COMMISSIONER OF SURVEY SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORDS V. KUNSAM SARANARAYANA AND ORS INSC 726

The appeals arise from a common judgment of the High Court dated 10-12-1986. These appeals relate to a patta, to the extent of 28 acres and 82 cents of land, claimed to be poramboke. The patta was produced for the first time by the respondents in proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants issued a notice under Section 14-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Inam Abolition Act), alleging that the patta might have been fraudulently obtained, and proposed a suo moto enquiry to determine the genuineness of the said patta.

The said claim was challenged by the respondents in Writ Petition No.1225/78 on the ground that the land is vested in the government under Section 2-A of the Inam Abolition Act, which was permitted declaring the notice issued under Section 2-A as invalid. Thereafter, the respondents filed Writ Petition No.1798/85 for a direction to the government to take proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the patta land. This petition was also allowed on March 24, 1986. The State's appeal W.A.No.745/86) was disposed of against this order.

After the notice under Section 14-A dated July 22, 1986, the respondents filed another writ petition (W.P.12044/86) to quash the notice. The High Court heard this writ petition and the State's appeal together and disposed of them through a common judgment now under appeal before this court.

Contentions before the High Court Before the High Court, the appellant claimed that the Ryotwari Patta dated October 3, 1974 was a fraudulent one and was never validly granted to respondents. In view of the provisions of Inam Abolition Act and the rival claims made by the parties, the High Court issued following directions for deciding the dispute:

The Government shall file a suit within three months questioning the genuineness of the patta. The respondents were directed to establish the genuineness of the patta in the said suit Irrespective of the government's suit, the respondents were asked to file a separate suit for compensation or damages concerning the said land. The suits were ordered to be tried together and as far as possible disposed of, within nine months If the civil courts held the patta to be genuine, suitable compensation or damages would be decreed. Both parties reserved the right to further legal action if aggrieved by the decision of the civil court. Analysis and Conclusion The appellant fundamental reliance in appeal is placed on Section 14 of Inam Abolition Act which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts from interfering, except where such order is obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or collusion, with the decisions of any revenue authority under the Act. The Supreme Court considered this submission in the background of the notice under Section 14-A, which had specifically called upon him to enquire into the genuineness of the patta. In that view, the directions issued by the High Court were held to be proper and consistent with the requirement of Section 14.

It held that the expression used in the Section 14-A notice, coupled with the peculiar facts of this case, fully justified the course adopted by the High Court. The proper course was to permit the patta's genuineness to be determined by the civil court so that justice was done and the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were fully inquired into.

Specific Directions and Clarifications The Supreme Court upheld the directions of the High Court and ruled that they did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The decision on the genuineness of the patta being deferred to the civil court was proper since fraud had been pleaded. 'If there is a plea of fraud, it would be proper to leave the issue to the civil court.' It explains that under Section 14-A, possibility of civil court interference is distinctly envisioned in instances of misrepresentation, fraud, or collusion; thus, the HC's directions were proper.

It is also not in dispute that by the time the appeals were pending, the period provided in directions No.1 and No.3 under the directions issued by the High Court had already expired. The Supreme Court permitted the parties to take appropriate action within the same period commencing from the date of this judgment.

Conclusion In sum, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the judgment and directions of the High Court. The judgment reiterates that the genuineness of the patta is to be tested in a civil court proceeding in view of legal provisions, which take care of possible fraud and ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice with respect to adjudication over items of land. A balance between the powers of statutory authorities and courts sees that justice does not become a casualty of procedural quibbles or fraudulent actions.