Supreme Court of IndiaGovt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Gudepu Sailoo & Ors on 28 April, 2000Author:S.Saghir AhmadBench:S.S.Ahmad,D.P.WadhwaPETITIONER:
GOVT.  OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
GUDEPU SAILOO & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28/04/2000

BENCH:
S.S.Ahmad, D.P.Wadhwa




JUDGMENT:S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J.Leave granted.  On 21.10.1961, each of the respondents
was  allotted  an  area	 of 7.06 acres	of  Government	land
situated  in  village	Manchirevula,  District	 Rangareddy,
situated  at  a distance of about 10 miles from the city  of
Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh.  This assignment was subject to
two conditions, namely, (i) that the land would be used only
for  cultivation  and  (ii) that it would not  be  alienated
regarding  which  each	one  of the assignees  had  given  a
written	 undertaking that they would not sell the land under
any circumstance without the prior sanction of the Tehsildar
and  in case the land was sold, it would revert back to	 the
Government.  (Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.  M.N.	 Rao and Mr.
Sudhir	Chandra object to this undertaking being read by  us
on  the	 ground	 that  this was not filed  before  the	High
Court).	  In exercise of the power conferred bySection	 172of  the	 Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land  Revenue	Act,
1317  F.,  the Government had made THE LAONI RULES, 1950  of
which  Rule  19 is quoted below:- "19.	The allottee of	 the
land  shall  prepare the land for cultivation  within  three
years of being placed in possession and commence cultivation
of the land thereafter.	 The pattadar may be rejected by the
order  of  the	Collector  for breach of any  of  the  above
conditions:   Provided that he has been served with a notice
calling	 upon him to comply with the conditions which he has
violated  and he fails to comply with it within three months
of   the  date	of  service   thereof.	 If  land  has	been
transferred   in  contravention	 of   the  conditions,	 the
Collector  may eject the transferee." ( Emphasis supplied  )
Permission  to	occupy the Government land is given  on	 the
prescribed  Form  'G'.	One of the conditions  contained  in
Form  'G' is that the "grantee is not empowered to  transfer
the  occupancy without the sanction previously obtained from
the  Collector".   Under  the	Revised	 Assessment  Policy,
published  in  Part  II	 of  Andhra  Pradesh  Gazette  dated
31.7.1958  (pages 771-773), which again was made in exercise
of the powers conferred bySection 172of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana  Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F., it was provided
in  Part VI thereof as under:- "VI.  Terms and conditions of
assignment:-  (i)  the assignment of lands shall be free  of
market	value;	 (ii) lands assigned shall be heritable	 but
not  alienable;	 (iii)lands assigned shall be brought  under
cultivation  within three years;  (iv) no land tax shall  be
collected for the first three years except for the extent if
any,  which  has  already been	brought	 under	cultivation.
Water  rate  shall,  however, be charged if  the  lands	 are
irrigated with Government water;  and (v) cultivation should
be  by	the  assignee or the members of his family  or	with
hired labour under the supervision of himself or a member of
his  family." Thus, under the original Laoni Rules, 1950  as
also  under  the  Revised  Policy  published  in  1958,	 the
alienation of the assigned land was prohibited.	 While under
the  Laoni  Rules, 1950, the alienation or transfer  without
the previous sanction of the Collector was prohibited, under
the  Revised Policy, it was clearly provided that though the
assigned  lands	 would	be  heritable,	they  would  not  be
transferred.   On  14th of August, 1991, the respondents  to
whom  the land was assigned, executed a Power of Attorney in
favour	of  a builder, M.A.  Baksh, giving him, inter  alia,
the  following	powers:-  "5.	To  negotiate,	enter	into
agreements for and/or let lease or licence the said property
or  any	 portion thereof to such person(s) or body  and	 for
such  consideration  and upon such terms and conditions	 and
for  such purpose(s) as my said attorney may in his absolute
discretion  deem fit.  6.  To negotiate and agree to  and/or
to  enter into agreement, to sell/develop/lease/mortgage the
said property or to sell, convey, lease, mortgage, assign or
to  otherwise  transfer	 the said property  or	any  portion
thereof to such person(s) or body and for such consideration
and  upon such terms and conditions and for such  purpose(s)
as the said attorney may in his absolute discretion deem fit
and to collect and receive the considerations thereof and to
give  a	 valid	receipts  therefor.    7.   To	enter	into
agreement(s)  to develop the said property by laying  roads,
drainage,  water  connections, Electricity  connection	etc.
and	 or	     erecting	   individual/multistoreyed,
residential/commercial buildings thereon with any person(s),
firms,	company/companies  or  society/societies  upon	such
terms and conditions as my said attorney may in his absolute
discretion  deem  fit." Acting upon the Power  of  Attorney,
M.A.   Baksh  applied  to  the Mandal  Revenue	Officer	 and
obtained  a  Memo dated 23.9.1992 from him that the sale  of
land  was  not	hit  by the  provisions	 ofAndhra  Pradesh
Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.  In the
meantime,  the Inspector-General of Police, Special Security
Force,	Andhra Pradesh, sent a requisition on 12.11.1993  to
the  Government	 for  acquisition of the  land	situated  in
Manchirevula Village, Rejendranagar Mandal for setting up of
operational  Headquarters with residential accommodation for
the  Police  Academy.	It  was, at  this  stage,  that	 the
validity   of  the  assignments	 made	in  favour  of	 the
respondents   in   1966	  was	examined  and	on   certain
irregularities	 having	 been  noticed	 in   making   those
assignments,  it  was decided to take action  underSection
166-Bof  the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land  Revenue
Act,  1317 Fasli and, therefore, a notice, requiring them to
show  cause why the assignment of land made in their  favour
in  1961 be not cancelled, was issued to the respondents  on
28.3.1994  by  the  District  Revenue Officer.	 It  was  on
receipt	 of the show cause notice that the respondents filed
Writ  Petition No.  9106 of 1994 in the Andhra Pradesh	High
Court  challenging  the validity of the notice.	  This	Writ
Petition  was  disposed	 of  by a learned  Single  Judge  on
3.5.1994  by  the following order:- "This writ	petition  is
filed  for  a writ of certiorary by calling for the  records
relating  to the impugned order dt.  28.3.1994 of the second
respondent  and quash the same, by the impugned notice dated
28.3.1994  the	Distt.	Collector Ranga Reddy has  issued  a
show  cause  notice  to the petitioner as to why  the  Patta
granted	 earlier should not be cancelled in view of  certain
alleged	 contraventions.   However,  it is the case  of	 the
petitioner  that  he  has  not	submitted  his	explanation,
instead	 furnished  in	this court.  This writ	petition  is
premature  as  it  is filed against the show  cause  notice.
However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case,  I  direct  the petitioner to submit  his	 explanation
within a period of one week from today and the same shall be
considered  by the second respondent.  Pending consideration
of   his   explanation,	  the	petitioner  shall   not	  be
dispossessed.	Subject	 to  above   the  writ	petition  is
disposed  of  at the stage of admission." It may  be  stated
that  the  second respondent in the Writ Petition to whom  a
direction  was issued to consider the explanation which	 was
to  be	submitted  by  the   respondents  was  the  District
Collector,  Rangareddy	District.  It was he who had  issued
the  show  cause  notice dated 28.3.1994.  Pursuant  to	 the
judgment passed by the High Court, the respondents submitted
their  explanations  to	 the  show cause  notice  which	 was
considered  by	the District Revenue Officer and he, by	 his
order  dated 15.9.1994, held that there was no	irregularity
in  the	 assignment  of lands to the  respondents.   It	 was
further	 held by him that the respondents were in possession
over  the  assigned  lands in pursuance of  the	 Certificate
granted	 to  them  in  Form `G' issued	on  21.10.1961	and,
therefore, the assignment was not affected by the subsequent
G.O.Ms.	 No.1122, dated 29.6.1961 by which the assignment of
lands  falling within 10 miles of Hyderabad City was banned.
This  order  was  examined by the Collector who was  of	 the
opinion	 that the District Revenue Officer had not  examined
certain	 vital aspects of the matter and consequently by his
order dated 3rd of January, 1995, he suspended the operation
of the order dated 15.9.1994, passed by the District Revenue
Officer.   This	 order was challenged by the respondents  in
Writ  Petition	No.484	of  1995.    In	 the  meantime,	 the
Collector  wrote to the Government on 31st of July, 1995  to
ratify the action indicated by him in his order dated 3rd of
January,  1995.	  By order dated 24th of January, 1996,	 the
Government  ratified  the  Collector's order  dated  3rd  of
January,  1995 and directed him to proceed with the  enquiry
and  pass  final  order.  This order of the  Government	 was
challenged  by the respondents in Writ Petition	 No.7221/96.
By a common judgment dated 1st of September, 1997, a learned
Single	Judge  of  the	High Court  allowed  both  the	Writ
Petitions and quashed the order of the Government dated 24th
of   January,	1996.	It  may	 be  stated  that   in	 the
counter-affidavit,  filed  on  behalf of the  Government  of
Andhra Pradesh (appellants), it was, inter alia, stated that
the respondents had alienated the lands in favour of a third
person.	 They had converted the agricultural lands into non-
agricultural lands and had also appointed a General Power of
Attorney  in favour of a developer, for developing and	sale
of the plots, who converted the lands into residential plots
in  the	 name and style of "Bakshi Estates".  The  State  of
Andhra	Pradesh,  thereafter, filed two appeals	 before	 the
Division  Bench	 but the Division Bench took up only one  of
the  two  appeals,  namely, Writ Appeal	 No.1487/98  and  by
judgment  dated	 14th of September, 1998, it  dismissed	 the
said  appeal  and maintained the order of the  Single  Judge
that  the  assignment  of  lands,  made	 in  favour  of	 the
respondents  thirty years ago, could not be touched.  We may
observe	 that  when two writ appeals were filed against	 the
common	judgment  and  there  were  two	 distinct  questions
involved  in  the appeal, both the appeals should have	been
heard  together.  However, having regard to the facts of the
present	 case, we are of the view that since the High  Court
in  the	 first	Writ  Petition, namely,	 Writ  Petition	 No.
9106/94, which was filed by the respondents against the show
cause  notice  dated  28.3.1994	  for  cancellation  of	 the
assignment  made  in their favour, had itself  directed	 the
respondents  to	 submit their explanation to the show  cause
notice, and had directed the Collector, Rangareddy District,
who  was arrayed as second respondent in that Writ Petition,
to  consider  and dispose of the explanation, there  was  no
occasion  to challenge the action initiated by the Collector
at  the interlocutory stage.  The mandamus which was  issued
in  Writ Petition No.9106/94 consisted of a direction to the
respondents  to	 submit their explanation to the show  cause
notice	issued to them for cancellation of the assignment of
lands made in their favour and a direction to the Collector,
Rangareddy  District,  to  consider   and  dispose  of	that
explanation.   The explanation submitted by the	 respondents
was, however, considered by the District Revenue Officer who
was of the view that the assignment of lands, made in favour
of  the respondents, could not be cancelled and consequently
dropped	 the  proceedings.  It was, at this stage, that	 the
Collector  intervened in the matter vide order dated 3rd  of
January,  1995	and  suspended the operation  of  the  order
passed by the District Revenue Officer and proceeded himself
to  enquire into the matter by writing to the Government  on
31st  of  July, 1995, to ratify his action.  As pointed	 out
earlier, the Government, by its order dated 24th of January,
1996,  ratified	 the  action of the Collector.	 It  is	 not
disputed  that	on account of the proceedings, initiated  by
the  respondents in the High Court, the Collector could	 not
complete   the	proceedings.   There   has,  thus,  been   a
non-compliance	of the mandamus issued by the High Court  in
respondents'  own Writ Petition No.9106/94.  The High  Court
in  the impugned judgment has observed as under:- "We do not
find  any  infirmity in the reasoning of the learned  Single
Judge.	 In  any  event, the District  Revenue	Officer	 was
vested with the power underSection 166-Band in exercise of
such  a	 power he passed an order recording therein that  it
will  neither  be  fair nor proper to reopen  the  issue  of
assignment  which took place three decades back by  invoking
the  provisions	 ofSection 166-Bof  the  A.P.(T.A.)Land
Revenue	 Act,  1317Fasli.  We also record  our	 concurrence
with the observations of the learned Single Judge and record
that  no exception can be taken to the order of the District
Revenue Officer and the order under appeal cannot be said to
be  suffering from any infirmity.  There is no merit in	 the
appeal.	  As  such, this appeal fails and is dismissed.	  No
order  as  to  costs."	We  cannot  subscribe  to  the	view
expressed by the High Court in so far as the order passed by
the District Revenue Officer is concerned.  Since a mandamus
was  issued  to the Collector, Rangareddy District, to	hear
and  dispose  of the explanation, which was required  to  be
submitted  by  the  respondents in reply to the	 show  cause
notice	issued to them, the District Revenue Officer had  no
jurisdiction  to  consider  the matter in violation  of	 the
direction  of  the  High Court.	 As a matter  of  fact,	 the
explanation  to	 the show cause notice had to  be  submitted
before the Collector and the Collector alone had to consider
and  take  a  final  decision in  the  matter.	 The  action
initiated by the Collector and the ratification of his order
by  the State Government are matters which should have	been
allowed	 to take final shape instead of being challenged  at
the  interlocutory stage by the respondents.  That being so,
there  is  no  necessity  of going into the  merits  of	 the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with
regard	to the provisions ofSection 166-Band166-Cof	 the
Andhra	Pradesh	 (Telangana  Area) Land	 Revenue  Act,	1317
Fasli.	 We, therefore, dispose of this appeal finally	with
the  direction to the Collector to complete the proceedings,
initiated  by him by his order dated 3rd of January, 1995 as
ratified  by  the  Government  by its order  dated  24th  of
January,  1995,	 at  an early date in accordance  with	law.
There shall be no order as to costs.