2019 (3) TMI 1690 - SC - Indian Laws

Direction to the Tahsildar Tirupati Rural for implementation of the patta granted to him - Grant of ryotwari patta - execution of the takeed - According to the appellants as per the takeed granting permanent patta to late Sarvepalli Pottaiah the land being the subject matter of the takeed was Punja Manavari Garikala Mitta Chenu that is agricultural dry land. The respondents have disputed the execution of the takeed - HELD THAT - The documents produced by the petitioner upon which evidence sought for implementation are non-existing one in the official records and the land claimed by the petitioner in S.No.234 of Tiruchanur Village of Tirupathi Rural Mandal is not available. Hence question of implementation of the ryotwari pattas said to be granted on fictitious records does not arise. The Single Bench rightly refused to entertain the writ petition as the Collector had questioned the genuineness of the purported ryotwari pattas on the ground that there were no entries with regard to the pattas in the relevant register. The grant of Saswatha Patta and execution of the takeed by the Mahanth of the Mutt in 1940 were also disputed. There were serious allegations of illegal grant of pattas against the Inams Deputy Tehsildar who had purportedly issued the two ryotwari pattas. Moreover the pattas had purportedly been issued without any notice of enquiry in the prescribed form as required under Section 7 of the 1956 Act read with the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules 1957 framed under Section 17 of the 1956 Act. Moreover the entire Survey No.234 had been declared Tank poramboke and brought under Section 2A and therefore inalienable - Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution only on grounds of perversity patent illegality irrationality want of power to take the decision and procedural irregularity. Except on these grounds administrative decisions are not interfered with in exercise of the extra ordinary power of judicial review. The decision of the Collector was based on materials and thus not liable to be interfered with. The High Court very rightly did not interfere with the decision. It was not for the High Court exercising its extra ordinary power of judicial review to reanalyse the evidence on record and adjudicate the disputed question of whether the Mahanth of the Mutt had at all granted Saswatha Patta to the predecessors in interest of the appellants whether the takeed was duly executed by the Mahanth whether the ryotwari pattas were genuine or otherwise valid or not. Nor was it for the High Court to adjudicate the disputed fact of whether the land in question was in fact a water body or the dried bed of a water body. Cultivation is often carried out on the dried bed of water bodies. That does not denude the land of its character as a water body - The High Court rightly based its decision on the declaration of the entire survey area as water body and held in effect that the plots in question had vested in the government free from all encumbrances under Section 2-A of the 1956 Act. The respondents could not therefore be compelled to grant ryotwari pattas in respect of the said plots. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of ryotwari patta granted to the appellants.
2. Classification and vesting of the land in question as "Peddacheruvu Tank".
3. Non-challenge of the Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984 by the appellants.
4. Procedural and evidentiary issues regarding the issuance of ryotwari pattas.
5. Legal implications of Section 2-A of the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956.
6. Grounds for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. Delay, laches, and acquiescence in asserting rights by the appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Ryotwari Patta Granted to the Appellants:
The appellants claimed that their predecessor-in-interest obtained a saswatha patta in 1940 and subsequently ryotwari pattas in 1980. However, the District Collector and the High Court found these pattas to be fabricated. The Collector's investigation revealed that the pattas were not recorded in official registers, and the Inams Deputy Tahsildar who issued them was accused of issuing fake pattas. The High Court upheld the Collector's findings, emphasizing the lack of genuine documentation.

2. Classification and Vesting of the Land as "Peddacheruvu Tank":
The land in Survey No.234 was classified as "Peddacheruvu Tank" in the District Gazette dated 03.09.1984. Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act mandates that communal lands, including tank beds, vest in the government free from encumbrances. The District Collector and the High Court confirmed that the entire extent of 113.67½ acres in Survey No.234 was classified as "Tank Poramboke," making it ineligible for ryotwari patta.

3. Non-Challenge of the Gazette Notification by the Appellants:
The appellants did not challenge the Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984, which classified the land as "Peddacheruvu Tank." The Division Bench noted that without challenging this notification, the appellants could not seek to quash the Collector's order. The High Court highlighted the appellants' failure to address the crucial part of the notification, which was pivotal to their claim.

4. Procedural and Evidentiary Issues Regarding the Issuance of Ryotwari Pattas:
The purported ryotwari pattas were issued without following the prescribed procedure under Section 7 of the Inams Abolition Act. The Inams Deputy Tahsildar did not issue notices or conduct inquiries as required. The High Court found that the pattas were granted based on fictitious records and were not supported by official documentation. The Collector's decision was based on substantial evidence, including the absence of entries in the Register of Ryotwari Pattas.

5. Legal Implications of Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act:
Section 2-A transfers and vests all communal lands, including tank beds, in the government free from encumbrances. The High Court and the Supreme Court emphasized that no individual can claim rights over such lands. The classification of the land as "Peddacheruvu Tank" under Section 2-A rendered it inalienable and not available for ryotwari patta.

6. Grounds for Judicial Review Under Article 226:
Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision-making process for perversity, illegality, irrationality, and procedural irregularity. The High Court found no such grounds to interfere with the Collector's decision. The decision was based on substantial evidence and was not irrational or illegal. The High Court emphasized that it does not sit in appeal over administrative decisions or adjudicate disputed facts.

7. Delay, Laches, and Acquiescence in Asserting Rights:
The appellants delayed applying for ryotwari patta until 1980, over two decades after the 1956 Act came into force. The High Court noted that the appellants were tardy and lethargic in asserting their rights. The delay and failure to challenge the Gazette Notification weakened their case. The Supreme Court agreed that the appeal was liable to be dismissed on grounds of delay, laches, and acquiescence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of the District Collector and the High Court. The Court emphasized that the land in question was classified as "Peddacheruvu Tank" and vested in the government under Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act. The purported ryotwari pattas were found to be fabricated and not supported by official records. The appellants' failure to challenge the Gazette Notification and the delay in asserting their rights further weakened their case. The decision was based on substantial evidence and did not warrant interference under Article 226.