Judgment:
P.S. Mishra, C.J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. It is not in dispute that a piece of land was assigned to one Muni Reddy on 12-6-1959 under S.O.No. 15 of the Board of Revenue Standing Orders and a patta in Form - D for the said purpose was issued. The appellant herein, which is a Co-operative Milk Producers Union, approached the State Government for certain extent of land for the purpose of expanding its activities, to be specific - to establish an additional milk processing plant (Dairy) at Tirupathi. The Government for the said purpose decided to resume lands assigned to several persons including Muni Reddy. The respondent - writ petitioner, Smt. C. Rajamma, however, objected to the resumption of land and claimed that she was the daughter-in-law of the assignee, she had perfected her title by prescription and also by continuous possession and that in any case she was entitled to compensation. The Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the appellate authority, however, decided against her. Respondent- Rajamma filed the writ petition questioning the resumption of land.
3. Learned single Judge has stated in his judgment, 'a short but an important question of law of general importance which arises for consideration and resolution in these three writ petitions is that whether it is permissible in law for the governmental authorities to resume the lands granted to the landless poor persons in Form 'D' patta (Appendix-V) under Standing Order No. 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders for the purpose of allotting the same to a Co-operative Society for establishing an additional Milk Processing Plant (Dairy) by virtue of power reserved for them either under Condition 17 of the Conditions of the said Form 'D' patta or under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.'
4. The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, however, is not relevant for the instant appeal. The same, if at all, had some importance, it was for the purposes, of the petitions of C. Chandrasekhara Reddy alias Chandra Reddy and Smt. Chandraiahgari Gurramma and Smt. Chandraiahgari Chandramma, whose petitions are also disposed of by the learned single Judge by a common judgment with the case of Smt. C. Rajamma. In the case of Rajamma, however, the land is sought to be resumed by virtue of the power reserved under Condition No. 17 of 'D' Form patta. It is not in dispute that Form 'D' patta contained clear stipulations that land assigned would be heritable, but not alienable, would be brought under direct cultivation within three years from the date of the order and would not be leased out in any manner ............ for breach of all or any of the conditions of the assignment, the Government would be at liberty to resume the land without compensation and in the event of cancellation of assignment, either suo motu or on appeal or on revision, the assignee would not be entitled to any compensation for any improvement that he might have made to the land. The important conditions, however, Condition Nos. 17, 18 and 19, are as follows:
'17. In the event of the land being required for a project or any other public purpose, the land will be resumed and no compensation shall be paid to the assignee. The decision of the Government or other authority empowered by them in this behalf shall be final on the question, whether the purpose for which the land is to be resumed is a public purpose or not.
18. In the event of resumption of land assigned at market value the purchase money or such share of it, as it proportionate to the area resumed will be repaid.
19. The Government will not however be liable to pay compensation for any improvements which may have been effected on the land before such resumption.'
5. There is nothing in the judgment of the learned single Judge from which it can be inferred that the purpose for which the land is sought to be resumed is not one stipulated under Condition 17 aforementioned. The Government's power in this behalf is thus clear and specific.
6. It is indeed somewhat difficult to accept, in the mode of transfer by assignment, a right to property more than the assignment conditions have stipulated, yet learned single Judge has stated in his judgment:
'In view of the aforementioned admitted and settled position, the basic question required to be considered is whether with the assignments of the lands in favour of the original assignees any 'property' within the meaning of that term as used in Article 300A of the Constitution of India vested in the original assignees and if that question is answered positively, then the question to be considered is whether such 'property' could be deprived of by virtue of a power retained under an executive act. These questions need not detain the Court for long.
'D' Form pattas issued to the original assignees specifically vest in the assignees the right to possession, the right to cultivate and enjoy. It also provides that the assigned lands are heritable. The conditions also make the assignees liable to pay general taxes and local rates payable by law or custom and to pay annual assessment.'
and concluded on the said basis,
'In the light of my finding that the aforementioned alienative facts vested derivative titles of the assigned lands in the original assignees and that the assignments were permanent assignments.'
After saying all above, learned single Judge as proceeded to consider whether what is vested in the original assignees could be treated as 'property' for the purpose of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and concluded as follows:
'Therefore, I hold that the impugned action of the second respondent to resume the lands from the petitioners in W.P. No. 1861 of 1994 and W.P.No. 1290 of 1994 is wholly unconstitutional, being violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.'
7. It appears, however, that the above with academic discussions in the judgment of the learned single Judge, could not completely answer Condition No. 17 aforementioned. Learned single Judge has proceeded accordingly to comment:
'Admittedly the lands were assigned to the original assignees as far as back as on 12-6-1959. When the action was initiated to resume the lands, 33 years were already lapsed. It is pleaded by the petitioners that after the assignments of the lands, considerable improvements are made by putting hard labour and spending considerable sums of money. Now it is settled position in law that every executive or administrative action of the State should be informed by fairness, reasonableness and cannot be aribtrary and if the Court finds that an executive action is unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary, it could intervene and condemn such action as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.'
8. Before we express our views on the above, we note here a fact that to forestall action for resumption of land, the writ petitioners filed a suit and a suit for injunction only, whereas it is well settled that a suit for injunction without claiming title to the property is not maintainable unless the title is admitted or is not in dispute. After failing in the suit to obtain a favourable order, writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. It will be only reiterating one of the most salutary principles of law, but in the instant case it has become necessary that when on the one side there is 'public interest' and on the other side 'interest of an individual' the Court will protect the 'public interest' and not the 'interest of an individual'. Resumption of land, we have already noticed, is intended for a public purpose and thus the public interest is in favour of resumption of land. What rights under assignment the writ petitioner got, however, is an issue which has nothing to do with the public purpose aforementioned. No assignee can get a right to transfer and in that no transferee can get a right. The document of assignment has incorporated a condition and that condition always remained alive irrespective of the duration of possession of land by the assignee or those who inherited from the assignee. The principle of derivative title is not at all attracted in the case of an assignment because the proprietary right remains with the person who assigns and does not vest in the assignee. We are clearly of the view that learned single Judge has committed a serious error of law in entering into the issue of the interests and rights which assignees derived from the document of assignment or otherwise and in this respect, gone beyond the limitations which the Courts have evolved for exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against executive actions, the Court does not sit in appeal. It undoubtedly takes notice of facts, but if facts are in dispute or are required to be established beyond doubt, it leaves to the better discretion of the petitioner to seek remedy in the ordinary Civil Court. Many facts will be required to be assumed, before the petitioner's locus standi is accepted - is she the daughter -in - law of the original assignee?, was she in possession of the land and cultivating as the conditions of assignment provide for?, did she get any right by prescription? and if so, under which law such prescriptive right is provided for? Nothing in this behalf is investigated and on mere statement and perhaps, the impression that the writ petitioner - respondent is a landless poor, learned single Judge has gone into all such aspects which, in our opinion, are not relevant for the purposes of the Government's resuming the land for a public purpose. The better course for all concerned in such a situation will be to leave the parties to their discretion to establish their right in an appropriate Court of law.
10. For the reasons a fore mentioned, the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. The appeal is allowed accordingly.