Judgment:
ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioners feel aggrieved by an order, dated 13.03.2006, passed by the Joint Collector, Kadapa, the 1st respondent herein, in exercise of power under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the ROR Act').
2. The facts, that gave rise to the passing of impugned order, are as under:
There is a dispute as to the ownership of rights in survey Nos. 336 (Ac.0.56 cents) and 480 (Acs. 14.35 cents) of Sivapuram Village, Mydukur Mandal, Kadapa District. The petitioners assert that the land was owned by their ancestors and it has accrued to them by succession. Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Sivapuram, also laid claim, vis-a-vis the land. The 7th respondent, one of the devotees, pleaded that the land was endowed to the Temple.
3. At one stage, the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., were initiated, in respect of the land. This was followed by issuance of proceedings, dated 18.02.2003, by the Mandal Revenue Officer, on the directions of the District Collector, Kadapa, for harvesting of the crop, existing over the land. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 3631 of 2003. The same was allowed, and the proceedings, dated 18.02.2003, were set aside, by observing that they are not referable to any provision of law. By that time, the pattadar pass books were existing in favour of the petitioners, and the Temple-authorities filed a revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act, before the 1st respondent herein. This Court directed the 1st respondent herein to dispose of the revision, pending before him, as expeditiously as possible.
4. In compliance with the said direction, the 1st respondent disposed of the revision. He observed that the ryotwari patta issued to the ancestors of the petitioners under the A.P. (A.A.) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Inams Act'), was improper, and on that premise, he found fault with the issuance of pattadar pass books, in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners contend that there was absolutely no basis for the 1st respondent to interfere with the ryotwari patta granted in favour of their family under the provisions of the Inams Act, particularly when no proceedings were initiated, vis-a-vis the same. Other grounds are also urged.
5. Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that, it was only a revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act, that was pending before the 1st respondent, and travelling beyond the scope of the proceedings, the 1st respondent determined the validity of the ryotwari patta, issued to his clients. He submits that the 1st respondent converted the proceedings into those under the Inams Act and there is total lack of coherence in the proceedings.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Standing Counsel for the 6th respondent-Temple and learned Counsel for the impleaded parties, on the other hand, submit that the 1st respondent has only set aside the pattadar pass books and it is in the process of reasoning, that he pointed out the defects in the ryotwari patta.
7. The petitioners approached this Court, on an earlier occasion, by filing W.P. No. 3631 of 2003, feeling aggrieved by the action of the revenue authorities in trying to take away the crop. This Court took note of the fact that a revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act was already pending before the 1st respondent herein, in relation to the issuance of pattadar pass books to the petitioners. It is during the course of hearing of the revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act, that reliance was placed by the petitioners upon the ryotwari patta issued under the Inams Act. The Temple-authorities, on the other hand, placed reliance upon the entries in their favour as well as the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religions Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Endowments Act').
8. After making reference, the 1st respondent took note of the fact that as per the RSR of Sivapuram village, the name of 'Manager for the time being of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Pagoda', and the possession of the Temple was also recorded. After taking note of Sections 2(e) and 4(2)(a) of the Inams Act, the 1st respondent observed that 'ipso jure' of the above Act (Inams Act), the orders of the erstwhile Tahsildar, Proddatur, become 'infructuous' and treated them as 'actus reus'. Then, he proceeded to refer to the proceedings under the Endowments Act. Ultimately, he recorded his conclusions in the following paragraphs:
Therefore, it is clear that the respondents with animus possidendi, interloped into the temple lands by producing Ryotwari Patta issued to their father by the Tahsildar Proddatur, which is a rebuttal evidence.
After examining the case in detail and in the light of the above discussions causa causans and causa proxima of relevant acts and connected Revenue records, the Revision Petition is allowed.
9. A perusal of the entire order impugned in the writ petition discloses that the Officer, who passed the order, had great passion for the Latin Maxims, and he availed every opportunity to use as many maxims as possible, without even verifying as to whether they fit into the occasion. The expressions, such as 'ipso jure', 'ipso dixit' and 'actus reus' are employed at many places. In the process, he failed to recognize the scope of the proceeding before him. In a revision, under Section 9 of the ROR Act, filed against the issuance of pattadar pass books, the Joint Collector has only to verify, whether there existed proper legal basis for issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of the concerned individual. He cannot go into the basis upon which, the title of a party rests. In case the basis pleaded by one party is not proper, the aggrieved party has to avail the remedies under relevant provisions of law.
10. For instance, in this case, the petitioners' claim for issuance pattadar pass books was based upon the ryotwari patta granted in favour of their ancestors. If the authorities of the Temple or Endowments Department are of the view that the patta ought not to have been granted in favour of others, necessary steps under the Inams Act, be it, in the form of an appeal, or revision, ought to have been initiated. The 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to pronounce upon the legality of a ryotwari patta issued to the petitioners, while hearing the revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act.
11. The impugned order, no doubt, is liable to be set aside. At the same time, the fact that the land was recorded in the name of the Temple, cannot be ignored. Even while setting aside the impugned order and paving the way for the Temple, to work out its remedies, the petitioners are to be put on certain terms for enjoyment of the property. The fact that the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., were initiated and that the RSR of the village shows that the temple was the owner; need to be taken note of, at this stage, at least in a limited context.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside, and
(a) it shall be open to the 6th respondent to pursue its remedies under the A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1976 (sic. 1956), vis-a-vis the ryotwari patta granted in respect of that land;
(b) the petitioners shall pay a tentative maktha/rent at the rate of Rs. 60,000/-, per year, for the entire land, payable on or before 1st of June of every year, till the proceedings under the Inams Act, that may be initiated by the 6th respondent, terminate; and
(c) out of Rs. 60,000/-, paid by the petitioners, Rs. 45,000/- shall be kept in a fixed deposit and Rs. 15,000/- in savings account of the Temple. The accrued interest as well as the amount deposited under the saving account shall be utilized for the regular functioning of the Temple, but not for the salaries of the employees.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.