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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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.
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
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
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.