SARVEPALLI RAMAIAH (DIED) AS PER LRS AND OTHERS versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT AND OTHERS on 14 March 2019

372

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2019] 5 S.C.R. 372

[2019] 5 S.C.R.

SARVEPALLI RAMAIAH (DIED) AS PER LRSAND OTHERS

A

v.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHITTOOR DISTRICTAND OTHERS

B

(Civil Appeal No. 7461 of 2009)

MARCH 14, 2019

[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]

Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition &CConversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 – ss.2-A, 3, 7 and 17 – Caseof the appellants that their predecessor-in-interest (‘SR’) obtained‘Saswatha Patta’ for two plots of land in Survey No. 234 ofTiruchanur village, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh – ‘SR’s prayer forimplementation of patta, rejected by the District Collector holdingDthat the pattas issued were fabricated and further, that vide GazetteNotification dtd. 03.09.1984 issued u/s.2-A of the 1956 Act, theland in question was classified as “Peddacheruvu Poramboke(Tank)” – Writ Petition filed by ‘SR’ – Dismissed – Division Benchaffirmed the order – On appeal, held: Per R. Banumathi, J.Tiruchanur village in Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District is aEminor Inam village and therefore attracts the provisions of the 1956Act – Entire land comprised in Survey No.234 is classified as“Peddacheruvu Poramboke” (Tank) – All the communal governmentporamboke lands fall u/s.2-A of the 1956 Act – These lands are notavailable for grant of ryotwari patta to any individual – When theFentire extent of land in Survey No.234 was classified as Tank, noextent was available for grant of ryotwari patta under the provisionsof the 1956 Act and the question of implementation of ryotwaripatta does not arise in view of the bar contained in s.2-A of the1956 Act – Further, the appellants did not challenge the GazetteNotification dtd. 03.09.1984 – High Court rightly declined to quashGthe order of the District Collector – Per Indira Banerjee, J.(Concurring) 1956 Act was enacted to abolish Inam lands and toconvert certain Inam lands to ryotwari lands in the Andhra area ofthe State of Andhra Pradesh – By Gazette Notification dtd.3.09.1984, entire Survey No.234 was notified as PeddacheruvuHPoramboke (tank) – By virtue of s.2-A of the 1956 Act, all forest lands, communal lands, river streams, porambokes, tanks etc. vestedin the government, free from encumbrances – Appellants and/ortheir predecessor-in-interest-’SR’ did not challenge the notification– No infirmity in the judgment of the Division Bench – AndhraPradesh (Andhra Area) Inam (Abolition and Conversion intoRyotwari) Rules, 1957.

Constitution of India – Art.226 – Judicial Review under, ofadministrative decisions – Held: Administrative decisions are subjectto judicial review u/Art. 226 only on grounds of perversity, patentillegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision andprocedural irregularity – Except on these grounds administrativedecisions are not interfered with, in exercise of the extra ordinarypower of judicial review.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: Per R. Banumathi, J.:

1.1 Tiruchanur village in Tirupati Rural Mandal, ChittoorDistrict is a minor Inam village and therefore, it attracts theprovisions of the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversioninto Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (Inams Abolition Act). The entire landmeasuring acres 113.67 ½ comprised in Survey No.234 ofTiruchanur village, Tirupati Rural Mandal is classified as“Peddacheruvu Poramboke” (Tank Poramboke). All thecommunal government poramboke lands falls under Section 2-Aof the Inams Abolition Act. These lands are not available forgrant of ryotwari patta to any individual under the Act. Since thevillage is an Inam village, the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar,Collector’s Office, Chittoor has declared entire land measuringacres 113.67 ½ as “Tank Poramboke” and brought under Section2-A of Inams Abolition Act and the same was published in theDistrict Gazette No.9 dated 03.09.1984 at Page No.20. The InamsDeputy Tahsildar, Chittoor bonafidely ignoring the above fact,has by mistake, mentioned the Survey No.234 acres 54-00 as“Inam Dry” at Page No.19 of the District Gazette, Chittoor No.9dated 03.09.1984 which is stated to be invalid. [Para 8] [380-D-G]

1.2 The District Collector rightly held that the entire landin Survey No.234 of Tiruchanur village that is 113.67½ was A

B

C

DEF

G

H

Aclassified as “Peddacheruvu Tank” under Section 2-A of the InamsAbolition Act published in the official District Gazette No.9 dated03.09.1984. The District Collector has also pointed out that arecent order was passed by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar in IDTRef. No.1/83 dated 11.05.1993 declaring the total extent in SurveyNo.234 as Tank in pursuance of the order of the High Court datedB13.04.1992 in WA Nos.941/88 and 1070/88 which has thus attainedfinality so far as classification of land. As rightly held by the DistrictCollector, when the entire extent of land in Survey No.234 wasclassified as Tank, no extent is available for grant of ryotwaripatta under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act and the questionCof implementation of ryotwari patta does not arise. The learnedSingle Judge and the Division Bench rightly held that the land isclassified as “Peddacheruvu Tank” vested with the governmentand there is no question of issuance of ryotwari patta in view ofthe bar contained in Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act.[Para 11] [381-F-H; 382-A-B]D

1.3 Even though, in his order the District Collector referredto the Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984, the appellants didnot challenge the said Gazette Notification. The Division Benchin its order elaborately also referred to the conduct of theappellants as to how they withheld the crucial part of the GazetteENotification viz. Page No.20 which contains the classification ofthe land as “Peddacheruvu- Tank Poramboke in Survey No.234.The High Court rightly declined to quash the order of the DistrictCollector. No infirmity is found in the impugned order warrantinginterference.[Para 13] [382-G-H; 383-A-B]

FPer Indira Banerjee, J. (Concurring):

1.1 The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra area) Inams (Abolitionand Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956, was enacted to abolishInam lands and to convert certain Inam lands to ryotwari lands inthe Andhra area of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Inam lands hasGbeen defined in Section 2(c) of the 1956 Act. Section 2A of the1956 Act was inserted by amendment, by Act 20 of 1975.[Paras 5-7] [383-G-H; 384-D]

1.2 Even though the 1956 Act received the assent of thePresident of India on 10[th] December, 1956, was published in theofficial gazette on 14[th] December, 1956, and came into force atonce, the appellants and/or their predecessors in interest didnot apply for ryotwari patta soon thereafter. It was only in or around1980 that ‘SR’, since deceased, applied for grant of ryotwari pattafor the two plots of land. By a notification in the Chittoor DistrictGazette dated Monday, September 3, 1984 entire Survey No.234at Tiruchanoor was notified as Peddacheruvu Poramboke (tank)pursuant to the order of the Inams Deputy Tehsildar under sub-section (3) and the final decision of the Revenue Court undersub-section (4) of Section 3 of the 1956 Act. The appellants and/or their predecessor in interest late ‘SR’ did not challenge thenotification. It appears that some others challenged thenotification in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, but the High Courtdid not set it aside. [Paras 9, 12 and 13] [385-B-C, E-F]

1.3 The Single Bench rightly refused to entertain the writpetition as the Collector had questioned the genuineness of thepurported ryotwari pattas on the ground that there were no entrieswith regard to the pattas in the relevant register. The grant ofSaswatha Patta and execution of the takeed by the Mahanth ofthe Mutt in 1940 were also disputed. There were seriousallegations of illegal grant of pattas against the Inams DeputyTehsildar who had purportedly issued the two ryotwari pattas.Moreover, the pattas had purportedly been issued without anynotice of enquiry in the prescribed form, as required under Section7 of the 1956 Act read with the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules 1957 framedunder Section 17 of the 1956 Act. Moreover, the entire SurveyNo.234 had been declared Tank poramboke and brought underSection 2A and, therefore, inalienable. Administrative decisionsare subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution,only on grounds of perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, wantof power to take the decision and procedural irregularity. Excepton these grounds administrative decisions are not interfered with,in exercise of the extra ordinary power of judicial review. In thiscase, the impugned decision, taken pursuant to orders of Court,was based on some materials. It cannot be said to be perverse, AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato warrant interference in exercise of the High Court’s extraordinary power of judicial review. A decision is vitiated byirrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it is in defianceof all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly havetaken the decision, having regard to the materials on record.The decision in this case is not irrational.[Paras 22-24]B[387-F-H; 388-A-D]

1.4 A decision may sometimes be set aside and quashedunder Article 226 on the ground of illegality. This is when thereis an apparent error of law on the face of the decision, which goesto the root of the decision and/or in other words an apparentCerror, but for which the decision would have been otherwise.Judicial review under Article 226 is directed, not against thedecision, but the decision making process. Of course, a patentillegality and/or error apparent on the face of the decision, whichgoes to the root of the decision, may vitiate the decision makingDprocess. In this case there is no such patent illegality or apparenterror. In exercise of power under Article 226, the Court doesnot sit in appeal over the decision impugned, nor does itadjudicate hotly disputed questions of fact. The decision of theCollector was based on materials and thus not liable to beinterfered with. The High Court very rightly did not interfereEwith the decision. It was not for the High Court, exercising itsextra ordinary power of judicial review, to reanalyse the evidenceon record and adjudicate the disputed question of whether theMahanth of the Mutt had at all granted Saswatha Patta to thepredecessors in interest of the appellants, whether the takeedFwas duly executed by the Mahanth, whether the ryotwari pattaswere genuine or otherwise valid or not. Nor was it for the HighCourt to adjudicate the disputed fact of whether the land inquestion was in fact a water body or the dried bed of a waterbody. Cultivation is often carried out on the dried bed of water bodies. That does not denude the land of its character as a waterGbody.[Paras 25- 27] [388-D-H; 389-A]

1.5 The High Court rightly based its decision on thedeclaration of the entire survey area as water body and held, ineffect, that the plots in question had vested in the governmentfree from all encumbrances under Section 2-A of the 1956 Act.H

A

The respondents could not, therefore, be compelled to grantryotwari pattas in respect of the said plots. In this case reliefunder Article 226 was also liable to be refused on the grounds ofdelay, laches, acquiescence and/or omission of the appellants toassert their right, if any, within a reasonable time after thecommencement of the 1956 Act. The appellants and/or theirpredecessors were tardy and lethargic. The application for pattawas made over two decades after the commencement of the 1956Act, when the statute required that such an application be madesoon after its commencement. The Single Bench as also theDivision Bench of the High Court rightly held that it was wellsettled that poramboke (tank) cannot be alienated. No patta canbe granted in respect of tanks and water bodies including thosethat might have dried up or fallen into disuse. The appellantsand/or their predecessor in interest had not challenged thegazette notification of 3[rd] September, 1984 notifying the entireSurvey No.234 at Tiruchanoor as “Peddacheruvu Poramboke”that is tank. [Paras 28-31] [389-B-E]

B

C

D

Susetha vs. State of Tamil Nadu(2006) 6 SCC 543 :[2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 361; M.C. Mehta (Badkhal andSurajkund Lakes Matter) v. Union of India (1997) 3SCC 715 : [1996] 7 Suppl. SCR 465; IntellectualsForum v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 3 SCC 549 :[2006] 2 SCR 419 – referred to.

E

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil AppealNo.7461 of 2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2006 of the High Courtof Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 1495 of 2004.

G

S. Gurukrishna Kumar, Sr. Adv., K. Parameshwar, Ravi KumarReddy, M. V. Mukunda, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh,M/s. Udit Kishan & Associates, Advs. for the appearing parties.

H

378SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AThe Judgments of the Court were delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgmentdated 22.02.2006 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WritPetition No.1495 of 2004 in and by which the Division Bench upheld theorder of the Single Judge thereby declining to interfere with the order ofBthe District Collector in refusing to grant ryotwari patta in favour of theappellants.

2. Case of the appellants is that their predecessor-in-interestobtained a saswatha patta dated 31.12.1940 from Sri Hathiramjee Mathfor dry land admeasuring 6.00 acres T.D. No.464 and predecessors ofCthe appellants and the appellants have been in possession ever since. Itis the case of appellants that they have obtained ryotwari patta dated29.09.1980 in respect of admeasuring 6.00 acres of land correspondingto Inam No.464 in Survey No.234. Similarly, the appellants also obtainedanother ryotwari patta on 14.12.1980 for an extent of admeasuring5.00 acres corresponding to Inam No.464 in Survey No.234. AppellantDSri Sarvepalli Ramaiah has filed Writ Petition No.2759 of 1990 beforethe High Court seeking direction to the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural forimplementation of the patta granted to him by the Deputy Tahsildarvide order dated 29.09.1980 by making entries in the revenue. The saidwrit was disposed of by the High Court by order dated 19.03.1990Ewhereby the High Court directed the authorities to satisfy with referenceto the relevant records whether the patta is genuine or not and if foundto be genuine, they should be implemented.

3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Rural in his Ref.Roc.C.213/89 dated 20.06.1990 sought for clarification from the DistrictFCollector whether to implement the order of granting ryotwari patta toappellant Sarvepalli Ramaiah. The District Collector did not grantapproval; rather issued a Paper Notification on 14.03.1991 in AndhraJyothi daily Telugu Newspaper vide Roc. B9.00701/1990 dated12.03.1991 stating that Sri Shaik Kasumaiah who worked as InamsDeputy Tahsildar Chandragiri, Chittoor District in the year 1980, issuedGRyotwari pattas and the same are not valid and the subsequent saledeeds are also not valid.

4. Since, the District Collector did not accord the approval forissuance of ryotwari patta, the appellant filed Writ Petition Nos.29664- H

65 of 1995 and reiterated the prayer made in the earlier Writ PetitionNo.2759 of 1990. The said Writ Petitions were disposed of by orderdated 28.11.2001 directing the District Collector to conduct enquiry aftergiving opportunity to the appellant and pass appropriate order. After holdingenquiry and giving opportunity to the appellant, the District Collector byorder dated January, 2003 held that a notification dated 03.09.1984 wasissued under Section 2-A of the Act wherein the land in question wasclassified as “Peddacheruvu Tank” and rejected the prayer of theappellant for implementation of patta by holding that pattas issued toappellant Sarvepalli Ramaiah by the Deputy Tahsildar were fabricated.

5. Challenging the order of the District Collector, the appellantfiled Writ Petition No.5807 of 2003 which was dismissed by the learnedSingle Judge holding that the findings recorded by the District Collectorabout the nature of pattas that they were fake was based on correctappreciation of evidence. The learned Single Judge further held that inview of the ban contained in Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act, thetank bed lands cannot be alienated or assigned. In appeal, the DivisionBench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge that the land isclassified as “Peddacheruvu Tank” which vests in the government andin view of the bar contained in Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Actand the same cannot be transferred. The Division Bench further heldthat the appellant did not challenge the notification dated 03.09.1984issued under the Inams Abolition Act, despite the fact that the orderpassed by the Collector makes the specific reference to the entry recordedat Page No.20 of the Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984 that theland comprised in Survey No.234 is Peddacheruvu Tank and withoutchallenging the said Gazette Notification, the appellant cannot seek toquash the order passed by the Collector.

6. Mr. S. Gurukrishna Kumar, learned senior counsel for theappellants submitted that the orders dated 29.09.1980 and 04.12.1980granting ryotwari patta in favour of the appellants were not challengedby the State or any other party in the manner known to law and noappeal was preferred against those orders and therefore, the ordergranting ryotwari patta has attained finality under Section 3(4) of theAct. It was further submitted that the respondents had taken inconsistentstand as to the order of Inams Deputy Tahsildar directing issuance ofryotwari patta. It was further submitted that while carrying out enquiry, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Apursuance to the orders of the High Court, the District Collector had notexamined records relating to the case and the High Court erred in notquashing the order of the District Collector.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Statehas submitted that since the land in Survey No.234 total extent acresB113.67 ½ is classified as ‘Peddacheruvu’ - Tank Poramboke in theDistrict Gazette, Chittoor dated 03.09.1984 and whatever the pattaspossessed by any individual for any land prior to the above publication ofthe District Gazette would be considered as non-existing and invalid.Taking us through the order of District Collector, the learned counsel forthe respondent submitted that upon consideration of the materials, theCDistrict Collector has rightly held that the land being classified as ‘TankPoramboke’ and the appellants cannot claim the right over the land;more so, they have not challenged the Gazette Notification dated03.09.1984.

8. Tiruchanur village in Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District isDa minor Inam village and therefore, it attracts the provisions of the AndhraPradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (InamsAbolition Act). The entire land measuring acres 113.67 ½ comprisedin Survey No.234 of Tiruchanur village, Tirupati Rural Mandal is classifiedas “Peddacheruvu Poramboke” (Tank Poramboke). All the communalEgovernment poramboke lands falls under Section 2-A of the InamsAbolition Act. These lands are not available for grant of ryotwari pattato any individual under the Act. Since the village is an Inam village, thethen Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Collector’s Office, Chittoor has declaredentire land measuring acres 113.67 ½ as “Tank Poramboke” and broughtunder Section 2-A of Inams Abolition Act and the same was published inFthe District Gazette No.9 dated 03.09.1984 at Page No.20. The InamsDeputy Tahsildar, Chittoor bonafidely ignoring the above fact, has bymistake, mentioned the Survey No.234 acres 54-00 as “Inam Dry” atPage No.19 of the District Gazette, Chittoor No.9 dated 03.09.1984which is stated to be invalid.G

9. As noticed earlier, the appellants claimed on the basis of theorders dated 29.09.1980 and 14.12.1980 for granting issuance of ryotwaripatta. When Mandal Revenue Officer by proceeding Roc.C.213/89 dated20.06.1990 has sought for clarification, the District Collector issued apaper notification on 14.03.1991 in Andhra Jyothi daily Telugu Newspaper H

vide Roc B9.00701/1990 dated 12.03.1991 stating that Sri ShaikKasumaiah who worked as Inams Deputy Tahsildar Chandragiri, ChittoorDistrict issued ryotwari pattas and that the same are not valid and thesale deeds are also not valid. The then District Collector, Chittoor alsoissued another paper notification vide Roc.E2/.701/1990 dated 28.07.1994published in Andhra Jyothi daily Telugu Newspaper dated 23.08.1994stating that the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar Sri Shaik Kasumaiah hasissued fake ryotwari pattas and that they are bogus and invalid. Thepurported pattas IE No.303/77 dated 29.09.1980 relied upon by theappellants in the present case, was also shown as Serial No.1 with thename of appellant Sarvepalle Ramaiah in the said paper publication dated23.08.1984.

10. It is also to be pointed out that the very document upon whichthe appellant is claiming right over the land is a Takeed dated 31.12.1940said to have been issued by Sri Swamy Hathiramji Math, Tirupati.According to the respondents, Sri Swamy Hathiramji Math, Tirupati hasno right over the land for grant of Takeed or Saswatha patta for theland. In many cases, it was found that such Takeed or Saswatha pattawas never issued by Sri Swamy Hathiramji Math and they were createdor fabricated and the Saswatha patta relied upon by the appellant is nota valid and reliable document.

11. It is in this context, upon consideration of the documents andthe report of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, the District Collector held thatthe appellant is claiming the land in Survey No.234 on the basis offabricated documents which are not found in the official records of thethen Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri. The District Collector rightlyheld that the entire land in Survey No.234 of Tiruchanur village that is113.67½ was classified as “Peddacheruvu Tank” under Section 2-A ofthe Inams Abolition Act published in the official District Gazette No.9dated 03.09.1984. The District Collector has also pointed out that arecent order was passed by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar in IDT Ref.No.1/83 dated 11.05.1993 declaring the total extent in Survey No.234 asTank in pursuance of the order of the High Court dated 13.04.1992 inWA Nos.941/88 and 1070/88 which has thus attained finality so far asclassification of land. As rightly held by the District Collector, when theentire extent of land in Survey No.234 was classified as Tank, no extentis available for grant of ryotwari patta under the provisions of Inams AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AAbolition Act and the question of implementation of ryotwari patta doesnot arise. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench rightly heldthat the land is classified as “Peddacheruvu Tank” vested with thegovernment and there is no question of issuance of ryotwari patta inview of the bar contained in Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act.B12. On behalf of the appellants, much reliance was placed upon

B12. On behalf of the appellants, much reliance was placed uponthe Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984 at Page No.19 where 54-00acres in Survey No.234 has been classified as “Dry” in Form-II undersub-section (3) of the Inams Abolition Act. As per the provisions laiddown in the Act, Inams Deputy Tahsildar has to issue notice in Form-Iand decision in Form-II for the inam lands alone deciding whether “theClands are held by an institution” or “not held by institution”. Accordingto the respondent State, the Inams Deputy Tahsildar did not follow theprocedure as laid down in Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition &Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 and without following the procedure,straightway published acre 54-00 in Survey No.234 as “Inam Dry” atDPage No.19 of the District Gazette and that the same is unlawful andinvalid. According to the respondent-State, based on the invalidnotifications as ‘Inam Dry’, nobody can claim right over the communalporamboke government lands. All the lands are vested with thegovernment free from encumbrances. When the entire extent of 113.67½ in Survey No.234 is classified as “Peddacheruvu Poramboke”,Eaccording to the respondent, the notification of acres 54-00 as “InamDry” at Page No.19 of the Gazette was unlawful and invalid. Merepublication in the District Gazette, Chittoor cannot give any right toanybody over communal lands. Based on such invalid notification as“Inam Dry”, nobody can claim right over the Communal PorambokeFlands which are vested with the government.

13. The District Collector has referred to the Gazette Notificationdated 03.09.1984 as per which the entire extent of 113.67 ½ in SurveyNo.234 is classified as “Peddacheruvu Tank” and held that no extent ofland was available for issuance of ryotwari patta. As pointed out by theGHigh Court, even though, in his order the District Collector has referredto the Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984, the appellants have notchallenged the said Gazette Notification. The Division Bench in its orderdated 22.02.2006 elaborately has also referred to the conduct of theappellants as to how they have withheld the crucial part of the Gazette H

Notification viz. Page No.20 which contains the classification of theland as “Peddacheruvu - Tank Poramboke in Survey No.234. Uponconsideration of the materials, the High Court rightly declined to quashthe order of the District Collector. We do not find any infirmity in theimpugned order warranting interference.

14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

INDIRA BANERJEE, J.

1. I have gone through the draft judgment prepared by my esteemedsister and I fully agree that this appeal is liable to be dismissed. ThoughI am in full agreement with the conclusion arrived at by my learnedsister, I would like to give my own reasons for my concurrence.

2. It is the case of the appellants, that on 31[st] December 1940, theoriginal writ petitioner late Sarvepalli Ramaiah’s father late SarvepalliPottaiah had obtained ‘Saswatha Patta’ for two plots of land in SurveyNo.234 of Tiruchanoor village in Chittoor district in Andhra Pradesh,one plot measuring 6 acres and the other measuring 5 acres, from theMahanth of Sri Hathi Ramji Mutt, upon payment of premium.

3. According to the appellants, as per the ‘takeed’ grantingpermanent patta to late Sarvepalli Pottaiah, the land being the subjectmatter of the ‘takeed’ was “Punja Manavari Garikala Mitta Chenu” thatis agricultural dry land. The respondents have disputed the execution ofthe “takeed”.

4. It is claimed that Sarvepalli Ramaiah and/or his predecessor ininterest had enjoyed uninterrupted possession and had been cultivatingthe aforesaid 11 acres of land, comprised in two plots, since 1940. It isstated that rent was regularly paid to the Original Inamdar, that is, theMutt prior to 1958, and thereafter, to the government.

5. The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra area) Inams (Abolition andConversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956, hereinafter referred to as the “1956Act” was enacted to abolish Inam lands and to convert certain Inamlands to ryotwari lands in the Andhra area of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

6. Inam lands has been defined in Section 2(c) of the 1956 Act,set out hereinbelow:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A“2. Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwiserequires-

(c) “Inam land” means any land in respect of which the grantin inam has been made, confirmed or recognized by theGovernment, [and includes any land in the merged territoryBof Banaganapalle in respect of which the grant in inam hasbeen made, confirmed or recognized by any former Ruler ofthe territory] but does not include an inam constituting anestate under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 (Madras Act1 of 1908);”

CSection 2(d) of the 1956 Act defines Inam village to mean a villagedesignated as such in the revenue records of the Government. Tiruchanooris designated an Inam village.

7. Section 2A of the 1956 Act inserted by amendment, by Act 20of 1975 provides as follows:D“

“[2-A. Transfer to, and vesting in the Government of allcommunal lands, porambokes etc., in inam lands:-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act all communallands and porambokes, grazing lands, waste lands, forestlands, mines and quarries, tanks, tank beds and irrigationEworks, streams and rivers, fisheries and ferries in the inamlands shall stand transferred to the Government and vest inthem free of all encumbrances.”

By virtue of Section 2A of the 1956 Act, all forest lands, grazinglands, communal lands, river streams, porambokes, tanks, tank beds etc.vested in the government, free from encumbrances. No person can,Ftherefore, have any claim to tenancy, occupancy or otherwise in respectof any land and/or water body which has vested in the government freefrom encumbrances under Section 2A of the 1956 Act.

8. Section 7(1) of the 1956 Act provides as follows:

“7. Grant of Ryotwari Pattas:- (1) As soon as may be aftercommencement of this Act and subject to the provisions ofsub section (4), the Tahsildar may suo motu and shall, onapplication by a person or an institution, after serving a noticein the prescribed manner on all the persons or institutionsinterested in the grant of ryotwari pattas in respect of the G

H

inam lands concerned and after giving them a reasonableopportunity of being heard and examining all the relevantrecords, determine the persons or institutions entitled toryotwari pattas in accordance with the provisions of Section4 and grant them ryotwari patta in the prescribed form.”

9. Even though the 1956 Act received the assent of the Presidentof India on 10[th] December, 1956, was published in the official gazette on14[th] December, 1956, and came into force at once, the appellants and/ortheir predecessors in interest did not apply for ryotwari patta soonthereafter. It was only in or around 1980 that Sarvepalli Ramaiah, sincedeceased, applied for grant of ryotwari patta for the two plots of land.

10. The appellants claim that by an order dated 29[th] September,1980, the Inams Deputy Tehsildar, Chittoor granted ryotwari patta toSarvepalli Ramaiah, since deceased, for the plot comprising 6 acres ofland.

11. According to the appellants, by another order dated 4[th]December, 1980 the Inams Deputy Tehsildar, Chittoor granted SarvepalliRamaiah, since deceased, ryotwari patta for the other plot comprising 5acres of land.

12. By a notification in the Chittoor District Gazette dated Monday,September 3, 1984 entire Survey No.234 at Tiruchanoor was notified asPeddacheruvu Poramboke (tank) pursuant to the order of the InamsDeputy Tehsildar under sub-section (3) and the final decision of theRevenue Court under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the 1956 Act.

13. The appellants and/or their predecessor in interest lateSarvepalli Ramaiah did not challenge the notification. It appears thatsome others challenged the notification in the Andhra Pradesh High Court,but the High Court did not set it aside.

14. Almost ten years after the purported ryotwari pattas wereissued Sarvepalli Ramaiah, since deceased filed Writ Petition No.2759of 1990 for issuance of a Mandamus for implementation of the ryotwaripattas. By an order dated 19[th] March, 1990, the learned Single Benchof the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondentsto implement the pattas, if they were found to be genuine.

15. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Single Bench, the MandalRevenue Officer, Tirupati (Rural) sought the approval of the Collector A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato implement the pattas granted to Sarvepalli Ramaiah, since deceased,but approval was declined.

16. Thereafter, Sarvepalli Ramaiah, since deceased filed WritPetition Nos.29664 and 29665 of 1995 in the Andhra Pradesh High Courtseeking orders for implementation of the ryotwari pattas.

B

17. The respondents filed a counter affidavit to the writ petitions,disputing the genuineness of the rytowari pattas and contending thatthere were no entries relating to the ryotwari pattas in the Register ofRyotwari Pattas issued from 1977 to 1980.

18. By an order dated 28[th] November, 2001, the learned SingleCBench disposed of the writ petition directing the Collector, Chittoor toconduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders within the time stipulatedin the said order.

19. Thereafter the Collector, Chittoor conducted an enquiry andpassed an order, relevant part whereof is extracted herein below:

D

“The case has been examined. The land claimed by thepetitioner is situated in S.No.234 of Tiruchanur Village ofTirupathi Rural Mandal. The entire extent of 113-67½ acresin the above S.No.234 of Tiruchanur was declared asPeddacheruvu Tank and this decision was published inEDistrict Gazette No.9 dated 3-9-1984. Thereafter, litigationscame up and the Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 13-4-1992 in W.A. Nos.941/88 and 1070/88 has directed the IDTto pass a reasoned order. In pursuance of the above orders,the I.D.T. Chittoor has passed a reasoned order in I.D.T. No.1/83 dated 11-5-1993 declaring the entire extent of Ac.113-F67½ in S.No.234 of Tiruchanur as Tank poramboke fallingu/s 2-A of the L.A. Act, 1956.

E

Thereafter, it is needless to mention that it is a fact thatthe land in S.No. 234 of Tiruchanur was declared as Tankporamboke and was brought u/s 2-A of the LA Act, 1956 andsuch communal lands are not available for grant of ryotwaripatta. This fact was also confirmed by His Lordship Mr.Justice Lingaraj Rath, and Mr. Justice Y. Venkatachalam ofthe Hon’ble High Court in their orders dated 9-11-1994 in G

W.A. No.193/90. Moreover, the above ryotwari pattaspurported to have been granted by the then IDT, Chandragiriduring 1980 are not finding place in the official records ofthe IDT and the same fact was already deposited by the IDTbefore the Hon’ble High Court through the counter-affidavits.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that thedocuments produced by the petitioner upon which evidencesought for implementation are non-existing one in the officialrecords and the land claimed by the petitioner in S.No.234 ofTiruchanur Village of Tirupathi Rural Mandal is not available.Hence, question of implementation of the ryotwari pattas saidto be granted on fictitious records does not arise. This orderis issued in strict compliance of the common orders issued bythe Hon’ble High Court on 28-11-2001 in W.P. No.29664/95and in W.P. No.29665/95.”

20. Sri Sarvapalli Ramaiah, since deceased, filed a writ petitionNo.5807 of 2003, challenging the said order of the Collector, which wassummarily dismissed by the Single Bench of the High Court by an orderdated 23[rd] April, 2003. The appeal filed by Late Sarvepalli Ramaiahbefore the Division Bench has been dismissed by the judgment and orderdated 22[nd] February, 2006, impugned in the appeal.

21. There is no infirmity in the judgment and order dated 22[nd]February, 2006, of the Division Bench upholding the dismissal of the writpetition by the Single Bench, that calls for interference in this appeal.

22. In my view, the Single Bench rightly refused to entertain thewrit petition as the Collector had questioned the genuineness of thepurported ryotwari pattas on the ground that there were no entries withregard to the pattas in the relevant register. The grant of Saswatha Pattaand execution of the takeed by the Mahanth of the Mutt in 1940 werealso disputed. As noted by my esteemed sister, there were seriousallegations of illegal grant of pattas against the Inams Deputy Tehsildarwho had purportedly issued the two ryotwari pattas. Moreover, thepattas had purportedly been issued without any notice of enquiry in theprescribed form, as required under Section 7 of the 1956 Act read withthe Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inam (Abolition and Conversioninto Ryotwari) Rules 1957 framed under Section 17 of the 1956 Act.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AMoreover, the entire Survey No.234 had been declared Tank porambokeand brought under Section 2A and, therefore, inalienable.

23. Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review underArticle 226 of the Constitution, only on grounds of perversity, patentillegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and proceduralBirregularity. Except on these grounds administrative decisions are notinterfered with, in exercise of the extra ordinary power of judicial review.

24. In this case, the impugned decision, taken pursuant to ordersof Court, was based on some materials. It cannot be said to be perverse,to warrant interference in exercise of the High Court’s extra ordinaryCpower of judicial review. A decision is vitiated by irrationality if the decisionis so outrageous, that it is in defiance of all logic; when no person actingreasonably could possibly have taken the decision, having regard to thematerials on record. The decision in this case is not irrational.

25. A decision may sometimes be set aside and quashed underDArticle 226 on the ground of illegality. This is when there is an apparenterror of law on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of thedecision and/or in other words an apparent error, but for which the decisionwould have been otherwise.

26. Judicial review under Article 226 is directed, not against theEdecision, but the decision making process. Of course, a patent illegalityand/or error apparent on the face of the decision, which goes to the rootof the decision, may vitiate the decision making process. In this casethere is no such patent illegality or apparent error. In exercise of powerunder Article 226, the Court does not sit in appeal over the decisionimpugned, nor does it adjudicate hotly disputed questions of fact.F

27. The decision of the Collector was based on materials and thusnot liable to be interfered with. The High Court very rightly did not interferewith the decision. It was not for the High Court, exercising its extraordinary power of judicial review, to reanalyse the evidence on recordand adjudicate the disputed question of whether the Mahanth of theGMutt had at all granted Saswatha Patta to the predecessors in interest ofthe appellants, whether the takeed was duly executed by the Mahanth,whether the ryotwari pattas were genuine or otherwise valid or not. Norwas it for the High Court to adjudicate the disputed fact of whether the land in question was in fact a water body or the dried bed of a waterbody. Cultivation is often carried out on the dried bed of water bodies.That does not denude the land of its character as a water body.

28. The High Court rightly based its decision on the declaration ofthe entire survey area as water body and held, in effect, that the plots inquestion had vested in the government free from all encumbrances underSection 2-A of the 1956 Act. The respondents could not, therefore, becompelled to grant ryotwari pattas in respect of the said plots.

29. In this case relief under Article 226 was also liable to be refusedon the grounds of delay, laches, acquiescence and/or omission of theappellants to assert their right, if any, within a reasonable time after thecommencement of the 1956 Act.

30. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the appellants and/or their predecessors were tardy and lethargic. The application for pattawas made over two decades after the commencement of the 1956 Act,when the statute required that such an application be made soon after itscommencement.

31. The Single Bench as also the Division Bench of the HighCourt rightly held that it was well settled that poramboke (tank) cannotbe alienated. No patta can be granted in respect of tanks and waterbodies including those that might have dried up or fallen into disuse. Theappellants and/or their predecessor in interest had not challenged thegazette notification of 3[rd] September, 1984 notifying the entire SurveyNo.234 at Tiruchanoor as “Peddacheruvu Poramboke” that is tank.

32. This Court has time and again emphasized the need to retainand restore water bodies and held that water bodies are inalienable.Land comprised in water bodies cannot be alienated to any person evenif it is dry. Reference may be made to the judgments of this Court in:

(1) Susetha vs. State of Tamil Nadureported in(2006) 6 SCC543;

(2) M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes Matter) vs.Union of Indiareported in (1997) 3 SCC 715 and

(3) Intellectuals Forum v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in(2006) 3 SCC 549

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

390SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 5 S.C.R.

A33. Both the Single Bench and the Division Bench having concurredin their well reasoned findings, interference of this Court is not warranted.For the reasons discussed above, I agree with my esteemed sister indismissing the appeal.

BDivya Pandey

Appeal dismissed.

C

D

E

F

G

H