IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4620 of 1997 BETWEEN: Atla Muttaiah and 23 others. ...PETITIONERS AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Authorised Officer (LR) and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. M.R.K. Choudary Counsel for the Respondents: GP For Appeals The Court made the following: - ORDER: This revision is preferred at the instance of the third parties to the extent of questioning the surrender of the land of the petitioners towards excess land of respondents 2 and 3 herein. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: The respondents 2 and 3 herein are declarants in C.C.Nos.398 and 299 of 1975 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam. As per the final orders in LRA.Nos.292 and 293 of 1994 dated 11.01.1996, the declaration was finalized and it was held that the declarants are surplus land holders to the extent of.69.1266 standard holdings (S.H) and another extent of 28.2462 SH respectively. After the said determination proceedings, the Land Reforms Tribunal took up further proceedings under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceilings on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and though the declarants were called upon to surrender the excess land by serving Form - VI notice, the declarants did not file any surrender statement. Thereupon the Land Reforms Tribunal has itself selected the land under Section 10(iv) of the Act. Notice under Form- VIII thereof was published in the villages in which the lands proposed to be taken over are situated. Thereupon several third parties filed claim petitions before the tribunal along with documents to show that they have been in possession of the respective lands. Some of such claims were accepted by the tribunal on the basis of the documents produced by third parties and the tribunal excluded an extent of Ac.344.02 cents situated in villages of Telejerla, Adasarlapadu and Annadevam and the tribunal further directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem to take possession of the remaining land of Ac.4931.36 cents. 3. In this revision petition we are concerned with the said excluded extent of Ac.334.02 cents, as the appeal filed by the Government against the orders of Land Reforms Tribunal, including the aforesaid extent, was allowed under the impugned herein dated 26.07.1997. The petitioners herein are respondents 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 23 to 26, 29, 30 to 38, 43 and 46 to 48 in LRA.No.77 of 1996. As the other respondents have not joined and questioned the order of the appellate tribunal, the decision in this revision petition shall be confined to the petitioners herein and the land claimed by them. 4. I have heard, Sri M.R.K. Choudary, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners herein and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents herein. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that he lands claimed by the petitioners have been in their possession for several decades from 1960 onwards and the validity of their possession in pursuance of the alienation in their favour by the owners/declarants was adjudicated upon by statutory authority under the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulations and their possession having been found lawful under the said regulations, for the purpose of the Act, the said regulations in their favour cannot be ignored so as to take over the possession of the land from the petitioners. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the appellate tribunal has erroneously excluded from consideration the said statutory orders of the competent authority under the aforesaid regulations for the reasons of personal bias against the Officer, who passed the orders under the aforesaid regulations. Learned senior counsel has made serious criticism over the reasoning of the appellate tribunal in refusing to take into consideration the orders of the statutory authority under the regulations. He submits that the villages in question being in the agency area the land transfer regulations referred to above entrust the competent authority; quasi judicial power of adjudication over the legality or otherwise of the alienation and once such adjudication is in favour of the petitioners, for the purpose of Land Reforms Act, the same cannot be ignored. 6. Learned Government Pleader, on the contrary, contended that the Act itself recognized the transfers and the alienation as pleaded by the petitioners do not qualify to be a transfer under the Act. He also contended that the Act has an overriding effect over all other laws as provided under Section 28 of the Act and as such, even if there is an adjudication in favour of the petitioners under the regulations aforesaid, the appellate authority was within its jurisdiction to ignore the same and declined to recognize the alienation in favour of the petitioners. In other words, the learned Government Pleader submits that for the purpose of the Act, which has overriding effect, only the provisions of this Act are relevant and in that view of the matter the impugned order of the appellate tribunal is justified. 7. The original records of the lower Court were circulated to me when I reserved this matter for judgment and the said records were kept in my chambers. In the recent fire accident in the High Court apart from other part of the building, my chambers were also destroyed together with the Almyrahs and the records kept therein including the present record. However, with the case file, the necessary Xerox copies of the relevant orders being available, this revision petition is disposed of on that basis without necessity of going through or referring to the record of lower tribunal. 8. The primary contention, therefore, which needs to be answered is whether the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal was justified in refusing to recognize the orders of the competent authority under land transfer regulations referred to above. As has been mentioned above, the third parties filed objections when the tribunal itself selected the lands proposed to be taken over for surrender. The objections filed by the petitioners were accompanied by documents such as document of transfer (though unregistered), 12 years possession established by Pahanies for the period from 1960 onwards, original Faisal Patti copies of 1956 (Land Transfer Documents prepared by the then Tahsildar). The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms Tribunal) considered the above said documents including the orders passed by the land transfer regulations authority and held that Ac.261.46 cents in Teljerla, Ac.20.78 cents in Adasarlapadu and Ac.61.78 cents in Annadevam village, totaling to Ac.334.02 cents are liable to be deleted from the surrender proceedings as these lands are held by the third parties and they have perfected their title thereto. As against the said orders, the State preferred appeals before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal. 9. Under the impugned order, the appellate tribunal has allowed the appeals by setting aside the order of the land reforms tribunal and the reasoning of the appellate tribunal, primarily, proceeds on the footing that ‘...simply because the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) was satisfied with the sada sale deeds and agreement of sales, which are neither permissible in evidence nor can be relied upon for proof of title, for the reasons best known to him, I am unable to understand as to how the aforesaid regulations will help the third parties to delete the lands from the holdings of the declarants. The appellate authority, however, proceeded to hold that if at all the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) has to leave the lands on the basis of sada sale deeds and agreements of sale, which can be prepared at any time, it is very difficult for the Government to implement the provisions of the A.P. Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulations. The District collector as well as the Government closed their eyes, and allowed the said officer to pass the said orders and the same orders cannot be now be based by the lower tribunal to blindly delete the said lands covered by the said orders. I have to suspect the bonafides of the lower tribunal in deleting the said lands…’ 10. It is, therefore, evident that the appellate authority has examined the matter with a pronounced bias against the competent authority under the Land Transfer Regulation, which has exercised its powers under the said regulations and proceeded to adjudicate upon the legality of the said order passed under the regulations, though the appellate authority was exercising power as an appellate authority under the Land Reforms Act. It is evident from the record [the learned Government Pleader has supplied the Court the Xerox copies of some of the orders of the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Palvancha], orders passed under the aforesaid regulations, that the case under Rule 7 of the Regulations framed under Regulation 1 of 1959 was initiated and a notice under Form-E was issued to the person in possession. In the aforesaid case initiated before the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), the statements of the landowner and the person found in possession was recorded. The occupant had stated that he purchased the respective schedule land from the pattadar/owner, who is the ancestor of the present declarants under simple sale deed (on plain paper) on 20.021968. The land revenue receipts from 1968 onwards were produced and most importantly the owner’s sworn statement recorded by the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) shows that he admitted the alienation and did not claim any right over the schedule land. The Special Deputy Collector found that the said alienation has taken place prior to Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 read with Regulation 1 of 1970 being made applicable to the said area. The Special Deputy Collector was, therefore, of the view that the possession of the transferee cannot be interfered with and further proceedings in the matter were dropped. Similar orders are passed in various matters all of which were marked before the primary tribunal as Exs.A1 to A30 and A33, which include pahanies. The aforesaid documents were thus before the primary tribunal as well as the appellate tribunal and while the primary tribunal accepted the same and excluded the lands, the appellate tribunal had rejected the very same documents and has reversed the findings of the primary tribunal. The appellate tribunal also omitted from consideration the fact that Faisal Patties were also produced and the pahanies and land revenue receipts show the possession of the respective alienee though not under a registered document. 11. The crucial aspect, which has missed the attention of the appellate authority, is that the pattadars representative whose sworn statement was recorded by the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) has accepted the transfer as pleaded by each of the said alienee and has categorically stated that the pattedars have no claim over the said lands. Thus, what is required to be proved by the alienee was admitted by the pattedar and for the purpose of Land Reforms Act, he could at least establish an existing encumbrance on the land viz. the claim of the petitioners herein was accepted by the landlord/pattedar. 12. Under sub-clause (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Land Reforms Act, before passing an order under sub-section (3), (4) or (5) of Section 10, the tribunal shall publish particulars of the land under Form-VII and consider the objections, if any, received in pursuance of such publication. Under Section 10(4) of the Act, if the declarant does not file a statement of surrender within the period fixed therefor, the tribunal is empowered to suo motu localize and select the land to be taken for surrender and under sub-section 5 of Section 10, the tribunal may refuse to accept surrender of any land, which is burdened with an encumbrance. It is now well settled that the Government is not obliged to accept a land from the declarant towards surrender if there is a cloud on the title of the declarant. It is evident form the sworn statement of the declarant before the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) that on his own saying, there is a cloud created on the title with respect to the land in question and the petitioners are claiming the said land and have been in possession thereof for a long number of years. The very object and purpose of surrender proceedings being to ensure that the land is available to the Government for distribution to the needy, the same would stand defeated if persons like the petitioners holding various small extents of land are to be dispossessed from the lands, which have been in their possession for several decades. Further, it is not as if that the Government would loose the surrendered extent of land inasmuch as the declarant is bound to surrender the excess land determined under the Act. Even if a surrender of a particular extent of land burdened with an encumbrance and a cloud on title is not available or accepted by the Government towards surrender on behalf of the declarant, he is still bound to surrender an equivalent extent of land from his other holdings. 13. In my view, therefore, the appellate tribunal was completely unjustified in brushing aside and ignoring the statutory orders of the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) when the lands held by the petitioners were adjudicated upon by the competent authority under Land Transfer Regulations and the said authority was satisfied that the said transfer is not affected by the regulations and was recognized on the basis of the sworn statement of the vendor and the vendee as well as the supporting revenue records, land revenue receipts, faisal patties etc. The appellate tribunal was quite uncharitable and has made unnecessary personal remarks against the Officer, who at the relevant time acted as the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare). The appellate tribunal, therefore, was totally unjustified and committed serious error of law in reversing the order of the primary tribunal by erroneously rejecting Exs.A1 to A30 and A33. The revision petition, therefore, is allowed and the order of the primary tribunal i.e. Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam dated 18.09.1996 passed in C.C.Nos.398, 399/KGM/75 is restored so far as petitioners are concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 18, 2009 DSK