P. Mohan Vs. Special Court Under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- practice & procedure repeal of act; [bilal nazki, c.v. ramulu & d. appa rao, jj] rules framed under the old (repealed) act held, rules framed under the repealed act do not remain in force once the act is repealed unless repealing act provided otherwise. - x13 plan, and giving our anxious considerations thereto, we are of the considered opinion that the report clearly shows that the land in dispute is covered by sy. the special court has clearly committed an error in having construed ex. 1 to 35 which clearly shows that the land in question which is predominantly covered by t. in para 5 of his report the commissioner mentioned clearly that two maps are available in the central survey office pertaining to miyakunta and zamisthanpur villages and the first map of miyakunta was published in 1337 fasli and the second/latest map was published in 1354 fasli which was based on revision survey and settlement.t. ch. surya rao, j.1. since all the three review wpmps. emanate from a common order of this court dated 9-8-2006 in wp nos. 16223, 19927 and 20375 of 1999, they can be disposed of together.2. the review petitioner is the first respondent in wp nos. 16223 and 20375 of 1999 and petitioner in wp no. 19927 of 1999. the second respondent in review wpmp no. 3811 of 2007 along with others filed the writ petition no. 16223 of 1999 and the other petitioners filed wp no. 20375 of 1999 seeking to assail the common order dated 19-6-1997 passed by the learned special court under the a.p. land grabbing (prohibition) act in lgc no. 146 of 1994 and lgc no. 2 of 1995. after having heard either side, eventually this court under the order now sought to be reviewed, allowed writ petition nos. 16223 and 20375 of 1999 while dismissing the writ petition no. 19927 of 1999. as aforesaid, one of the respondents in the writ petitions is now seeking to review the said order.3. the review is sought for mainly on the premises that the statutory report filed by the mandal revenue officer in accordance with rule 6 of the rules framed under the act which is founded on town survey records has not been properly appreciated and that the report of the deputy director, survey and settlement-cum-commissioner submitted in ex.x11 shows obviously that the disputed area is situated predominantly in town survey nos. 28 and 29 of block-'h', ward 141 correlated to old survey number 166 of zamisthanpur village and the conclusion arrived at by the commissioner runs contrary to the town survey records, which have attained statutory finality and therefore eventual order passed by this court has the effect of altering entire town survey records and thus there is an error that has been crept in which is apparent on the face of the record.4. the learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein have sought to sustain the order on the premise that there has been no such error and the order of this court does not warrant any review.5. apropos the first contention, rule 6 of the a.p. land grabbing (prohibition) rules has been held to be mandatory by this court earlier on more than one occasion, particularly a full bench of this court. verification of the contents averred inter alia in the application filed either before the special tribunal or the special court, as the case may be, is a sine qua non as can be seen from rule 6 of the rules. the object behind such verification is to find the truth or otherwise of the contents made inter alia in the application filed by the applicants before the special tribunal or the special court, as the case may be. the evidentiary value of such report has not been considered by this court as yet. having regard to the object behind such verification it is obvious that verification is meant to see initially the truth or otherwise of the contents of the application so that the special tribunal or the special court, as the case may be, can proceed further in the matter for adjudication. always, the evidence adduced on either side before the court on oath and tested by cross-examination is the substantive evidence, which can be taken into consideration. while appreciating that evidence, the court may consider the verification report submitted by the mandal revenue officer if brought on record as a piece of evidence to eventually draw the necessary conclusion on such appreciation. if finality is attached to such a report, which is not submitted on oath nor tested by cross-examination, we are afraid that it will preclude the parties from adducing any evidence to buttress their case. it may be mentioned here that the verification report for any reason shows in a given case the contents made in the application are true, the application in such an event has to be considered automatically and the petitioners need to adduce no further evidence and even if the respondents-land grabbers adduce evidence in support of their case, such evidence cannot have any significant evidentiary value vis-a-vis the statutory report submitted under rue 6 and that cannot be the spirit and object of rule 6. as a matter of that, the survey and settlement operations conducted in accordance with the provisions of survey and boundaries act are always subject to a suit to be filed by the aggrieved persons. therefore, the first contention merits no consideration.6. as regard the other contention, this court under the judgment in question at page 11 in second para observed thus:now, in view of ex.x13 coupled with ex.x11 report the fact is further elucidated by showing that sy. no. 52/14 falls just by the side of the boundary line separating zamistanpur village from miyakunta. after having considered the report of the deputy commissioner in ex.x11 along with ex.x13 plan, and giving our anxious considerations thereto, we are of the considered opinion that the report clearly shows that the land in dispute is covered by sy. no. 52/14 of miyakunta village. the special court has clearly committed an error in having construed ex.x11 report of the deputy commissioner in converse. thus, the court has committed a jurisdictional error in appreciating a relevant evidence contrary to the actual state of affairs as could be seen from ex.x11 and ex.x13.7. that conclusion has been reached by this court having regard to the discussion made earlier in the proceeding paragraph. however, the learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioners represents that there appears to be an error committed by this court in construing para 16 of the report of the commissioner.para 16 of ex.x11 report recites thus:according to town survey record, the petition scheduled property is located within block 'h' of ward 141. block 'h' consists of a total of 47 town survey numbers, with a total area of 15189 square meters. of these 47 t.s. nos. t.s. no. (1) to t.s. no. (35) have been correlated to old st. no. 166 and t.s. no. 36 to t.s. no. 45 have been correlated to old survey no. 57. thus, the petition schedule property located predominantly in t.s. nos. 28 and 29 is correlates to old survey no. 166 t.s. nos. 36 to 45 are situated south of t.s. nos. l to 35. at this place there is no old survey number 57 as seen from the village maps of either zamisthanpur or miyakunta. evidently there is an error in the correlation made between the t.s. numbers and old survey numbers at this place which requires to be thoroughly verified and rectified.8. giving much emphasis to the expression 'at this place' appearing in the last but one line of the para, it is now sought to be contended by the learned senior counsel that this mistake pertains to old survey number 57, but preceding those lines it has been mentioned inter alia in para 16 that when the t.s. nos. 28 and 29 are correlated to old survey no. 166 and t.s. nos. 36 to 45 are situate south to t.s. nos. 1 to 35 which clearly shows that the land in question which is predominantly covered by t.s. nos. 28 and 29 is correlated to old sy. no. 166 but not 52/14. there appears to be some fallacy in the contention. in the first instance, the entire para 16 shall have to be read as a whole, but not the isolated expression 'at this place'. apart from this, the report as a whole shall have to be read. in para 5 of his report the commissioner mentioned clearly that two maps are available in the central survey office pertaining to miyakunta and zamisthanpur villages and the first map of miyakunta was published in 1337 fasli and the second/latest map was published in 1354 fasli which was based on revision survey and settlement. that, in fact, is the basis adopted by the learned commissioner. in para 6 he observed that as per the initial survey map, miyakunta village consisted of total 47 survey numbers, which number was increased to 53 at the time of revision survey. in para 7 he sought to explain that survey no. 52 or any of its sub-divisions was non-existent in miyakunta prior to 1354 fasli and this survey number along with sub-divisions for the first time were shown in 1354 fasli and survey no. 52 adjoins on the north side of sy. no. 166 of zamisthanpur village and the inter-village boundary between these two survey numbers, namely, 166 and 52/14 was defined by the traverse survey line erected by traverse stations 57, 58 and 59 as seen from the 1344 traverse survey data. in para 10 inter alia he mentioned that sy. no. 52 in miyakunta came into existence as a triangular piece of land to the south of sy. no. 166 of zamisthanpur village. again in para 11 he was of the view that according to the town survey record the disputed area is situated predominantly within town survey numbers 28 and 29 of block 'ft and ward no. 141 correlated to old survey numbers 166 of zamisthanpur village. in para 12 it is stated that after the preliminary verification, action was taken to refix the traverse boundary between miyakunta and zamisthanpur village basing on 1344 fasli traverse data. in para 14 it is stated that the commissioner prepared a composite plan showing the boundaries of zamisthanpur and miyakunta villages in the scale of 8 inches to one mile. in para 15 it is stated thus : 'it can be inferred from the composite plan that the petition schedule property falls predominantly within the limits of sy. no. 52/14 of miyakunta village, which was part of zamisthanpur village as per the 1337 fasli village map.' while making thus the above observations in para 16, the commissioner wanted to say that according to the town survey record, t.s. no. 1 to t.s. no. 35 have been correlated to old st. no. 166 and t.s. no. 36 to t.s. no. 45 have been correlated to old sy. no. 57. the petition schedule property, which is located predominantly in t.s. nos. 28 and 29, is correlated to old sy. no. 166 and t.s. no. 36 to t.s. no. 45 are situate at south to t.s. no. 1 to t.s. no. 35. these observations of the commissioner are not his own observations. they are, indeed, according to the town survey record. the commissioner then proceeded to state thus:at this place there is no old survey no. 57 as seen from the village maps of either zamisthanpur or miyakunta. evidently there is an error in the correlation made between the t.s. numbers and old survey numbers at this place which requires to be thoroughly verified and rectified.9. having regard to the facts stated in para 16, which facts are not his own but according to the town survey record, the error he was referring to at the end is error in the correlation of the town survey numbers with old survey numbers. no significance need be attached to the expression 'at this place'. in that view of the matter, we see no error, which is apparent on the face of the record, in our observation made inter alia in the judgment in question with regard to ex.x11 report. the contention of the learned senior counsel that the report of the commissioner is in the nature of altering the survey and settlement records, which have attained statutory finality, cannot also be considered. merely because no objections have been set-forth by the concerned, qua the survey and settlement operations conducted in accordance with the provisions contained in survey and boundaries act, it cannot automatically be concluded that the records prepared are full-proof and therefore they cannot be questioned. the error pointed out in the survey and settlement operations shall have to be considered and appreciated by the courts whenever the occasion arises and necessary conclusion shall be reached, of course, having regard to the fact that no objections have been taken to the survey and settlement operations; the point of limitation, if any and the weighty evidence adduced by the parties pointing out the errors. therefore, we are of the considered view that the report of the commissioner is not in the nature of altering the revenue records, which attained finality and therefore the contention that that report cannot be considered in preference to the revenue records merits no consideration. indeed, the said report was considered by the learned special court in favour of the review petitioners.10. for the above reasons, we are of the considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. in view of the above conclusions, the questions, as to when a review lies and what are the parameters to be considered in a review petition, sought to be urged on either side with a reference to the decisions of the apex court, are quite not germane.11. in the result, these review petitions fails and are dismissed. but, under the circumstances, without costs.