TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2663
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tiff-respondent. Another appeal being C.A.No.2964 of 2013 has been filed by the transferee of the suit property during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court. Since leave was granted, both the appeals have been heard and disposed of by this judgment. ( 2. ) The plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) filed Title Suit No. 274 of 2007 for rectification of Revenue Records by incorporating their names as owners and possessors in respect of the suit land comprised within Survey No.613 of Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, by deleting the duplicate Sy.No.119 in respect of portion of the land of the said Village. ( 3. ) The factual matrix of the case is that the contesting plaintiff respondents filed the above suit stating that their predecessor in title late Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur (hereinafter referred to as "late Raja") was the pattadar and absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The succession of the estate of late Raja was declared by a Royal Firman of the Nizam in favour of Raja Dhiraj Karan, late Raja Dharam Karan, late Raja Mehboob Karan and the heirs of Raja Manohar Raj vide Firman dated 4th Ramzan 1359 Hizri {Ex.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asra, S.No.613 is shown as Shivaraj Bahadur Ilaka without determining the extent. ( 6. ) It is the plaintiffs' case that as per the certified copies of pahanies for the years 1949-50 and 2000-01 the land in S.No.613 of Nadergul Village stood in the name of late Raja. However, it is alleged that in the Khasra Pahani, S.No.613 is rounded up, which does not convey any meaning. After 1954-55, Revenue Records are showing the land in S.No.119 with an extent of Ac.355-12 guntas and it is not known as to how the original extent of land in S.No.119 shown as Ac.1-20 has swollen to Ac.355-12 guntas with endorsement of "Sarkari" from the original endorsement of Gaddam Mallaiah, which clearly discloses duplication of the land in S.No.119 and to say the least, the Revenue Record has been tampered with by the custodians of the records with an oblique motive of depriving the legitimate owners of the land in S.No.613 of Nadergul Village. Even today, pahanies, village maps, and touch plan clearly disclose the existence of S.No. 613 with a large chunk of land but purposefully the revenue authorities are not disclosing the details of the ownership of the suit land. The basic record ie., Setwar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on as pleaded. ( 9. ) In the amended written statement, it has been pleaded by the defendant that Nadergul was a Jagir Village and as all the jagirs were abolished under the Hyderabad Abolition of Jagirs Regulation, all Jagir properties vested in the State and the Jagirdars became entitled only to receive compensation amount and the estate of late Raja also got merged with the State and all Jagirs in Hyderabad State were taken over by the Government and transferred to Deewani after publication of Notification No.8 dated 07-04-1949. Further Nazim Atiyat had passed an order dated 20- 01-1958 in File No.1/56 Warangal/1950 and the legal heirs of Late Raja had participated in the said proceedings and staked claim for commutation amount in respect of the Jagir land. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, some of the plaintiffs and certain other successors of late Raja had filed appeal before the Board of Revenue and the same was dismissed vide order dated 24.07.92 and a review petition was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue and, thereafter, the same persons had filed W.P.No.4999 of 1974 in the High Court and as per the judgment in the said writ petition, dated 22.04.76, the matter was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings), 1973, mere mentioning "Sarkari" in subsequent pahanies or giving duplication S.No.119, title of the original owner will not vanish and it continues to be vest with them. In Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 covered under Ex.12(a), when it is stated that S.No.613 has been recorded as "Self Cultivation Dastagardan" and numbers of the Sivaraj Bahadur has been written separately and the same has also been shown as S.No.119 under Ex.12(b). Therefore, late Raja or his heirs continue(s) to be pattadar(s) for the corresponding survey number and on changing also, but the same cannot become the government property as contended by the learned Advocate General. Further, the identity of land in S.No.613, suit land, as found in Ex.A-10-touch plan and Ex.A- 9-village map cannot undergo any change whatsoever and ownership may change from one person to the other but the location of land and its identity with reference to survey number cannot be changed. Therefore, there is no further necessity for the plaintiffs to seek declaration of their title except to seek correction of record of rights recording the names of the heir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tself stands abated. Further, the appeal in the High Court got abated as a whole in as much as the decree that was challenged before the High Court was a joint and indivisible decree. In this connection the appellants relied upon the decision in the case of (2006) 6 SCC 569 and (2010) 11 SCC 476. ( 16. ) On merit of the appeal, the appellants first assailed the finding and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that the area by name Bhagat Nadegul of Hyderabad District is different from Nadergul Village. According to the appellant there is absolutely no material to show that there is any other village by the name Nadergul in any part of the State. In this connection learned counsel referred the evidence of PW-1. ( 17. ) Further , the contention of the appellants is that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had sought for commutation in respect of land in Nadergul Village will show that the said lands were treated as Jagir land. The findings of the Atiyat Court qua Nadergul with the relevant Sandas have not been produced for verification. There is no finding anywhere in Exh. B.1 that Nadergul is not a Jagir Village. Merely because commutation amount was not awarded in respe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter will have to be remanded to the High Court. ( 21. ) Per contra, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents, at the very outset submitted that although A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited to whom the suit property was illegally transferred by the appellant-State during the pendency of appeal in High Court is neither a necessary party nor have got any right to prefer appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. ( 22. ) On the issue of application of Section 98(2) of CPC, Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel, submitted that A.P. High Court is governed by the Letters Patent of Madras High Court and, therefore, Section 98(2) of the Code has no application by reason of Section 98(3) of the Code. It is submitted that the decision of this Court relied upon by both the parties on this point itself clarify that Section 98(2) of the Code has no application to the High Court which is governed by Letters Patent. In this connection learned counsel also referred the decision of Patna High Court in AIR 1984 Patna 296 and AIR 1979 Patna 115. Learned counsel therefore submitted that there is no illegality in the refe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Atiyat proceeding Nadergul was shown in List-3 as patta lands. ( 27. ) So far as the issue with regard to the suit, being barred by limitation it was submitted by the respondents that the suit for declaration of title and injunction falls under Article 65 of the Limitation Act 1963 where limitation is 12 years from the date when possession of the defendant become adverse to that of the plaintiff. There is no pleading in the written statement that the State has obtained title by adverse possession. In the present case the defendant-State has never set up and or cannot set up title by adverse possession, hence the suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation. There is no evidence adduced from the side of the defendants that the State ever came in possession. On the contrary the possession of the plaintiffrespondents was sufficiently proved by the trial court while deciding the injunction petition as also in the finding recorded by the High Court dismissing the appeal against the order of injunction. ( 28. ) We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record. ( 29. ) Before we decide the merit of the appeal, we shall take up the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record. Subsequently, the defendant also died, but this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court and the appeal was dismissed. In those facts this Court considering the provision of Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code held that "in a case where the plaintiff or the defendant dies and the right to sue does not survive, and consequently the Second Appeal had abated and the decree attained finality inasmuch as there cannot be merger of the judgment or decree passed in Second Appeal with that passed in the First Appeal." The said decision therefore, in our considered opinion will not apply in the present case. In the instant case, there are more plaintiffs than one and one of them died and the right to sue survives upon the surviving plaintiffs. In the said circumstances Order 22 Rule 2 of the Code will come into operation and the appeal will not abate. ( 34. ) In the case of Budh Ram and others vs. Bansi and others, 2010 11 SCC 476, this Court after considering series of judgments rendered by this Court in the State of Punjab vs. Nathu Ram, 1962 AIR(SC) 89, Sri Chand vs. Jagdish Pershad Kishan Chand, 1966 AIR(SC)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. ) Similarly , in the case of State of Punjab vs. Nathu Ram, 1962 2 SCR 636, which arose out of acquisition of land under the Defence of India Act, 1939, when the landowners refused to accept compensation offered by the Collector, the dispute was referred by the State Government to an arbitrator, who passed an award for payment of higher compensation. The State appealed against the award. During pendency of the appeal, one of the landowner namely Labhu Ram died. The High Court, holding that the appeal abated against Labhu Ram and its effect was that the appeal against another respondent also abated, the appeal was dismissed. When the matter came up to this Court, at the instance of the State Government, this Court deciding the issue held as under: "4. It is not disputed that in view of Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code, hereinafter called the Code, the appeal abated against Labhu Ram, deceased, when no application for bringing on record his legal representatives had been made within the time limited by law. The Code does not provide for the abatement of the appeal against the other respondents. Courts have held that in certain circumstances, the appeals against the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he view that they were devised to ensure their continuation and culmination in an effective adjudication and not to retard the further progress of the proceedings and thereby non-suit the others similarly placed as long as their distinct and independent rights to property or any claim remain intact and not lost forever due to the death of one or the other in the proceedings. The provisions contained in Order 22 are not to be construed as a rigid matter of principle but must ever be viewed as a flexible tool of convenience in the administration of justice." xxxxx 32. But, in our view also, as to what those circumstances are to be, cannot be exhaustively enumerated and no hard-and-fast rule for invariable application can be devised. With the march and progress of law, the new horizons explored and modalities discerned and the fact that the procedural laws must be liberally construed to really serve as handmaid, make it workable and advance the ends of justice, technical objections which tend to be stumbling blocks to defeat and deny substantial and effective justice should be strictly viewed for being discouraged, except where the mandate of law inevitably necessita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in favour of one or the other parties and not as a joint and inseverable decree. The same would be the position in the case of defendants or respondents having similar rights contesting the claims against them. (2) Whenever different and distinct claims of more than one are sought to be vindicated in one single proceedings, as the one now before us, under the Land Acquisition Act or in similar nature of proceedings and/or claims in assertion of individual rights of parties are clubbed, consolidated and dealt with together by the courts concerned and a single judgment or decree has been passed, it should be treated as a mere combination of several decrees in favour of or against one or more of the parties and not as joint and inseparable decrees. (3) The mere fact that the claims or rights asserted or sought to be vindicated by more than one are similar or identical in nature or by joining together of more than one of such claimants of a particular nature, by itself would not be sufficient in law to treat them as joint claims, so as to render the judgment or decree passed thereon a joint and inseverable one. (4) The question as to whether in a given case t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., therefore, of the view that by reason of non-substitution of the legal representative(s) of the deceased plaintiffs, who died during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, entire appeal shall not stand abated. Remaining sharers, having definite shares in the estate of the deceased, shall be entitled to proceed with the appeal without the appeal having been abated. We, therefore, do not find any reason to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. ( 39. ) By filing another I.A. No.7 of 2015 on 17.4.2015, the appellants sought permission to urge additional grounds as contemplated under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Admittedly, this ground was not urged before the learned third Judge of the High Court at the time of hearing of the appeal. Be that as it may, we allow the appellant to urge additional ground in this appeal. ( 40. ) By urging this additional ground learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the procedure adopted by the High Court in the disposal of the appeal is not in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 98 of the CPC. Learned counsel submitted that the appeal in the High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Patent declared that in exercise of appellate jurisdiction the certain procedure is to be adopted. In 1877 and 1882 amendments were brought in the Code of Civil Procedure but no provision was made to the effect that the Code shall not affect the Letters Patent. Thereafter many High Courts and the Privy Council interpreted the provisions of Section 98 and Clause 36 of the Letters Patent and it was consistently held by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court as under:- "The result is that it is now beyond all doubt that Clause 36 of the Letters Patent applies to all appeals. It may be asked, when does Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Code have any operation and why should the legislature not say that the section does not apply to Chartered High Courts instead of adding an explanation to the section The reply is that Section 98 applies now only to Courts other than the Chartered High Courts, that is, the Chief Courts and Courts of judicial Commissioners and the reason why the legislature adopted this particular form of elucidating the matter is that it was intended to retain Section 98 as applicable even to Chartered High Courts but to make the application subject to Clause ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CPC. The Attorney General put reliance on paragraphs 3, 6 and 9 of judgment whereas Dr. Singhvi relied on paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment. Hence we extract paras 3, 6, 8 and 9 of judgment which are as under:- "3. The question, therefore, is whether the finding of the court below that the will has not been proved is a finding of fact If so, whether in the absence of majority opinion of the Division Bench, the confirmation of the decree of civil court is valid in law Thirdly, whether this Court can examine the case on merits to find whether the will is validly proved, in which event would sub-section (2) of Section 98 be not rendered otiose or ineffective 6. In other words, the difference of opinion between Judges, who constitute the Bench hearing the appeal, on a point of law alone would be referred to a third or other Judges according to the rules of that High Court. By implication, on question of fact, when there is no majority opinion varying or reversing the decree appealed from, such decree should be confirmed. 8. The ratio in Jayanti Devi v. Chand Mal Agrawa which has been referred by Shri Bagga, is inapplicable to the point in issue. Ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure provided in the Letters Patent of the High Court shall prevail. ( 47. ) Reference has also been made to the case of P.V. Hemalatha where the judges in appeal constituting a Division Bench pronounced two separate judgments wherein they differed in almost all the issues arising in the case. A point was raised that since the judges comprising the Division bench delivered two separate judgments and have not identified the difference on any point of law, the decree of the court below is liable to be confirmed in terms of Section 98(2) of the Code. This Court held that in such cases the procedure is to be adopted as contemplated under Section 98 of the Code having regard to the fact that the provisions of Clause 36 of Letters Patent of the Madras High Court is not applicable. This Court held:- "17. Admittedly, the High Court of Kerala is a newly constituted court for the newly formed State of Kerala in 1956 and governed by the Kerala Act. The said High Court does not have any Letters Patent it being not a Chartered High Court continuing from the British period. In such a situation, it is submitted that the learned Judges were perfectly justified in giving effect to the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion to be given on any point, such point shall be decided according to the opinion of majority of Judges. If the Judges are equally divided they shall state the point upon which they differ and the case shall then be heard on that point by one or more of the Judges and the point shall be decided according to the opinion of majority of Judges who have heard the case including those who first heard it. ( 50. ) Section 98(3) of the Code was added in 1928 by the repealing amending Act (18 of 1928). The amended Sub-section (3) of Section 98 was considered by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Dhanaraju vs. Motilal Daga and Another, 1929 AIR(Mad) 641 . The Division Bench of the High Court of Patna in the case of Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, 1966 AIR(Pat) 154, considered the similar question and observed:- "The view which I have expressed above is supported by a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court Dhanaraju v. Bala-kissendas Motilal, 1929 AIR(Mad) 641 , and by two decisions of this Court; one reported in Debi Prasad Pandey v. Gaudham Rai, 1933 AIR(Pat) 67 and the other in Rajnarain v. Saligram ILR Pat 332. Clause 28 governs not merely Cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed:- "It may be seen that the Letter Patent of the Court has not confined the hearing of the appeal by a 3rd Judge on, the questions of law upon which the Judges hearing the appeal differ. Such a difference of opinion can be on a question of fact also. That the Judges should record expressly in a joint order what their differences are may be desirable. But there is no imperative prescription that the difference of opinion has to be formulated by a joint order. If such difference or differences is expressly enumerated in a joint order, it may serve better and the 3rd Judge hearing the appeal may not be required to investigate into their respective judgments to discover the difference or differences of opinion. Still absence of a joint order specifying the difference as envisaged under the proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 98 of the Code cannot be taken, to vitiate the reference or the hearing of the appeal by a third Judge. This view is supported by a judgment by Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. in Rulia Devi v. Raghunath Prasad, I am in respectful and complete agreement with the views expressed in Rulia's case and find no substance in the preliminary objection of Mr. Chatterj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n (1) CPC noted above. It is, therefore, not possible to agree with the reasoning of the High Court in the impugned judgment to the effect that clause 36 of the Letters Patent does not deal with a situation where there is conflict of decisions between the two learned Judges of the Bench sitting in review against the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. xxxxx Moreover the fact remains that by the enactment of Section 98(3) CPC whatever doubt earlier remained in connection with this controversy was put at rest by the legislature and the view propounded by the Privy Council got statutory recognition by the amendment of Section 98 and the insertion of sub-section (3) thereof." ( 53. ) In the case of Rulia Devi and others vs. Raghunath Prasad, 1979 AIR(Pat) 115, a Bench of the Patna High Court while considering the provision of Section 98 CPC vis a vis clause 28 of the Letters Patent held:- "It will be observed that the Letters Patent does not confine the point of difference to a question of law and since it is not subject to any limitation mentioned in Section 98 of the Civil P. C., it must be held that a difference between the Judges ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the judgment rendered by Justice B. Prakash Rao the following points have been formulated for consideration:- a) Whether the plaintiffs have established the claim for declaration of title in respect of the suit land. b) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit lands for claiming permanent injunction. c) whether the suit lands are Jagir lands as contested by the defendants d) Whether the relief of declaration of title can be granted in the absence of truth of flow of title e) Whether non filing of ceiling declaration can have the effect of waiver of title f) Whether the entries in the revenue records can be basis for grant of a decree of declaration of title g) Whether the suit is barred by limitation and whether the plaintiff's are estopped from filing the suit since they had earlier claimed for award of computation amount contending that suit lands are Jagir lands h) Whether the judgment of the trial court warrants any interference as regards the findings recorded there ( 56. ) On consideration of the pleadings of the parties on the point of change of survey number, the Court observed:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a clear admission in the written statement that up to the khasra pahani, Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur recorded as pattadar of the suit land. As commented by us earlier, there is no evidence that any additional survey numbers added to the total survey numbers 875 in Nadergul village. If that be so, it is the duty of the state to explain as to what has happened to the vast chunk of land which was part of survey No.613 of Nadergul village. It is not explained as to why Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur lands were to be recorded in a separate series of survey numbers from 1 to 194. The state has not explained as to what is the extent of each of these survey numbers 1 to 194. It is not the case of the state that the village map of the Nadergul village has undergone a change or that any re-settlement and survey operations were carried out in Nadergul village. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur was the pattadar of the suit land and he was khatadar for payment of revenue (khata No.3)." ( 58. ) The learned judge further observed:- "The learned Advocate General had vehemently submitted that entries in Revenue Records can neither create....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aths, bridges, ditches, dikes, rivers, streams, tanks, ponds, canals, lakes and flowing water and all lands, wherever situated, together with all rights appertaining thereto are the property of the Government excepting." ( 59. ) Referring various decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court, learned judge concluded that the entries in Setwar and Vasul Baqui and Khasra Pahani are prepared under the statute and hence these entries constitute title. The learned Judge observed as under: "We are unable to understand as to why the plaintiffs cannot placed reliance on entries in the sethwar, vasulbaki and khasra pahani which are exhibited as Ex.B19 (bunch of pleaded). This is a very peculiar case where duplicated survey numbers are pleaded by the State. It is not possible to digest as to what has happened to the land in survey No.613 (suit land) since it was specifically in existence with Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur as pattadar and Khatadar up to the year 1954-55. Even if Nadergul village is assumed as Jagir village or Inam village, the entire land in Nadergul village must have the same consequence i.e. getting vested in the State. But the written statement shows that Ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adergul Village is a Jagir village, the Court held:- "From the documentary evidence adduced by the State, there is no basis to construe that Nadergul village is a Jagir village. We have earlier observed that if a village happens to be a jagir village, all the survey numbers of the village should have the same effect by virtue of the Jagir Abolition Law. The state has contended that there are private patta lands in Nadergul village in other survey numbers. Hence it is absurd to appreciate that survey No.613 of Raja Shivraj Dharmavanth Bahadur alone can be construed as a Jagir. Above all, the state has not chosen to partify its pleading by adducing the best evidence i.e. any notification showing that the suit lands are jagir lands. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that the suit land is not Jagir land and hence it cannot be claimed by the State." ( 61. ) On the issue of maintainability of suit, the learned Judge finally held that:- "We have already noticed the judgment of the Nazim Atiyat, which has rejected computation amount for List III villages in Ex.B1. Hence there is nothing improper in filing the present suit for declaration of title. It is settled law t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gister of Sy.No.613 of Nadergul village and Exs.A-12 to A-14 certified copies of pahanies where name of Raja Sivaraj Bahadur is found, the plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration of title. The learned Judge is of the view that plaintiffs failed to adduce any positive evidence to prove title and possession of the suit property. Accordingly, he by his judgment dismissed the appeal. ( 65. ) It is pertinent to mention here that on perusal of two separate judgments written by learned Judges of the Division Bench, they have not agreed on any point of facts or point of law rather they have decided the appeal by expressing their separate views. This may be the reason when the file was placed before the Chief Justice, he referred the matter to a third Judge for deciding the appeal after considering the different views given by the two learned Judges in the separate judgments written and signed by them. ( 66. ) Justice A. Gopal Reddy, before whom the appeal was referred and finally placed for hearing, has considered the two judgments delivered by the differing Judges. The third Judge considered in detail the judgment given by Justice B. Prakash Rao, who extensively dealt with the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and name of Khathadar is mentioned as Kancha Severaj. In th Khsra Pahani for the year 1954-55 covered under Ex.B-19(a), it was shown as S.No.119 and extent is shown as Ac.355-12 guntas and column No.6 was shown as Sirkari and land name is Khas Sagu (cultivated self). D.Ws.1 and 2, who entered into the witness box have not clarified as to how two different Khasra pahanies were maintained, namely, in the khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, Raja Sivaraj Dharmavanth Bahadur has been recorded as Pattadar and Khatadar of S.No.613 admeasuring 373-22, another Khasra Pahani covered under Ex.B-19(a), S.No.119 of Nadergul is admeasuring Ac.355-12 guntas which is Sirkari but Sivaraj Ilaka. It is admitted by the defendants that total survey numbers in Nadergul village are 875. The village map which was marked by the plaintiffs shows original 875 survey numbers and the new series of 1 to 194 survey numbers. It is admitted in the first written statement filed by the fifth defendant that suit land was confiscated to the State and how the same was confiscated to the State and under what proceedings the land was confiscated has not be stated. In the amended written statement, State has taken severa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounts so mentioned are not conclusive but were ordered to keep in reserve until rights of the parties are decided in separate proceedings. Therefore, it is not open for the Government to contend that the properties are confiscated or vest in the Government in the light of the commutation award passed by the Office of the Jagir Administrator, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad-Deccan dt.30.3.1959 (Exs.B-2 and B-27)." ( 69. ) The learned Judge has further taken notice of the fact that of late the State Government, now, is claiming property by rounding off the names of pattadars and others in the revenue records without referring to any proceedings, which fact has been observed by one of the decision in Syed Ahmad Hasan case,2011 4 ALT 262 . ( 70. ) Finally , the learned Judge came to the following conclusion: "From the above discussion and the law laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, it is to be held that the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that the late Raja was pattadar/khatadar of the land covered by S.No.613 admeasuring 373-22 guntas in the Khasra Pahani, the presumption backward/forward can be applied in his favour or in favour of his he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred has agreed with and upheld the finding recorded by one of the judges of the Division Bench and allowed the appeal decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffrespondents. ( 73. ) The plaintiff-respondents filed the suit for correction and rectification of record of right in respect of S.No.613 measuring 373.22 guntas of land which was recorded in the name of the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the same alleged to have been illegally rounded up by the Revenue authorities and a new S.No.119 was created in favour of the State without any notice and legal proceedings. ( 74. ) It has not been disputed by the appellant-State that the suit land comprised within S.No.613 measuring 373.22 guntas was held and possessed by Raja Shiv Raj Bahadur who was the Khatadar and Pattadar of S.No.613 of Village Nadergul. It is also not in dispute that succession of the Estate of Late Raja Shiv Raj Bahadur was declared by a Royal Firman of the Nizam in favour of Raja Dhiraj Karan, Dharam Karan, Mehboob Karan and the heirs of Manohar Raj vide Firman dated 4th Ramzan 1359 Fasli. On the death of Raja the succession of the Estate was granted by the Royal Firman in favour of the sons of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dges of the High Court on the issue of title of the plaintiffs predecessors over the suit land. ( 78. ) Besides the above, it has not been denied by the appellant that there is an endorsement in the said Khasra Pahani, Survey No.613 admeasuring AC 373.22 is recorded as "cultivated self' and in column 7 it is mentioned that Inam Dastagardan (suspense account), Exhibit 12(a). The appellant- State have totally failed to prove as to under which proceeding and under what circumstances, the suit land was suddenly shown as Government land. No proceeding whatsoever was initiated before the alleged confiscation of the suit land. Admittedly, Survey No.119 admeasuring 1.20 guntas belonged to one Gaddam Mallaiah which is evident from the revenue record. We have failed to understand as to how another Survey No.119 came into existence showing entire suit land to the extent of AC 355.12 guntas treating it as Government land. ( 79. ) Mr . V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that under the Jagir Abolition Regulation the suit land is vested in the State. Consequently, the matter was referred to Atiyat proceeding for commutation of compensation it was only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad-Deccan dt.30.3.1959 (Exs.B-2 and B-27)." ( 81. ) The learned Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment has taken judicial notice of the fact that the Government, now-a days is claiming property by rounding off the names of Pattadars and others in the Revenue Records without referring to any proceedings, which fact has also been observed in a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Syed Ahmad Hasan,2011 4 ALT 262. ( 82. ) Both the trial court and the learned Judge of the Division Bench, who affirmed the finding of the trial Court have failed to take into consideration the relevant provision of the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 Fasli and held that by the said Regulation, all Jagir land became the Government land. Sections 17 and 18 of the Jagir Abolition Regulation read as under:- "17. Home-farms.-- (1) Nothing in this Regulation shall affect the home farm (seri Khudkasht) of a Jagirdar or Hissedar which, subject to any law for the time being in force, he shall continue to hold, - (a) where the village in which the farm is situate has been brought under s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court held that the decision of the Supreme Court was not considered by the High Court in the earlier decisions. The Trial Court erroneously held that except entries made in Sethwar and Wasool Baqui, there are no subsequent Revenue entries much less consistent entries to corroborate the entries in Sethwar and Wasool Baqui to establish title. The Trial Court recorded incorrect finding that the subsequent Revenue entries do not contain the name of Raja Shivraj Bahadur either pattadar/khatadar and in all the records instead of his name the land was either shown as Kancha-Sarkari or land confiscated by the government. The Trial Court further erroneously held that even in the khasra-pahani of the year 1954-55 which is an important Revenue Record, the name of Raja Shivraj Bahadur was not shown as khatadar/ patadar. ( 86. ) In the decision relied upon by the Trial Court (AIR 1997 SC 2181), the fact was that the land originally belonged to the plaintiff but in the year 1950, the name of the State was recorded in the settlement paper as the owner. The plaintiff applied for necessary corrections of the record and ultimately in a suit, the Civil Court passed a decree in favour of the plai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der any law before making entries in the Revenue Records that land was confiscated. For doing the same there must be a proceeding and order of confiscation of the land which has not been brought on record. Further, there is no document to show that in pursuance of confiscation entries the person in occupation was dispossessed and the record is maintained showing dispossession and taking possession of the land by the Government. In the survey settlement proceedings there cannot be duplication in survey numbers. We have failed to understand as to how a duplicate Survey No.119 came into existence and the land of Survey No.613 was shown in that duplicate survey No.119. The learned District Judge while deciding the injunction application has recorded admission of the Government that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. On the basis of admission by the appellant and the Revenue Record the Court gave interim protection by granting a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. ( 90. ) In the instant case, although the Trial Court decided the Interlocutory Application for injunction not only on consideration of documentary evidence, but also admission made by the appe....