http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: EAST CITY DEFENCE PERSONNEL WELFARE ASSOCIATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF A.P.  AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/07/1999

BENCH: M.J.Rao, N.Santosh Hegde

JUDGMENT:

     M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.

     Leave granted.

     This appeal has been preferred by the appellant -

     association  -  which  consists of  defence  personnel -against

     the  judgment  of  the Division Bench  of  the  Andhra Pradesh

     High Court in W.A.No.1251/97 dated 2.3.98 whereby the

     judgment   of  the  learned   Single  Judge  in   W.P. NO.6468/97

     dated  29.7.97  was  affirmed.  In  this  appeal,  the appellant -

     association  is  aggrieved  by  the  judgment  of  the learned

     Single  Judge as affirmed by the division Bench to the extent

     that the court enabled 5th respondent ( Andhra Pradesh

     Bhoodan Board) to act as receiver in regard to the

     properties which are the subject matter of the writ

     petition.

     For the purpose of understanding the dispute in this

     appeal,  it  is  necessary  to refer  briefly  to  the various

     proceedings taken out by the parties earlier namely,

     O.S.238/89,  pending before the IInd Additional Judge, City

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

     Civil Court, Hyderabad, judgment dated 3.12.92 of the

     learned Single Judge of the High Court of Hyderabad in

     W.P.9211/90,  judgment of another learned Single Judge of the

     High   Court  dated  29.1.97   in  W.P.8280/95,   W.P. 22745/94 which

     is  said  to be pending in the High Court and  finally the

     judgment dated 29.7.97 in W.P.6468/97 out of which the writ

     appeal which is the subject matter of this appeal has

     arisen.

     We shall refer to the above proceedings to the extent

     necessary  to highlight the limited issue that  arises in this

     appeal before us.

     A landlord named Chatur Girijee of Rangapur village

     donated  his lands to the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board

     on  8.2.52.   The Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan  Yagna  Board entered

     into an agreement with Narne Ranga Rao and others of

     Gunrock Enclave Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.,

     Secundrabad  under  which the Board was to  allot  200 acres at

     Rangapur village to the above said persons in exchange to

     200  acres to be provided by the said Ranga Rao to the Board.

     On  the ground that the said Ranga Rao had given  only 42

     acres  32  guntas in Edira village to the  Board,  the Board

     allotted  only  42 acres 32 guntas to the  said  Ranga Rao.

     Ranga  Rao  and others took conveyance of the said  42 acres 32

     guntas   and  sought  specific   performance  of   the agreement

     seeking  the  sale  of  the  remaining  158  acres  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

Rangapur

     village  and for that purpose filed a suit  O.S.238/89 in the

     Court of the IInd Additional Judge, City Civil Court,

     Hyderabad.   It  appears that the said Court has  also passed

     interim  orders.  The suit is still pending.  However, the 42

     acres  and  32  guntas referred to above  is  not  the subject of

     any dispute between the parties.

     It is the grievance of the Board that the said Ranga

     Rao  and  the Society negotiated directly  with  other allottees

     of Bhoodan Land and purchased land in violation of the

     provisions of the A.P.  Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965. It is

     this  land that is subject matter of the writ petition out of

     which this appeal arises.

     A show cause notice dated 16.1.90 was issued by the

     Mandal  Revenue  Officer, Bibinagar to the said  Ranga Rao who

     is the President of the Narne Estates Pvt.  Ltd and to the

     Gunrock Enclave Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

     Secundrabad,  to  show cause why action should not  be taken

     under  the  A.P.   Bhoodan and Gramdan Act,  1965  for alleged

     violation  of  the  provisions of the Act.   The  said notice was

     received  and a reply was sent on 27.1.90.  No  orders were

     passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the reply, but a

     further  notice  was issued by him on 13.6.90  on  the same

     allegations as in the earlier notice.  The validity of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

     notice  dated  13.6.90 was questioned by  the  Gunrock Enclave

     Cooperative  Housing  Society Ltd, Narne Estates  Pvt. Ltd and

     one N.  Gopal Naidu in W.P.9211/90.  After hearing the

     respective parties, the learned Judge issued certain

     directions  that the Bhoodan Board could issue  notice to the

     affected  parties  including the writ petitioners,  in respect

     of  the subject matter of the Mandal Revenue Officer’s notice

     dated  13.6.90 and afford them an opportunity of being heard

     and decide the dispute between the parties, namely the

     dispute  which  was  raised in the show  cause  notice issued by

     the Mandal Revenue Officer.  This direction was issued in

     view  of  an  earlier ruling of the High  Court  dated 16.12.76

     in W.P.4503/75 which had held that after the enactment of

     the A.P.  Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965, the revenue

     authorities  had no power to deal with any land  which was

     covered  by  the  Act and that it was only  the  Board which

     could  deal  with the disputes arising under the  Act. The

     learned  Single  Judge directed that within one  month from the

     date  of  the receipt of the copy of the  judgment  in writ

     petition,  the  Revenue  Officer should  transfer  the papers

     relating to the show cause notice to the Bhoodan Board and

     that  within  four months thereafter, the  said  Board should

     issue  a notice to the writ petitioners and dispose of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

     proceedings   in   accordance   with  the   provisions contained in

     the Act and the rules framed thereunder.  The learned

     Single  Judge of the High Court observed that  insofar as the

     suit No.OS.  238/89 was concerned, the same could be

     adjudicated on its own merits without reference to any

     observations  in the writ petition.  The learned Judge also

     stated that any adjudication to be made by the Bhoodan

     Board,  would  not come in the way of the decision  in the said

     suit,  inasmuch the said suit was instituted prior  to the

     issuance of the first show cause notice dated 16.1.90. The

     learned Judge also stated that whatever interim orders were

     passed  in  the  suit, they would  continue  till  the disposal of

     the said suit, unless varied or annulled in accordance with

     law.

     Thereafter, the Bhoodan Board nominated one Shri

     Kodanda  Ram  Reddy  to  conduct  an  enquiry.   After hearing

     objections  of  the parties, he submitted a report  on 16.8.93

     to  the Board.  The Board approved the report in  toto on

     23.8.93 and sent it to the Mandal Revenue Officer for

     necessary action.  It appears that as per the decision of the

     Board,  the  lands  which were in the  name  of  Narne Estates

     Pvt.  Ltd.  in Survey Nos.  22 to 27, 29 to 41, 43, 45 to 60,

     63  to 68, 70 to 74, 79, 80 and 85 of Rangapur village were

     directed  to be restored to the Board.  It was  stated that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

     individual notices were issued on 13.10.93 to various

     assignees  of  the  Bhoodan Board who had  sold  their lands to

     Narne Estates Pvt.  Ltd and replies were received from 25

     assignees.  The Bhoodan Board found the replies

     ’unsatisfactory’.   A  copy of the proceedings of  the Board has

     not  been placed before this Court and it is not clear what

     reasons  were  given  by  the Board to  say  that  the replies of

     the assignees were unsatisfactory.  The Bhoodan Board

     terminated  the  pattas granted to the said  assignees and

     intimated the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer and

     requested  him  to take action to restore the land  to the

     Board  and make proposals for fresh assignments of the land

     to  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.  The  Board issued a

     letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer on 14.12.1993

     requesting him to take action to restore the lands to

     Bhoodan  Board for fresh assignments to the  Scheduled Castes

     and Scheduled Tribes.

     It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the

     Government   itself   that   Mandal  Revenue   Officer thereafter

     served  a  show  cause  notice on  the  assignees  and cancelled

     the  allotments of the Bhoodan lands vide  proceedings B/92-94

     dated  25.5.94 and that aggrieved by the orders of the Mandal

     Revenue  Officer, Shri Miralam Kistaiah and 28  others who

     were  the assignees/allottees/occupants approached the High

     Court  in W.P.No.22745/94 and obtained orders of  stay

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

in

     W.P.M.P.no.28335/94.  It is stated that the said writ

     petition is still pending in the High Court.

     It appears that the All India Scheduled Castes Rights

     Protection  Society  and Ors.  filed a  Writ  Petition No.8280/95

     stating  that  in spite of the directions of the  High Court in

     W.P.NO.9211/90  dated  3.12.92 referred to earlier  no action

     was  initiated  by the Bhoodan Board and others.   The said writ

     petition was disposed of on 29.1.97 directing the

     respondents therein to expedite the proceedings.

     We now come to the latest order of the Mandal Revenue

     Officer dated 8.3.97 which was impugned in W.P.6468/97 filed

     by  the defence employees who are members of the  East City

     Defence  Personnel  Welfare   Association  (registered No.387/91)

     represented  by P.R.  Krishna Rao.  This writ petition was

     taken up for consideration alongwith W.P.6497/97 filed by

     the  East  City Defence Personnel Welfare  Association and W.P.

     4707/97 filed by the Narne Estates Pvt.  Ltd.

     The impugned order dated 8.3.97 of the Mandal Revenue

     Officer states that the said Officer has been directed by

     the  Collector,  Nalgonda  to take action as  per  the judgment

     of the High Court in W.P.8280/95 dated 29.1.97 and as

     requested by the Bhoodan Board in their letter dated

     31.12.93.   The officer then says cryptically that "in view

     of  the above facts I do hereby take the possession of the

     Bhoodan  lands in Survey Nos.  22 to 27, 29 to 41, 43,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

45 to

     60,  63  to 68, 70 to 74, 79, 80 and 85 measuring  507 acres

     and  34  1/2  guntas as per the Annexure  situated  at Rangapoor

     village of Bibinagar mandal alongwith the following

     structures:

     1.  Administrative Building

     2.  Guest House

     3.  Shopping Complex 4.  Godown

     5.  Water Tanks (2)

     6.  Other Buildings (3)

     and excluding 42 acres and 32 guntas covered in Survey Nos.

     32,  33,  54, 69, 71 and 72." It will be noticed  that this

     extent  is  quite large while the land covered by  the suit OS

     238/89  was  158  acres.   The  appellants  -  defence personnel

     contended in the writ petition that the land in their

     possession was extensive and there were buildings and

     structures thereon and that the officer could not have taken

     and  did not , in fact, take physical possession.   He had also

     no power under law to pass such an order.

     The learned Single Judge in his judgment in writ

     petition  No.6468/97  and batch dated 29.7.97 (out  of which

     this  appeal  has  ultimately arisen)  held  that  the Mandal

     Revenue  Officer  had no power to pass the above  said order

     dated  8.3.97  under any statute and that even  if  it could be

     said  that  he  had exercised some  powers  under  the Andhra

     Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, he had violated the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

     principles  of  natural  justice as he had  not  given notice to

     the  defence personnel and others and that his  action was

     wholly arbitrary.  Further, the officer could not have taken

     physical possession of Ac 500 and buildings which were in

     the  possession of the various writ petitioners, by  a single

     stroke  of his pen and, therefore, it was only a paper order

     and  no  physical  delivery  was taken  by  him.   The learned

     Judge  further  clarified that neither in  W.P.9211/90 and in

     W.P.8280/95  nor in the writ petitions before him, any rights

     of  title  between any of the parties were decided  or were

     being  decided.  It would be for the Bhoodan Board  or for the

     aggrieved parties to approach the Civil Court for

     adjudication  of their disputes of title.  But  having said so,

     the  learned  Judge proceeded further to  appoint  the Bhoodan

     Board as Receiver pending initiation of any such

     proceedings by the Board or by the other parties.

     To the extent that the learned Judge appointed the

     Bhoodan  Board as receiver, the defence personnel  who were

     the writ petitioners were aggrieved and they filed the writ

     Appeal.   No appeal was filed by the Bhoodan Board  or the

     Mandal Revenue Officer.  The said writ appeal filed by the

     appellant   association   was,  as   already   stated, dismissed.  It

     is  against this order that this appeal has been filed by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

     said association.

     We have heard the learned senior counsel for the

     appellant   Shri  R.   Sundaravardan   and   Shri   A. Raghuveer,

     learned  senior counsel for the respondents  alongwith Shri K.

     Ram  Kumar, Ms.  Asha G.  Nair, Shri Santhynarayan and Shri

     S.V.  Deshpande and others.

     After perusing the various proceedings and the counter

     affidavit  filed before this Court, we are of the view that

     there  was  no justification for the learned Judge  to appoint

     a  receiver,  much less the Bhoodan Board as  receiver while

     at the same time holding that no question of title has been

     or   was  being  decided.   The   case  of  the   writ petitioners is

     that  the  order of the Mandal Revenue  Officer  dated 8.3.97

     whereby  he recorded that he has taken the  possession of 507

     acres and 34 1/2 guntas, is a farce and no physical

     possession had, in fact, been taken or could have been

     taken.   This  plea has been accepted by  the  learned Single

     Judge.   The  learned  Judge has also  said  that  the parties or

     the  Board  can  file a suit to  prove  title.   These findings

     and observations have become final since neither Board nor

     the Mandal Revenue Officer have filed any writ appeal. If

     the  Mandal  Revenue  Officer has not  taken  physical possession

     it  is obvious that the possession is, in fact, and in law

     with the various writ petitioners.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

     If the physical possession of this land has remained

     with  the  various writ petitioners, as found  by  the learned

     Single  Judge, such possession, in our opinion,  could not

     have been ordinarily interfered with by the Court by

     appointing  a receiver and that too without going into any

     question   of   prima  facie   title  or  balance   of convenience.  The

     question  of  title  has been left  open,  as  already stated.  We

     do  not,  therefore,  find any justification  for  the learned

     Single  Judge  to appoint a Receiver and that too  the rival

     party,  the  Bhoodan  Board as receiver,  pending  the initiation

     of proceedings in the Civil Court by the parties.

     The learned Single Judge has also directed status quo

     to  be maintained by the parties.  It is obvious  that as and

     when  the parties approach the Civil Court it will  be open to

     that  Court  to pass appropriate interlocutory  orders which it

     may  deem  fit  in the circumstances of  the  case  by taking into

     consideration  all  facts which may be brought to  its notice

     and  without  being hindered by the status  quo  order passed by

     the  learned  Single  Judge.  Further,  if  any  other orders are

     necessary  in  the pending civil suit, in relation  to its

     subject  matter, the parties thereto can approach that court

     also.

     In the result, the direction of the learned Single

     Judge in his judgment dated 29.7.97 as affirmed in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

writ

     appeal,  in  so  far  as   the  learned  Single  Judge appointed the

     Bhoodan  Board as receiver is set aside.  The order in the

     writ  appeal is also set aside to that extent.  It  is open

     to  the  Board  or  to   the  other  parties  to  take appropriate

     proceedings in a Civil Court in regard to the title to the

     property  which is subject matter of the notice and of the

     writ petition and seek appropriate interim orders.  It will

     then  be  for  the Civil Court to  pass  such  interim orders as

     it  may deem fit in the circumstances of the case  and the

     status quo order passed by the learned Single Judge in the

     writ  petition  will not come in the way of the  Civil Court

     passing  appropriate  orders.  It is also open to  the parties

     to  obtain  any further orders in O.S.238/89,  pending before

     the   IInd  Additional  Judge,   City   Civil   Court, Hyderabad, in

     relation to the land covered by that suit.

     We, accordingly allow this appeal and dispose of the

     same  in  the  light of the  directions  given  above. There will

     be no order as to costs.

     I.A.No.1/98

     I.A.No.1/98 is filed for impleadment by the writ

     petitioners  in the writ petition as party respondents in

     this  appeal.   In view of the orders passed by us  in the main

     appeal  we  do  not  think   it  necessary  to  permit impleadment of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

     these petitioners in the present proceedings.  It will be

     open  to  them to take appropriate steps as  they  may deem fit

     in  accordance  with  law.   I.A.1/98  is  accordingly dismissed.

     ................CJI.