SARVEPALLI RAMAIAH (DIED) AS PER LRS v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT

Judgment

(Concurring) 1956 Act was enacted to abolish Inam lands and to convert certain Inam lands to ryotwari lands in the Andhra area of the State of Andhra Pradesh – By Gazette Notification dtd. 3.09.1984, entire Survey No.234 was notified as Peddacheruvu Poramboke (tank) – By virtue of s.2-A of the 1956 Act, all forest 372 SARVEPALLI RAMAIAH (D) AS PER LRS. v. DISTT. COLLECTOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 373 lands, communal lands, river streams, porambokes, tanks etc. vested in the government, free from encumbrances – Appellants and/or their predecessor-in-interest-’SR’ did not challenge the notification – No infirmity in the judgment of the Division Bench – Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1957. Constitution of India – Art.226 – Judicial Review under, of administrative decisions – Held: Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review u/Art. 226 only on grounds of perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and procedural irregularity – Except on these grounds administrative decisions are not interfered with, in exercise of the extra ordinary power of judicial review. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: Per R. Banumathi, J.:

1.1 Tiruchanur village in Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District is a minor Inam village and therefore, it attracts the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (Inams Abolition Act). The entire land measuring acres 113.67 ½ comprised in Survey No.234 of Tiruchanur village, Tirupati Rural Mandal is classified as “Peddacheruvu Poramboke” (Tank Poramboke). All the communal government poramboke lands falls under Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act. These lands are not available for grant of ryotwari patta to any individual under the Act. Since the village is an Inam village, the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Collector’s Office, Chittoor has declared entire land measuring acres 113.67 ½ as “Tank Poramboke” and brought under Section 2-A of Inams Abolition Act and the same was published in the District Gazette No.9 dated 03.09.1984 at Page No.20. The Inams Deputy 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.9 dated 03.09.1984 which is stated to be invalid. [Para 8] [ 380-D-G]

1.2 The District Collector rightly held that the entire land in Survey No.234 of Tiruchanur village that is 113.67½ was A B C D E F G H 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

classified as “Peddacheruvu Tank” under Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act published in the official District Gazette No.9 dated 03.09.1984. The District Collector has also pointed out that a recent 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 as Tank in pursuance of the order of the High Court dated 13.04.1992 in WA Nos.941/88 and 1070/88 which has thus attained finality so far as classification of land. As rightly held by the District Collector, when the entire extent of land in Survey No.234 was classified as Tank, no extent is available for grant of ryotwari patta under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act and the question of implementation of ryotwari patta does not arise. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench rightly held 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. [Para 11] [381-F-H; 382-A-B]

1.3 Even though, in his order the District Collector referred to the Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984, the appellants did not challenge the said Gazette Notification. The Division Bench in its order elaborately also referred to the conduct of the appellants as to how they withheld the crucial part of the Gazette Notification viz. Page No.20 which contains the classification of the land as “Peddacheruvu- Tank Poramboke in Survey No.234. The High Court rightly declined to quash the order of the District Collector. No infirmity is found in the impugned order warranting interference.[Para 13] [382-G-H; 383-A-B] Per Indira Banerjee, J. (Concurring):

1.1 The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956, was enacted to abolish Inam lands and to convert certain Inam lands to ryotwari lands in the Andhra area of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Inam lands has been defined in Section 2(c) of the 1956 Act. Section 2A of the 1956 Act was inserted by amendment, by Act 20 of 1975. [Paras 5-7] [383-G-H; 384-D] A B C D E F G H SARVEPALLI RAMAIAH (D) AS PER LRS. v. DISTT. COLLECTOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 375

1.2 Even though the 1956 Act received the assent of the President of India on 10th December, 1956, was published in the official gazette on 14th December, 1956, and came into force at once, the appellants and/or their predecessors in interest did not apply for ryotwari patta soon thereafter. It was only in or around 1980 that ‘SR’, since deceased, applied for grant of ryotwari patta for the two plots of land. By a notification in the Chittoor District Gazette dated Monday, September 3, 1984 entire Survey No.234 at 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 under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the 1956 Act. The appellants and/ or their predecessor in interest late ‘SR’ did not challenge the notification. It appears that some others challenged the notification in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, but the High Court did not set it aside. [Paras 9, 12 and 13] [385-B-C, E-F]

1.3 The Single Bench rightly refused to entertain the writ petition as the Collector had questioned the genuineness of the purported ryotwari pattas on the ground that there were no entries with regard to the pattas in the relevant register. The grant of Saswatha Patta and execution of the takeed by the Mahanth of the Mutt in 1940 were also disputed. There were serious allegations of illegal grant of pattas against the Inams Deputy Tehsildar who had purportedly issued the two ryotwari pattas. Moreover, 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 framed under Section 17 of the 1956 Act. Moreover, the entire Survey No.234 had been declared Tank poramboke and brought under Section 2A and, therefore, inalienable. Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, only on grounds of perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and procedural irregularity. Except on these grounds administrative decisions are not interfered with, in exercise of the extra ordinary power of judicial review. In this case, the impugned decision, taken pursuant to orders of Court, was based on some materials. It cannot be said to be perverse, A B C D E F G H 376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R. to warrant interference in exercise of the High Court’s extra ordinary power of judicial review. A decision is vitiated by irrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it is in defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly have taken the decision, having regard to the materials on record. The decision in this case is not irrational.[Paras 22-24] [387-F-H; 388-A-D]

1.4 A decision may sometimes be set aside and quashed under Article 226 on the ground of illegality. This is when there is an apparent error of law on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision and/or in other words an apparent error, but for which the decision would have been otherwise. Judicial review under Article 226 is directed, not against the decision, but the decision making process. Of course, a patent illegality and/or error apparent on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision, may vitiate the decision making process. In this case there is no such patent illegality or apparent error. In exercise of power under Article 226, the Court does not sit in appeal over the decision impugned, nor does it adjudicate hotly disputed questions of fact. The decision of the Collector was based on materials and thus not liable to be interfered with. The High Court very rightly did not interfere with the decision. It was not for the High Court, exercising its extra ordinary power of judicial review, to reanalyse the evidence on record and adjudicate the disputed question of whether the Mahanth of the Mutt had at all granted Saswatha Patta to the predecessors in interest of the appellants, whether the takeed was duly executed by the Mahanth, whether the ryotwari pattas were genuine or otherwise valid or not. Nor was 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 water body. 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.[Paras 25- 27] [388-D-H; 389-A]

1.5 The High Court rightly based its decision on the declaration of the entire survey area as water body and held, in effect, that the plots in question had vested in the government free from all encumbrances under Section 2-A of the 1956 Act. A B C D E F G H SARVEPALLI RAMAIAH (D) AS PER LRS. v. DISTT. COLLECTOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 377 The respondents could not, therefore, be compelled to grant ryotwari pattas in respect of the said plots. In this case relief under Article 226 was also liable to be refused on the grounds of delay, laches, acquiescence and/or omission of the appellants to assert their right, if any, within a reasonable time after the commencement of the 1956 Act. The appellants and/or their predecessors were tardy and lethargic. The application for patta was made over two decades after the commencement of the 1956 Act, when the statute required that such an application be made soon after its commencement. The Single Bench as also the Division Bench of the High Court rightly held that it was well settled that poramboke (tank) cannot be alienated. No patta can be granted in respect of tanks and water bodies including those that might have dried up or fallen into disuse. The appellants and/or their predecessor in interest had not challenged the gazette notification of 3rd September, 1984 notifying the entire Survey No.234 at Tiruchanoor as “Peddacheruvu Poramboke” that is tank. [Paras 28-31] [389-B-E]