Supreme Court Upholds State’s Claim on Kokapet Lands: KSB Ali vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2017)

Date of the Judgment: October 4, 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 907
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.
Can a government be compelled to recognize claims to land based on historical grants, even when those claims are not clearly established? The Supreme Court of India addressed this complex question in a recent case involving a long-standing dispute over land in Kokapet village. This case involved multiple parties claiming ownership of the land, including individuals asserting to be heirs of a historical figure and the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the State, clarifying the boundaries of executive and judicial power in resolving property disputes. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Case Background

The dispute revolves around 1635 acres and 34 guntas of land in Kotham Kunta, also known as Asad Nagar, now renamed Kokapet village. This land was purchased by Nawab Nusrat Jung-I in the 19th century, with the sale deed registered in 1852. Nusrat Jung-I died issueless in 1875, and his widow passed away in 1916. Disputes over the land arose nearly 70 years ago, with numerous individuals claiming to be successors of Nusrat Jung-I, while the State of Andhra Pradesh also asserted ownership.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Atiyat Court, in its order dated 15th February, 1954, held that the lands in Kokapet village should be confirmed as Madad-e-Maash (grant-in-aid) in favor of the heirs of Nusrat Jung-I. This order was upheld by the Board of Revenue on 24th September, 1954, and approved by the Revenue Minister on 22nd December, 1954. However, the claimants’ application for amendment of the Muntakhab to include Sendhi trees was rejected, leading to a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition in 1963, directing the inclusion of income from Sendhi trees.

In 1973, a civil suit (O.S.No.512 of 1973) was filed, claiming ownership of the land. The Trial Court decreed the suit in 1976, concluding that the lands were Jagir lands and the heirs of Nusrat Jung-I were only entitled to commutation amounts. This judgment was upheld by the High Court in 1985. Subsequently, several writ petitions were filed seeking implementation of the Muntakhab, leading to conflicting orders and memos from the government.

A Single Judge of the High Court invalidated a memo dated 21st May, 2005, which had rescinded earlier orders favoring the appellants, citing violation of natural justice. However, this decision was challenged in writ appeals filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA). The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order, leading to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• The Abolition of Jagirs Regulation: This regulation abolished Jagirs and provided for payment of commutation amounts to Jagirdars or their successors. It also made an exception for lands under direct and personal cultivation of the Jagirdars or their successors as home farm lands under Section 17 of the Abolition of Jagirs Regulation.
• The A.P. (T.A.) Jagirs (Commutation) Regulation: This regulation provided for interim allowance payable, determination of commutation, and abolition of Jagirs.
• The Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952: This act provided for inquiries into Atiyat grants.
• Article 166 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the conduct of business of the Government of a State. Specifically, Article 166(1) mandates that all executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor, Article 166(2) provides for authentication of orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor and Article 166(3) empowers the Governor to make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State.

The High Court also considered the Business Rules framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution, emphasizing their mandatory nature. The Court referred to several judgments of the Supreme Court, including Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar vs. State of Bombay [AIR 1952 SC 181], John vs. State of T.C. [(1955) 1 SCR 1011], and MRF Ltd. vs. Manohar Parrikar and others [Vol IX(2010)SLT580], to highlight that these rules must be strictly adhered to. The Court also relied on Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and another [AIR 1963 SC 395], stating that mere notings on a file do not constitute a government order.

The High Court also referred to Shanti Sports Club and another v. Union of India and others [(2009) 15 SCC 705], wherein the Supreme Court held that notings recorded in official files by government officers do not become decisions of the government unless they are sanctioned and acted upon by issuing an order in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, authenticated in the manner provided in Articles 77(2) and 166(2).

Arguments

The appellants, primarily represented by Mr. Ali, argued that the Atiyat Court’s order of 15th February, 1954, confirmed their ownership of the subject lands as legal heirs of Nusrat Jung-I. They contended that this order, approved by the Revenue Minister, was binding on the State Government. They also argued that the Atiyat Court had the jurisdiction to decide such disputes, and its decision displaced the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

Mr. Raghupati, representing some other appellants, argued that the property was a Royal gift prior to the Ashifsahi dynasty and that the sale deed of 1852 contained a recital that this property is exclusion (Kharij – jama) for ever for themselves from every respect of control of Civil Government of Nizam ul-mulk Asif Jah on the 14 day of Jamadi-Al-Awal 1240 H. He also contended that Circular 10 of 1338 Fasli applied to the pending inquiry, not the Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952. He argued that the Muntakhab was valid since the Government failed to initiate action to avoid it under Section 9 of Circular 10.

The State of Telangana and HMDA refuted these submissions, arguing that the High Court rightly questioned Mr. Ali’s locus standi and that the appellants could not claim relief as they had not challenged the Single Judge’s order against them. They also argued that the issue before the Division Bench was limited to the direction given by the Single Judge to the Government to take a view after hearing the appellants.

The following table demonstrates the sub-submissions of each side categorized by their main submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the court can be summarized as follows:

1. Whether the writ petition filed by Mr. Ali was maintainable, given his earlier withdrawal of a similar petition with liberty to take “appropriate remedy.”
2. Whether Mr. Ali had established his authority to represent the legal heirs of Nusrat Jung-I.
3. Whether the other appellants had established their claims as heirs of Nusrat Jung-I.
4. Whether the memos dated 6th May, 2004 and 31st July, 2004, which were rescinded by the memo dated 21st May, 2005, were validly issued and if they created any rights in favour of the appellants.
5. Whether the memo dated 21st May, 2005, was validly issued and if it required any notice to be given to the appellants.
6. Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Single Judge which had invalidated the memo dated 21st May, 2005.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar vs. State of Bombay [AIR 1952 SC 181]: This case was cited to emphasize the mandatory nature of the Business Rules framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India held that these rules must be strictly adhered to.
• John vs. State of T.C. [(1955) 1 SCR 1011]: This case was also cited to reinforce the mandatory nature of the Business Rules under Article 166(3). The Supreme Court of India held that these rules must be strictly adhered to.
• MRF Ltd. vs. Manohar Parrikar and others [Vol IX(2010)SLT580]: This case was cited to emphasize the mandatory nature of the Business Rules framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India held that these rules must be strictly adhered to.
• Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and another [AIR 1963 SC 395]: This case was used to support the principle that mere notings on a file do not constitute a government order. The Supreme Court of India held that unless an order is issued in the name of the Governor, it does not have any force in law.
• Shanti Sports Club and another v. Union of India and others [(2009) 15 SCC 705]: This case was cited to support the principle that notings recorded in official files by government officers do not become decisions of the government unless they are sanctioned and acted upon by issuing an order in the name of the President or the Governor.
• State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Hanumantha Rao (Dead) Through LRs. and others [(2003)10SCC121]: This case was cited by the appellants to argue that the High Court should not re-appreciate evidence. The Supreme Court of India held that where important evidence has been overlooked and the legal provisions involved are misinterpreted or misapplied, the High Court can interfere.
• BSNL vs. Telephone Cables Ltd. [(2010) 5 SCC 213]: This case was cited to support the High Court’s finding that Mr. Ali’s subsequent writ petition was an abuse of process of law.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 17 of the Abolition of Jagirs Regulation: This section was considered to determine whether the land in question fell under the definition of ‘Home Farm Lands.’
• Article 166 of the Constitution of India: This article was considered to determine the validity of the government memos.

The following table demonstrates how the authorities were used by the Court:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the judgment of the High Court. The Court agreed with the High Court’s findings on the locus standi of Mr. Ali and the other appellants, as well as the invalidity of the government memos.

The following table demonstrates how each submission made by the parties was treated by the Court:

The following table demonstrates how each authority was viewed by the Court:

The Court emphasized that the memos dated 6th May, 2004, and 31st July, 2004, were not formally communicated to any of the writ petitioners, including Mr. Ali. Therefore, they were inoperative and could be rescinded without notice. The Court also held that the memos were not authenticated as required by Article 166(1) of the Constitution and thus could not be considered valid executive decisions of the State Government.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“In the light of the above facts and circumstances: the substantial similarity of the two writ petitions (W.P.No.10084 of 2006 and 14439 of 2006); the conduct of Sri Ali in having withdrawn the writ petition while obtaining effacement of the elaborate and painstaking judgment in the writ appeal, without determination of the merits of that judgment by the Supreme Court; and then pursuing W.P.No.10084 of 2006 (a writ petition filed earlier to W.P.No.14439 of 2006), constitutes in our considered view an abuse of the process of law; wanton litigative behaviour, pejorative to the larger public interest, involving casual and reckless commandeering of scarce judicial time.”

“Neither has Sri K.S.B.Ali established by specific pleadings nor by due authorization on record that he is authorized to represent the cause of 203 legal heirs ofNawab Nusrat Jung-I. Similarly, the other appellants have also not established their claim as heirs of Nawab Nusrat Jung-I. Hence, in the absence of any specific pleadings, evidence or documentation, the appellants cannot claim any right, title or interest in the subject land.”

“We are of the view that the High Court has rightly set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The memos dated 06.05.2004 and 31.07.2004 were not validly issued and were not communicated to the appellants. The memo dated 21.05.2005 was validly issued and did not require any notice to be given to the appellants as the memo was not issued at their instance. The High Court has rightly held that the writ petition filed by Sri K.S.B.Ali was not maintainable.”

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has several significant implications:

• Clarification on Government Memos: The judgment clarifies that government memos must adhere to the procedures outlined in Article 166 of the Constitution to be valid. Mere notings on files or internal communications are not sufficient to create rights or obligations.
• Locus Standi in Property Disputes: The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing locus standi in property disputes. Claimants must provide clear evidence of their legal rights to the property.
• Limits of Executive Power: The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that executive actions must be within the bounds of the law and the Constitution. Governments cannot arbitrarily grant or deny property rights without proper legal procedures.
• Judicial Review of Executive Actions: The judgment underscores the role of the judiciary in reviewing executive actions to ensure they comply with the law and the Constitution.
• Abuse of Process: The Court’s strong stance against the abuse of process highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and preventing frivolous litigation.

Flowchart of Key Events

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in KSB Ali vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2017) is a landmark decision that underscores the importance of adherence to constitutional procedures in government actions and the need for clear legal standing in property disputes. The Court’s ruling in favor of the State of Andhra Pradesh clarifies the limits of executive power and reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rule of law. This case serves as a crucial precedent for future land disputes and administrative law matters.