Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 158 (AP)

Ruthala Suryanarayanamma v. State Of AP

2025-01-27

KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

body2025
ORDER : (KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J.) Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents. 2. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the subject land in an extent of Ac.12.04 cents in Sy. No.95, Tamaram Village, Makavarapalem Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District, pending Agricultural land ceiling proceedings in LCC No.637/NRPM on the file of 3 rd respondent – Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional officer, Narsipatnam Division, in order to allot subject land to the beneficiaries of the scheme launched by government viz, “Navaratnalu Pedalandiriki Illu”, without following the procedure, the instant Writ Petition is filed. 3. Pending disposal of the LCC No.637/NRPM on the file of the 3 rd respondent, the petitioners challenged the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession of the subject land admeasuring the Ac.12.04 cents in Sy. No.95, Tamaram Village, Makavarapalem Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. 4. It is contended that the petitioner’s father late Ruthala Bangaraiah was cultivating tenant in respect of land in an extent of Ac.14.88 cents in S.No.95, Tamaram Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam, he was cultivating tenant of one Datla Venkata Satya Atchyutha Rama Raju. From the said Rama Raju, one Smt. Lakshamma W/o. Ruthala Ganga Raju purchased the subject property. From the said Lakshamma, one Molli Demudu purchased the land, from whom Ruthala Ganga Raju purchased, through registered sale deeds dated 22-04-1972, 05-06-1973 and 28-06-1976. The said Ruthala Ganga Raju, on account of promulgation of the statutory enactment on agricultural land ceiling, proposed to surrender the subject land, which was in possession of the petitioner’s father under tenancy. Seeking deletion of the said holding from the holding of the declarant, the petitioner’s father filed application under Rule 16 (7) of AP Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2002. Ruthala Bangaraiah filed appeal in LRA No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 20 read with Rule 15 of the Agricultural Ceilings Act. Pending the said appeal, the petitioner’s father died and the petitioner came on record as his legal heir. Ruthala Bangaraiah filed appeal in LRA No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 20 read with Rule 15 of the Agricultural Ceilings Act. Pending the said appeal, the petitioner’s father died and the petitioner came on record as his legal heir. The Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 14-07-2005 set aside the order of LRT, Narsipatnam, and remanded the case for fresh consideration directing the Tribunal to dispose of the application after giving opportunity of hearing the petitioner. After remand, the 3 rd respondent issued notice directing the petitioner to attend for hearing on 29.12.2008. Since then, it appears from the record that several notices were issued to the respective parties, by the Tribunal. From the record it is observed that the LRT was submitting the status report to the High Court in connection with the pending Writ Petition in W.P. No.24242 of 2011. In one of the report, it is stated that final orders in the case would be passed on 14-11-2011. However it appears from the record that the case before the RDO underwent adjournments. It is noted from the record that the petitioners have vide their application dated 29-08-2015 filed an application before the LRT for expeditious disposal of the appeal, a copy of which is annexed to the Writ Petition. 5. It is contended that the 3 rd respondent - Tribunal kept the appeal pending. When the government officials have proposed to allot house site pattas in respect of the subject land, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of an instant Writ Petition. 6. The 4 th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 14.07.2005, the Primary Tribunal, Narsipatnam, gave opportunity to the respondents and petitioners by issuing notices to them, finally in 2012, the Primary Tribunal, Narsipatnam, by the order dated 20.09.2012 vide LCC No.637/NRPM, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners as they failed to establish their possession and title of the subject lands and also rejected the petition filed by the respondent/declarant namely Sri Ruthala Gangaraju, S/o. Yerrapatrudu, to surrender alternate land in other Mandal as the surrendered land was already distributed to the land less poor in the year 1990, and further contended that the petitioners though were aware of the order of LRAT, approached this Court suppressing the relevant facts. 7. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachhittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr, , [1962 SCC Online SC 11] and the decision of this Court in the case of Jalumuru Krushnam Raju Vs. Commissioner of Tribal Welfare Department , [2001 SCC Online AP 634] , to the effect that the order which is not communicated to the parties is no order at all. In Bachhittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr, , [1962 SCC Online SC 11] the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “The business of State is a complicated one and has necessarily to be conducted through the agency of a large number of officials and authorities. The Constitution therefore requires and so did the Rules of Business framed by the Rajpramukh of Pepsu provide that the action must be taken by the authority concerned in the name of Rajpramukh. It is not till this formality is observed that the action can be regarded as that of the State or here, by the Rajpramukh. We may further observe that, constitutionally speaking, the Minister is no more than an adviser and that the Head of the State, the Governor or Rajpramukh, is to act with the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers. Therefore, until such advice is accepted by the Governor whatever the Minister or the Council of Ministers may say in regard to a particular matter does not become the action of the State until the advice of the Council of Ministers is accepted or deemed to be accepted by the Head of the State. Indeed, it is possible that after expressing one opinion about a particular matter at a particular stage a Minister or the Council of Ministers may express quite a different opinion, one which may be completely opposed to the earlier opinion. Which of them can be regarded as the 'order' of the State Government? Therefore, to make the opinion amount to a decision of the Government it must be communicated to the person concerned.” 8. Considered the rival submissions. 9. A perusal of the order said to have been passed by the Land Reforms Primary Tribunal, annexed to the counter affidavit reflects that the same is an unsigned order and is not a certified copy of the original copy of the order. Considered the rival submissions. 9. A perusal of the order said to have been passed by the Land Reforms Primary Tribunal, annexed to the counter affidavit reflects that the same is an unsigned order and is not a certified copy of the original copy of the order. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner was not served with the copy of the order nor was any opportunity was granted to him. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that for the first time, along with counter such a copy of the order, said to have been passed in LCC No.637/NRPM dated 20.09.2012, is filed, which, he contends that the case number also does not tally with the number of the subject case of the petitioners which is 637/NRPM, nor it is a certified copy of the order, said to have been passed by the said LRT-RDO, and further contends that the order annexed does contain any signature of the presiding officer of the Tribunal. 10. Therefore, this Court called for the record of the case relating to the proceedings in Land Reforms Tribunal – Cum- The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, in LCC No.637/NRPM, dated 20.09.2012. In pursuance thereof, the RDO, vide letter dated 17.01.2025, informed the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that on verification, only a Xerox copy of the proceedings issued by the LRT- Cum - RDO, Narsipatnam, in LCC No.637/NRPM dated 20.09.2012 is available in their office and copy of the acknowledgment in receipt of the order dated 20-09-2012, by the petitioner was also not traced in the office. The said letter of RDO dated 17-01-2025 is placed on record. 11. However, subsequently on 22.01.2025, the Deputy Tahsildar, Land reforms, has produced before the Court the record in the case. A perusal of the same would reflect that pursuant to the directions of the LRAT dated 14-07-2005 the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, had issued notices to the petitioner as well as the respondents in the LCC, intimating the date of hearing and further notices were also issued from time to time posting the case for hearing. The last of which, as noted from the record, is being dated 09.12.2011, posting the case to 17.12.2011. The last of which, as noted from the record, is being dated 09.12.2011, posting the case to 17.12.2011. Thereafter, no other hearing notices in respect of the subject case are found from the record, except a Xerox copy of the proceedings with certain blanks here and there viz., at page 1 un-numbered para 1 and page 6 un-numbered para 2, which is dated “__ .09.2012”. It is noted from the copy (Xerox) of the said order, that, the Presiding Officer appears to have initialed it, appearing to be a draft order in as much as it does not contain the official seal of the Tribunal, nor does it indicate the list of parties to whom the order is to be communicated. A perusal of the same does not appear to be final copy of the order. 12. The petitioners have earlier, when the respondents tried to interfere with their possession, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.24242 of 2011, seeking a direction to the respondents not to dispossess them pending disposal of the LCC. This Court on 10.10.2011 expressing serious concerns of the matter, in not disposing of the case despite the directions of LRAT dated 14.07.2005 to dispose of the case in a time bound manner, called for report of the RDO. The RDO submitted its report. On 17.10.2011, this Court listing the W.P. No.24242 of 2011 on 27.10.2011, directed the RDO to file progress report in the case. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.11.2011. It is further noted from the record that the writ petitioner vide his application dated 29.08.2015 filed before the RDO, stated that they were made to withdraw the earlier writ petition, yet the LCC case was not disposed of. It does not appear from the record that, if the petitioner was informed about the disposal of the LCC case. Further the petitioner(s) that vide application dated 18.06.2020 requested the RDO, Narsipatnam, to supply a copy of the order, if any orders on LCC No.637/75 were passed. Even at that stage, the petitioners were not informed of the alleged proceedings in LCC No.637/75 dated “__.09.2012” of the LRT- Cum- RDO, dismissing the claim of the petitioners. 13. Further the petitioner(s) that vide application dated 18.06.2020 requested the RDO, Narsipatnam, to supply a copy of the order, if any orders on LCC No.637/75 were passed. Even at that stage, the petitioners were not informed of the alleged proceedings in LCC No.637/75 dated “__.09.2012” of the LRT- Cum- RDO, dismissing the claim of the petitioners. 13. As observed from the record produced before the Court, the proceedings relating to the passing of the order by the LRT is not available in the record, except a copy of it, which factum has also been affirmed by the RDO, himself vide his letter dated 17.01.2025, addressed to the Government Pleader’s office, which for the reasons stated supra, appears to be a draft one. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nareshbhai Baghubhai & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2019(15) SCC 1 wherein it is observed as follows: “ File Notings and lack of Communication It is settled law that a valid order must be a reasoned order, which is duly communicated to the parties. The file noting contained in an internal office file, or in the report submitted by the Competent Authority to the Central Government, would not constitute a valid order in the eyes of law. In the present case, there was no order whatsoever passed rejecting the objections, after the personal hearing was concluded on 30.07.2011. It is important to note that the Competent Authority did not communicate the contents of the file noting to the Appellants at any stage of the proceedings. The said file noting came to light when the matter was pending before the High Court, and the original files were summoned. The High Court, upon a perusal of the files, came across the file noting recording rejection of the objections only on the ground that the matter pertained to an infrastructure project for public utility. In Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, ( AIR 1963 SC 395 ) a Constitution Bench held that merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. For a filenoting to amount to a decision of the Government, it must be communicated to the person so affected, before that person can be bound by that order. In Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, ( AIR 1963 SC 395 ) a Constitution Bench held that merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. For a filenoting to amount to a decision of the Government, it must be communicated to the person so affected, before that person can be bound by that order. Until the order is communicated to the person affected by it, it cannot be regarded as anything more than being provisional in character. Similarly, in Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India, ( (2009) 15 SCC 705 ) this Court held that notings recorded in the official files, by the officers of the Government at different levels, and even the Ministers, do not become a decision of the Government, unless the same are sanctified and acted upon, by issuing an order in the name of the President or Governor, as the case may be, and are communicated to the affected persons. In Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA, ( 2009 1 SCC 180 ) this Court held that: 14. It is trite to state that notings in a departmental file do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order. A noting by an officer is an expression of his viewpoint on the subject. It is no more than an opinion by an officer for internal use and consideration of the other officials of the department and for the benefit of the final decision making authority. Needless to add that internal notings are not meant for outside exposure. Notings in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision making authority in the department, gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned. … 16. To the like effect are the observations of this Court in Laxminarayan R. Bhattadv. State of Maharashtra [ (2003) 5 SCC 413 ] , wherein it was said that a right created under an order of a statutory authority must be communicated to the person concerned so as to confer an enforceable right.” (emphasis supplied)” 14. … 16. To the like effect are the observations of this Court in Laxminarayan R. Bhattadv. State of Maharashtra [ (2003) 5 SCC 413 ] , wherein it was said that a right created under an order of a statutory authority must be communicated to the person concerned so as to confer an enforceable right.” (emphasis supplied)” 14. For all the above reasons, and placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred supra, this Court is of the considered view that the RDO, being the quasi-judicial authority while passing the orders under Section 20 of A.P. Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, and Rule 16 (7) of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules,1974, is required to comply with all the quasi-judicial functions while deciding a case, which includes communication of the order passed, to the parties concerned under his seal and signature. In the absence of the same, a Xerox copy of the order, which, prima facie, appears to be a draft one, in the facts of the case, cannot be exhibited as the appropriate one. Thus the said order dated “__.09.2012” cannot be termed as a final order, disposing of the LCC in terms of the directions of the LRAT. Therefore, this Court is of the view that since the purport of remand to the Primary Tribunal was to give an opportunity to the respective parties in the case, the primary authority LRT-Cum-RDO be directed to dispose of the LCC No.637/75 in terms of the directions of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal - Cum - I Additional District Judge, dated 14.07.2005, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties in the case. 15. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the Land Reforms Primary Tribunal-Cum-RDO, Narsipatnam, shall dispose of the LCC. No.637/75 afresh in terms of the directions of the LRAT, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners herein and unofficial respondents in the LCC. Till the passing of such orders, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the subject land. 16. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. The Office is directed to return the record produced in the case to the office of the Government Pleader for Revenue, under due signature. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.