http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF  SURVEY SETTLEMENTS  AND LAND  RECORDS,  A.P

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KUNSAM SARANARAYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/09/1997

BENCH: A. S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      These two  Civil Appeals arise out of a common judgment of the  High Court dated 10.12.1986.  The controversy before us is  limited and revolves around a patta of land measuring 28 acres and 82 cents, which is stated to be poramboke land. The respondents produced the said patta before the Reference court in  the proceedings  under  Section  18  of  the  Land Acquisition Act  for the first time.  The appellant issued a notice under  Section 14-A  of the  Andhra  Pradesh  (Andhra Area) Inams  (Abolition and  conversion Into  Ryotwari) Act, 196 (hereinafter  the Inam  Abolition Act.   In that notice, inter-alia,  it was stated that there was a prima-facie case to suspect  that the  patta, in  question, had been obtained fradulently.  The notice went on to say :      "It is  therefore proposed  to take      up  suomotu  enquiry  as  there  is      genuineness of the patta alleged to      have been issued in this case."      The  respondents   filed   Writ   Petition   No.1225/78 resisting the  claim of  the Government  that the area of 28 acres and  82 cents,  which was  the subject  matter of  the patta, vested  in the Government by virtue of Section 2-A of the Inam  Abolition Act.  That Writ Petition was allowed and it was  held that  the notice  under Section 2-A of the Inam Abolition Act,  in the  facts of the case, was invalid.  The respondents also  filed Writ  Petition No.1798/85  seeking a direction to  the Govt.  to initiate  proceedings under  the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the Patta land, measuring 28 acres  and 82  cents.   That Writ petition was allowed on 24.3.1986. Writ  Appeal No.745/86  was decided  against that order.    After  notice  under  Section  14-A  of  the  Inam Abolition Act was issued on 22.7.1986, the respondents filed yet another  writ Petition  No.12044/86, seeking quashing of that notice.   The  Writ  Appeal  filed  by  the  Government (W.A.No.745/86)  and   the  Writ   Petition  filed   by  the respondents (W.P. 12044/86) were heard together and disposed of by  the common  judgment, against which these two appeals have been filed.      Before the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears the principle  contention that  was convassed  was that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Ryotwari Patta,  dated 3.10.1974,  in respect  of  the  land measuring 28  acres  and  82  cents,  was  a  fradulent  and spurious document.   It  was asserted that no patta had ever been granted  to the  respondents and that the same had been manipulated with  ulterior motives.   In  view of  the stand taken by  the appellant  before  the  High  Court,  and  the counter stand  of the respondents, the Division Bench, after taking  note  of  the  provision  of  the  Act,  issued  the following directions :      "1) The  Government represented  by      the  appropriate   authority  shall      file a  suit  within  three  months      from the  date of  receipt of  this      order under S.14 of the Act against      the  petitioners   challenging  the      genuineness of  the ryotwari  patta      allegedly    granted     to     the      petitioners on  3.10.1974,  by  the      Tahsildar, Narsipatnam  in  respect      of ac.28-82  cents of land in S.No.      1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22      and  23  situated  in  Gopalapatham      village Visakhapatnam District.      2)  The   petitioners  shall  prove      their    claim     regarding    the      genuineness of  the  patta  in  the      aforementioned suit  directed to be      filed.      3) Independent of the suit directed      to be filed by the State Government      as abovementioned,  the petitioners      shall also  file  a  separate  suit      against   the    Government   after      complying   with    the   necessary      formalities f  giving notice  etc.,      claiming compensation  or damage in      respect of  ac.28-82 cents  of land      above  referred   and  "Veeraparaju      Kathu".   The suit  should be filed      within a  period of  4 months  from      the date of receipt of this order.      4) The suit filed by the Government      as  well   as  the  petitioners  in      accordance    with     the    above      directions shall  be entertained by      the court and both of them shall be      tried  jointly.    Considering  the      long-standing  claims   the   court      should    make    every    possible      endeavour to  dispose of  both  the      suits  within   a  period  of  nine      months from the date of institution      of suits.      5)  If   the  Civil  courts  should      upheld  the   genuineness  of   the      patta, a  decree would be passed by      the civil court granting damages or      compensation as  may be  considered      appropriate on such basis as may be      found  reasonable   by  the   civil      court.      6) It is needless to state that the      Government   as    well   as    the      petitioners  will  be  entitled  to      seek further  remedies if  they are

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

    aggrieved  by   the  judgment   and      decree of the civil court."      Learned counsel  for the appellant submits that in view of the  provision of  Section 14  of the Inam Abolition Act, which bears  the  jurisdiction  of  the  civil  courts,  the judgment of  the High  Court, is  not sustainable. We cannot agree.      A perusal  of the  notice issued  under Section 14-A of the Act shows that the enquiry was proposed to determine the genuineness or  otherwise of  the patta  relied upon  by the respondents.   It was, therefore, essentially the allegation of the  appellants that  the ryotwari patta dated 3.10.1974, was a fradulent and spurious one, which had weighed with the authorities to  issue Section  14-A notice  in the  terms in which it  was done  in the  present case.   Considering  the language of  that notice  and the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the directions given by the Division Bench of the High Court (supra) do not suffer from any error whatsoever and  call for  no interference at our hands.  The determination of  the genuineness  of the patta in the civil court, as directed by the Division Bench was a proper course to be  adopted in  the peculiar  facts and  circumstances of this case.   Section  14-A of  the Inam Abolition Act, which ban the  jurisdiction of  the civil  court to  question  the decision  of   the  Tehsildar,  the  Revenue  court  or  the Collector under  the Act  itself, carves  out  an  exception "where such decision is obtained by misrepresentation, fraud or collusion  of parties".  The directions given by the High Court (supra) are, therefore, justified by the provisions of Section 14  itself. We  do not  find any  cause to interfere with the  impugned judgment.   The  appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed, but, without any order as to costs.      We clarify  that because of the pendency of the appeals in this  court, the time granted by High Court, in direction No.1 and  direction No.3,  has since  expired.   The parties shall, therefore,  have the  same period, as is mentioned in direction No.1  and direction  No.3, respectively,  to  take appropriate action  and that period would start running from today.