitioners has produced certified copy of the sale deed dated 10.04.1952 and contended that the fact of sale of the property as mentioned in the sale deed is conclusively proved and now it is not open to the appellants to once again claim and presume contrary to the said sale. She has also submitted that the directions of this court in the first writ petition have not been followed by the appellants and they have not found as a fact that the respondents were left with any property in spite of the sale made under a sale deed dated 12.4.1952. 8. The learned single Judge, on a detailed analysis of the orders and events referred to above, found that there is no basis for the conclusion of the Joint Collector or the Commissioner of Land Administration with respect to the specific question which was directed to be determined by order of this Court in the first writ petition referred to above. The learned single Judge found that in spite of fresh opportunity given to the appellants, there is no mention of the extents of lands and their respective survey numbers said to be owned by the respondents at the time of assignment in question and neither the Joint Collector nor the revisional authority has appreciated the said lacunae from the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer and have mechanically confirmed the cancellation orders of assignment. 9. It is to be appreciated that the sale of land by the father of respondents in the year 1952 is conclusively proved by the registered sale deeds and in the absence of any material, there cannot be a presumption contrary to it. Unless there is a specific material to show that the said sale is sham or nominal, it is not open for the appellants to contend that the registered sale deed is to be ignored and the lands sold thereunder are still to be treated as lands belonging to respondents. The aforesaid approach of the Joint Collector and Commissioner of Land Administration under the impugned orders are ex-facie unsustainable, as a strong presumption of sale arises in favour of respondents and also as observed by the learned single Judge that neither the Mandal Revenue Officer nor the Joint Collector nor the Commissioner of Land Administration, in their orders, referred to the survey numbers and the extents which are still said to be owned by the respondents or their parents. In the absence of appellants producing any acceptable material which is sufficient to rebut the presumption arising out of the registered sale deed dated 12.4.1952, relied upon by the respondents, the very conclusions reached by the aforesaid authorities against the respondents, are unsustainable. 10. The learned single Judge has rightly rejected the request of the learned Government Pleader for Assignment seeking remand of the matter once again in view of the fact that from 1982 the proceedings are pending and in spite of the specific directions of this Court, the appellants have not taken any steps and have merely persisted with the passing of cancellation orders of assignment without there being any material in support of the same. We are also not inclined to prolong the agony of respondents by remanding the matter once again. We are satisfied that even prima facie the appellants are unable to substantiate that the respondents were holding any other land on the date of assignment. Further this Court, in the first writ petition referred to above, had already held that if the appellants are unable to substantiate that the respondents are holding any land on the date of assignment, each of the respondents will be entitled to five acres of land, aggregating to 20 acres of land, which was already assigned to them in the year 1968. The said order has attained finality and therefore, it must be given effect to. Since the query posed by this Court in the aforesaid order dated 20.2.1996 in the first writ petition was answered in favour of the respondents, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt. 1.5.2009 KR ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {KMR}