Supreme Court Upholds Classification of Tank Land Under Andhra Pradesh Inams Act: Sarvepalli Ramaiah vs. District Collector (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 14 March 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 256
Judges: R. Banumathi, J., Indira Banerjee, J.
Can a person claim ownership of land based on a patta, when that land has been officially classified as a tank poramboke (a type of water body)? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning land in Andhra Pradesh. The core issue was whether a ryotwari patta (a type of land ownership document) could be granted for land that had been designated as a tank poramboke under the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice R. Banumathi, with a concurring opinion by Justice Indira Banerjee, ruled against the appellants, upholding the High Court’s decision.

Case Background

The appellants claimed that their predecessor-in-interest, Sarvepalli Pottaiah, obtained a ‘Saswatha Patta’ (permanent patta) on 31st December 1940, from Sri Hathiramjee Math for two plots of land in Survey No. 234 of Tiruchanoor village, Chittoor district. One plot measured 6 acres, and the other measured 5 acres. The appellants asserted that they had been in continuous possession of the land since 1940 and had been paying rent to the Mutt until 1958, and later to the government.

The appellants further contended that they obtained ryotwari pattas for these lands on 29th September 1980 and 14th December 1980. However, the District Collector refused to implement these pattas, stating that the land was classified as “Peddacheruvu Tank” in a notification dated 03.09.1984 under Section 2-A of the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. This classification meant the land was a tank poramboke, which vested with the government and could not be assigned to individuals.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed Writ Petition No. 2759 of 1990 in the High Court seeking implementation of the ryotwari pattas. The High Court directed the authorities to verify the genuineness of the pattas. Subsequently, the Mandal Revenue Officer sought clarification from the District Collector, who did not approve the pattas and instead issued a notification stating that the pattas issued by the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar were invalid.

The appellants then filed Writ Petition Nos. 29664-65 of 1995, which the High Court disposed of by directing the District Collector to conduct an inquiry. After the inquiry, the District Collector rejected the implementation of the pattas, stating they were fabricated and that the land was classified as a tank poramboke. The appellants challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 5807 of 2003, which was dismissed by a single judge. The Division Bench of the High Court also upheld the single judge’s order, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (referred to as the ‘Inams Abolition Act’ or ‘1956 Act’). Key provisions include:

• Section 2(c) of the 1956 Act defines “Inam land” as “any land in respect of which the grant in inam has been made, confirmed or recognized by the Government…but does not include an inam constituting an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.”
• Section 2(d) defines “Inam village” as a village designated as such in the revenue records.
• Section 2-A, inserted by amendment in 1975, states that “all communal lands and porambokes, grazing lands, waste lands, forest lands, mines and quarries, tanks, tank beds and irrigation works, streams and rivers, fisheries and ferries in the inam lands shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances.” This section is crucial, as it vests tank porambokes in the government.
• Section 7(1) outlines the process for granting ryotwari pattas, stating that “the Tahsildar may suo motu and shall, on application by a person or an institution…determine the persons or institutions entitled to ryotwari pattas…and grant them ryotwari patta.”

The Act aims to abolish Inam lands and convert certain Inam lands to ryotwari lands. However, Section 2-A makes it clear that communal lands, including tank porambokes, vest with the government and are not available for assignment.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the ryotwari pattas granted to them in 1980 were not challenged by the State or any other party and had attained finality under Section 3(4) of the Inams Abolition Act.
• They contended that the respondents had taken inconsistent stands regarding the validity of the orders of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar.
• They submitted that the District Collector did not properly examine the relevant records during the inquiry.
• The appellants relied on the Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984 at Page No.19 where 54-00 acres in Survey No.234 has been classified as “Dry” in Form-II under sub-section (3) of the Inams Abolition Act.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the entire land in Survey No. 234, measuring 113.67 ½ acres, was classified as “Peddacheruvu” – Tank Poramboke in the District Gazette dated 03.09.1984.
• They contended that any pattas issued prior to this notification were invalid.
• The respondents pointed out that the appellants had not challenged the Gazette Notification of 03.09.1984.
• The State argued that the Inams Deputy Tahsildar did not follow the procedure as laid down in the 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” at Page No.19 of the District Gazette and that the same is unlawful and invalid.
• The State argued that based on the invalid notifications as ‘Inam Dry’, nobody can claim right over the communal poramboke government lands as all the lands are vested with the government free from encumbrances.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:

1. Whether the appellants were entitled to ryotwari patta for the land in question, given its classification as a tank poramboke under Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the land in question was officially classified as a “Peddacheruvu Tank” (tank poramboke) in the District Gazette dated 03.09.1984. This classification, made under Section 2-A of the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, meant that the land vested with the government and was not available for grant of ryotwari patta. The court emphasized that the appellants had not challenged this gazette notification, further weakening their case. The court also considered the fact that the purported pattas were issued by an Inams Deputy Tahsildar against whom there were serious allegations of illegal grant of pattas. The court also noted that the pattas had purportedly been issued without any notice of enquiry in the prescribed form, as required under Section 7 of the 1956 Act read with the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules 1957.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the gazette notification and the validity of the pattas but rejected them based on the clear legal position under Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act, which vests tank porambokes with the government. The court also noted that the appellants had not challenged the notification, which further weakened their case.

The decision was based on the legal principle that communal lands, particularly tank porambokes, are vested with the government and cannot be alienated. The court emphasized the need to protect water bodies, citing previous judgments. The court also considered the conduct of the appellants in not challenging the gazette notification and the allegations of illegal grant of pattas.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that “the land is classified as ‘Peddacheruvu Tank’ vested with the government and there is no question of issuance of ryotwari patta in view of the bar contained in Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act.” The court also noted that “the appellants have not challenged the said Gazette Notification” and that “the purported pattas…were also shown as Serial No.1 with the name of appellant Sarvepalle Ramaiah in the said paper publication dated 23.08.1984.”

The court’s decision was unanimous, with Justice Indira Banerjee concurring with Justice R. Banumathi’s judgment. Justice Banerjee also emphasized that “the entire Survey No.234 had been declared Tank poramboke and brought under Section 2A and, therefore, inalienable.”

Key Takeaways

• Land classified as tank poramboke under Section 2-A of the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, vests with the government and cannot be assigned to individuals.
• It is crucial to challenge official gazette notifications if they affect one’s rights, as failure to do so can weaken one’s case.
• Ryotwari pattas issued without following the due procedure are invalid.
• Water bodies and their beds are considered inalienable and must be protected.
• Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review only on limited grounds such as perversity, illegality, irrationality, want of power or procedural irregularity.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The court simply dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that land classified as a tank poramboke under Section 2-A of the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, vests with the government and cannot be assigned to individuals. This decision reinforces the principle that water bodies and their beds are inalienable and must be protected. The judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but reaffirms the established law regarding the vesting of communal lands with the government.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the appellants were not entitled to ryotwari patta for the land classified as a tank poramboke. The court emphasized the importance of the gazette notification classifying the land as a tank and the fact that the appellants had not challenged it. The decision reinforces the principle that communal lands, particularly water bodies, vest with the government and cannot be alienated. The judgment also highlights the need for proper procedure in issuing pattas and the importance of challenging official notifications that affect one’s rights.