Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2003 (2) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hed from that date and their administration stood vested in the State. Raja S.V. Jagannadha Rao was the last Jagirdar. Respondent No.s 3 and 4 are his legal representatives [hereinafter referred to as 'the Pattedars']. It is the case of the pattedars that when the State took over the Jagir, the Forest Department of the State took under its control the forest land, measuring acres 1,20,824. However, the lands comprised in Survey No. 11 of Asadpur village measuring acres 1523 and Survey No. 168 of Malachintnapalli village measuring acres 9000 continued to remained in the possession of the Raja as his patta lands. Soon thereafter, Notification No. 282 under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Forest Act, 1355 Fasli [for short, 'the Forest Act'] was issued on December 4, 1950. The notification enumerated fourteen villages comprising of an extent of 93,030 acres of Kollapur taluk Mahboobnagar District, which was named as Kollapur range. It appears that a notification under Section 30 of the Forest Act was also issued but that notification is not on record. In the year 1953, re-survey of the erstwhile Jagir was conducted. The lands in question, namely, Surve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re was nothing on record to show that they were taken over along with the Jagir and other forest area under the supervision of the Government. A letter No. D.Dis.J/2706/72 dated 21st October, 1972 from the R.D.O. addressed to the Collector discloses that from the accounts maintained for the period prior to the re-survey in the year 1953, rectification of the record and issuance of supplementary setwar, it was proved that the lands in question were the personal property of the late Raja. Further, on January 16, 1974, a letter was addressed by the Director of Settlement to the Chief Conservator of Forest that the lands in question were in possession of the respondents prior to the abolition of Jagirs and that the matter did not require any further examination as the rectification of record was made under Section 87 of the Land Revenue Act. There is a reference to the report of the R.D.O. dated 31st October, 1975, which was made on inspection and after making local enquiries, stating that the lands were in possession of the Pattedars as private patta land. While so, the Government of Andhra Pradesh proposed to acquire the lands in question which were likely to be submerged upon comple....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... still persisted and he filed Writ Petition (C) No. 3414 of 1982 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the order of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record dated December 5, 1981. The trial court, after conducting trial and on consideration of the evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs, insofar as the reliefs of declaration of title and rendition of accounts but declined the relief of award of compensation/damages by judgment and decree dated March 25, 1985. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, the defendants - the Land Acquisition Officer, Mahboobnagar District and the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Collector, Mahboobnagar - filed Appeal No. 2291 of 1986, before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The afore-mentioned Writ Petition (C) No. 3414 of 1983 and Appeal No. 2291 of 1986 were heard together and dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by a common judgment on April 21, 1989, which is the subject matter of challenge in the appeals before us. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the Pattedars-respondents in Civil Appeal No. 8530 of 1994 and Mr. Harish N. Salve, learne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted. (2) If at the commencement of this Constitution-- (a) any legal proceedings are pending to which the Dominion of India is a party, the Union of India shall be deemed to be substituted for the Dominion in those proceedings; and (b) any legal proceedings are pending to which a Province or an Indian State is a party, the corresponding State shall be deemed to be substituted for the Province or the Indian State in those proceedings." 8. From a perusal of the provision, extracted above, it is evident that the Government of India as also the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India or by the name of the State respectively, subject, of course, to any provisions which may be made by Act of Parliament or of Legislature of such State by virtue of powers conferred by the Constitution. 9. Section 79 of the C.P.C. deals with suits by or against the Government. It reads thus: "79. Suits by or against Government.-- In a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ail. Rule 10 of Order 1 C.P.C. provides remedy when a suit is filed in the name of wrong plaintiff and empowers the court to strike out any party improperly joined or to implead a necessary party at any stage of the proceedings. The question that needs to be addressed is, whether the Chief Conservator of Forest as the petitioner/appellant in the writ petition/appeal is a mere misdescription for the State of Andhra Pradesh or whether it is a case of non-joinder of the State of Andhra Pradesh - a necessary party. In a lis dealing with the property of a State, there can be no dispute that the State is the necessary party and should be impleaded as provided in Article 300 of the Constitution and Section 79 of C.P.C., viz., in the name of the State/Union of India, as the case may be, lest the suit will be bad for non-joinder of the necessary party. Even post in the hierarchy of the posts in the Government set-up, from the lowest to the highest, is not recognised as a juristic person nor can the State be treated as represented when a suit/proceeding is in the name of such offices/posts or the officers holding such posts, therefore, in the absence of the State in the array of parties, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lic sector undertakings of the Government of India and public sector undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to court or to a Tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation. The Government may include a representative of the Ministry concerned in a specific case and one from the Ministry of Finance in the Committee. Senior officers only should be nominated so that the Committee would function with status, control and discipline. The facts of this appeal, noticed above, make out a strong case that there is a felt need of setting up of similar committees by the State Governments also to resolve the controversy arising between various departments of the State or the State and any of its undertakings. It would be appropriate for the State Governments to set up a Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary of the State, the Secretaries of the concerned departments, the Secretary of Law and where financial commitments are involved, the Secretary of Finance. The decision taken by such a committee shall be binding on all the departments concerned and shall be the stand of the Government. Now, rev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....out of Survey No. 11 of Asadpur village and land measuring 45.20 acres out of Survey No. 168 of Malachintapalli village in Kollapur Taluk, Mahboobnagar District be declared as the patta lands of the plaintiffs and they be awarded compensation for the said lands, which was submerged in the Srisailam Project. The said lands were claimed to be ancestral patta lands and constituted private Home-Farm land of Plaintiff No. 1 and his father and were being enjoyed as grazing land for their cattle and for cattle breeding farm. The plaintiffs had been paying land revenue in respect of those lands since the abolition of Jagir in 1949. The appellants denied that the suit land was patta land and home-farm land of the pattedars. It was pleaded that they were forest lands of the State. To establish their claim, the Pattedars produced two witnesses. The first witness was one of the Pattedars and the second was the Tehsildar of the Jagir Jatprole for the period November, 1937 to September, 1949. They also filed supplementary setwar, Exhibit A-1. During the period 1954 to 1958, permission was granted to the Pattedars by the Government for cutting forest wood; permission letters were filed as Exhibit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The presumption, which is rebuttable,is attracted when the possession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting party has no title. This Court in Nair Service Society Limited v. K.C. Alexander and Ors. observed, "the possession may prima facie raise a presumption of tile no one can deny but this presumption can hardly arise when the fats are known. When the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides." The pattedars proved their possession of the lands in question from 1312 Fasli (1902 A.D.) as pattedars. There is long and peaceful enjoyment of the lands in question but no proof of conferment of patta on the late Raja and the facts relating to acquisition of title are not known. The appellant-State could not prove its title to the lands. On these facts, the presumption under Section 110 of the Evidence Act applies and the appellants have to prove that the pattedars are not the owners. The appellants placed no evidence on record to rebut the presumption. Consequently, the pattedars title to the land in question has to be upheld. We have gone through the judgment of the trial court as also of the High court. We have perused the notification issue....