REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7461 OF 2009

SARVEPALLI RAMAIAH (DIED)  AS PER LRS AND OTHERS            …Appellants

VERSUS

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,  CHITTOOR DISTRICT AND OTEHRS                …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

This appeal  arises out  of  the judgment dated 22.02.2006

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh  in  Writ  Petition

No.1495 of 2004 in and by which the Division Bench upheld the

order of the Single Judge thereby declining to interfere with the

order of the District Collector in refusing to grant ryotwari patta in

favour of the appellants.  

2. Case of the appellants is that their predecessor-in-interest

obtained  a  saswatha  patta dated  31.12.1940  from  Sri

Hathiramjee  Math  for  dry  land  admeasuring  6.00  acres  T.D.

No.464 and predecessors of  the appellants and the appellants

1

have been in possession ever since. It is the case of appellants

that  they  have  obtained  ryotwari  patta dated  29.09.1980  in

respect of admeasuring 6.00 acres of land corresponding to Inam

No.464 in Survey No.234. Similarly, the appellants also obtained

another  ryotwari  patta on  14.12.1980  for  an  extent  of

admeasuring           5.00 acres corresponding to Inam No.464 in

Survey No.234. Appellant Sri Sarvepalli  Ramaiah has filed Writ

Petition        No.2759 of 1990 before the High Court seeking

direction to the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural for implementation of the

patta granted to him by the Deputy Tahsildar  vide order dated

29.09.1980 by making entries in the revenue. The said writ was

disposed  of  by  the  High  Court  by  order  dated  19.03.1990

whereby the High Court  directed the authorities  to satisfy  with

reference to the relevant records whether the patta is genuine or

not and if found to be genuine, they should be implemented.  

3. The  Mandal  Revenue  Officer,  Tirupati  Rural  in  his

Ref. Roc.C.213/89 dated 20.06.1990 sought for clarification from

the District Collector whether to implement the order of granting

ryotwari  patta  to  appellant  Sarvepalli  Ramaiah.  The  District

Collector  did  not  grant  approval;  rather  issued  a  Paper

Notification  on  14.03.1991  in  Andhra  Jyothi  daily  Telugu

2

Newspaper vide     Roc. B9.00701/1990 dated 12.03.1991 stating

that Sri Shaik Kasumaiah who worked as Inams Deputy Tahsildar

Chandragiri,  Chittoor District  in the year 1980, issued Ryotwari

pattas and the same are not valid and the subsequent sale deeds

are also not valid.  

4. Since, the District Collector did not accord the approval for

issuance  of  ryotwari  patta,  the  appellant  filed  Writ  Petition

Nos.29664-65  of  1995  and  reiterated  the  prayer  made  in  the

earlier Writ Petition No.2759 of 1990. The said Writ Petitions were

disposed  of  by  order  dated  28.11.2001  directing  the  District

Collector  to  conduct  enquiry  after  giving  opportunity  to  the

appellant and pass appropriate order. After holding enquiry and

giving opportunity to the appellant, the District Collector by order

dated  January,  2003  held  that  a  notification  dated  03.09.1984

was  issued  under  Section  2-A of  the  Act  wherein  the  land  in

question was classified as “Peddacheruvu Tank” and rejected the

prayer of the appellant for implementation of patta by holding that

pattas  issued  to  appellant  Sarvepalli  Ramaiah  by  the  Deputy

Tahsildar were fabricated.  

5. Challenging the order of the District Collector, the appellant

filed Writ Petition No.5807 of 2003 which was dismissed by the

3

learned Single Judge holding that the findings recorded by the

District Collector about the nature of  pattas that they were fake

was  based  on  correct  appreciation  of  evidence.  The  learned

Single Judge further held that  in  view of  the ban contained in

Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act, the tank bed lands cannot

be alienated or assigned. In appeal, the Division Bench affirmed

the order of the learned Single Judge that the land is classified as

“Peddacheruvu Tank” which vests in the government and in view

of the bar contained in Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act and

the same cannot be transferred. The Division Bench further held

that  the  appellant  did  not  challenge  the  notification  dated

03.09.1984 issued under the Inams Abolition Act, despite the fact

that  the  order  passed  by  the   Collector  makes  the  specific

reference to the entry recorded at  Page No.20 of  the Gazette

Notification dated 03.09.1984 that the land comprised in Survey

No.234 is Peddacheruvu Tank and without challenging the said

Gazette Notification, the appellant cannot seek to quash the order

passed by the Collector.  

6. Mr. S. Gurukrishna Kumar, learned senior counsel for the

appellants  submitted  that  the  orders  dated  29.09.1980  and

04.12.1980  granting  ryotwari  patta in  favour  of  the  appellants

4

were not challenged by the State or any other party in the manner

known to law and no appeal was preferred against those orders

and  therefore,  the  order  granting  ryotwari  patta has  attained

finality under Section 3(4) of the Act.  It was further submitted that

the respondents had taken inconsistent stand as to the order of

Inams Deputy Tahsildar directing issuance of ryotwari  patta.   It

was further submitted that while carrying out enquiry, pursuance

to  the orders  of  the  High  Court,  the  District  Collector  had not

examined records relating to the case and the High Court erred in

not quashing the order of the District Collector.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

State has submitted that since the land in Survey No.234 total

extent  acres  113.67  ½ is  classified  as  ‘Peddacheruvu’ -  Tank

Poramboke in the District Gazette, Chittoor dated 03.09.1984 and

whatever  the  pattas  possessed  by  any  individual  for  any  land

prior  to the above publication of  the District  Gazette would be

considered as non-existing and invalid.   Taking us through the

order of District Collector, the learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that  upon consideration of  the materials,  the District

Collector has rightly held that the land being classified as ‘Tank

Poramboke’ and the appellants cannot claim the right over the

5

land; more so, they have not challenged the Gazette Notification

dated 03.09.1984.

8. 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.

6

9. As noticed earlier, the appellants claimed on the basis of the

orders dated 29.09.1980 and 14.12.1980 for granting issuance of

ryotwari  patta.  When  Mandal  Revenue  Officer  by  proceeding

Roc.C.213/89 dated 20.06.1990 has sought for clarification, the

District  Collector  issued  a  paper  notification  on  14.03.1991  in

Andhra Jyothi daily Telugu Newspaper vide Roc B9.00701/1990

dated 12.03.1991 stating that Sri Shaik Kasumaiah who worked

as Inams Deputy Tahsildar Chandragiri,  Chittoor District  issued

ryotwari  pattas  and  that  the  same are  not  valid  and  the  sale

deeds are also not valid.  The then District Collector, Chittoor also

issued  another  paper  notification  vide Roc.E2/.701/1990  dated

28.07.1994 published in Andhra Jyothi  daily Telugu Newspaper

dated 23.08.1994 stating that the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar Sri

Shaik Kasumaiah has issued fake ryotwari  pattas and that they

are bogus and invalid.  The purported pattas IE No.303/77 dated

29.09.1980 relied upon by the appellants in the present case, was

also shown as Serial No.1 with the name of appellant Sarvepalle

Ramaiah in the said paper publication dated 23.08.1984.

10. It  is  also to be pointed out  that  the very document upon

which the appellant is claiming right over the land is a  Takeed

dated  31.12.1940  said  to  have  been  issued  by  Sri  Swamy

7

Hathiramji  Math,  Tirupati.  According  to  the  respondents,  Sri

Swamy Hathiramji Math, Tirupati has no right over the land for

grant of Takeed or Saswatha patta for the land. In many cases, it

was found that such Takeed or Saswatha patta was never issued

by  Sri  Swamy  Hathiramji  Math  and  they  were  created  or

fabricated and the Saswatha patta relied upon by the appellant is

not a valid and reliable document.

11. It  is  in this context,  upon consideration of the documents

and  the  report  of  the  Inams  Deputy  Tahsildar,  the  District

Collector held that the appellant is claiming the land in Survey

No.234 on the basis of fabricated documents which are not found

in  the  official  records  of  the  then  Inams  Deputy  Tahsildar,

Chandragiri. The District Collector rightly held that the entire land

in  Survey  No.234  of  Tiruchanur  village  that  is  113.67½  was

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

8

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.

12. On behalf of the appellants, much reliance was placed upon

the Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984 at Page No.19 where

54-00 acres in  Survey No.234 has been classified as “Dry”  in

Form-II under sub-section (3) of the Inams Abolition Act.  As per

the provisions laid down in the Act, Inams Deputy Tahsildar has to

issue notice in Form-I and decision in Form-II for the inam lands

alone deciding whether “the lands are held by an institution” or

“not held by institution”.  According to the respondent State, the

Inams Deputy Tahsildar did not follow the procedure as laid down

in Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari)

Act,  1956  and  without  following  the  procedure,  straightway

9

published acre 54-00 in Survey No.234 as “Inam Dry” at Page

No.19 of the District Gazette and that the same is unlawful and

invalid.  According to the respondent-State, based on the invalid

notifications  as  ‘Inam  Dry’,  nobody  can  claim  right  over  the

communal poramboke government lands. All the lands are vested

with the government free from encumbrances. When the entire

extent  of  113.67  ½  in  Survey  No.234  is  classified  as

“Peddacheruvu  Poramboke”,  according  to  the  respondent,  the

notification of acres 54-00 as “Inam Dry” at Page No.19 of the

Gazette was unlawful and invalid. Mere publication in the District

Gazette,  Chittoor  cannot  give  any  right  to  anybody  over

communal  lands.   Based on such invalid  notification  as “Inam

Dry”,  nobody  can  claim  right  over  the  Communal  Poramboke

lands which are vested with the government.   

13. The  District  Collector  has  referred  to  the  Gazette

Notification dated 03.09.1984 as per which the entire extent of

113.67 ½ in Survey No.234 is classified as “Peddacheruvu Tank”

and held  that  no  extent  of  land was available  for  issuance of

ryotwari patta.  As pointed out by the High Court, even though, in

his  order  the  District  Collector  has  referred  to  the  Gazette

Notification dated 03.09.1984, the appellants have not challenged

10

the said  Gazette  Notification.   The Division Bench in  its  order

dated 22.02.2006 elaborately has also referred to the conduct of

the appellants as to how they have 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.  Upon consideration  of  the  materials,  the  High

Court rightly declined to quash the order of the District Collector.

We do not  find any infirmity  in  the impugned order  warranting

interference.

14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

…………….……………J.     [R. BANUMATHI]

New Delhi; March 14, 2019

11

REPORTABLE

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL   APPEAL NO. 7461 OF 2009

SARVEPALLI RAMAIAH (D) THR. LRS.                         …Appellants  AND ORS.

Versus

DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHITTOOR DIST.                          …Respondents AND ORS.  

J U D G M E N T

Indira Banerjee, J.

I  have  gone  through  the  draft  judgment  prepared  by  my

esteemed  sister  and  I  fully  agree  that  this  appeal  is  liable  to  be

dismissed.  Though I am in full agreement with the conclusion arrived

at by my learned sister,  I would like to give my own reasons for my

concurrence.  

2. It is the case of the appellants, that on 31st December 1940, the

original writ petitioner late Sarvepalli Ramaiah’s father late Sarvepalli

Pottaiah had obtained ‘Saswatha Patta’ for two plots of land in Survey

No.234 of Tiruchanoor village in Chittoor district in Andhra Pradesh,

12

one plot measuring 6 acres and the other measuring 5 acres, from

the Mahanth of Sri Hathi Ramji Mutt, upon payment of premium.

3. According  to  the  appellants,  as  per  the  ‘takeed’  granting

permanent  patta  to  late  Sarvepalli  Pottaiah,  the  land  being  the

subject  matter  of  the ‘takeed’  was “Punja  Manavari  Garikala  Mitta

Chenu” that is agricultural dry land. The respondents have disputed

the execution of the “takeed”.

4. It is claimed that Sarvepalli Ramaiah and/or his predecessor in

interest  had  enjoyed  uninterrupted  possession  and  had  been

cultivating the aforesaid 11 acres  of land, comprised in two plots,

since 1940. It is stated that rent was regularly paid to the Original

Inamdar,  that  is,  the  Mutt  prior  to  1958,  and  thereafter,  to  the

government.

5. The  Andhra  Pradesh  (Andhra  area)  Inams  (Abolition  and

Conversion into  Ryotwari)  Act  1956,  hereinafter  referred to as  the

“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.

6. Inam lands has been defined in Section 2(c) of the 1956 Act,

set out hereinbelow:

“2.  Definitions:-  In  this  Act,  unless  the  context  otherwise   

requires-

(c) “Inam land” means any land in respect of which the

grant in inam has been made, confirmed or recognized

by  the  Government,  [and  includes  any  land  in  the

13

merged territory of Banaganapalle in respect of which

the  grant  in  inam  has  been  made,  confirmed  or

recognized  by  any  former  Ruler  of  the  territory]  but

does not include an inam constituting an estate under

the Madras Estates  Land Act,  1908 (Madras Act  1 of

1908);”

Section 2(d) of the 1956 Act defines Inam village to mean a village

designated  as  such  in  the  revenue  records  of  the  Government.

Tiruchanoor is designated an Inam village.

7. Section 2A of the 1956 Act inserted by amendment, by Act 20

of 1975 provides as follows:

“[2-A. Transfer to, and vesting in the Government of

all communal lands, porambokes etc., in inam lands:-

Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  this  Act  all

communal  lands  and  porambokes,  grazing  lands,  waste

lands,  forest lands,  mines and quarries,  tanks,  tank beds

and  irrigation  works,  streams  and  rivers,  fisheries  and

ferries  in  the  inam  lands  shall  stand  transferred  to  the

Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances.”

By virtue of Section 2A of the 1956 Act, all forest lands, grazing lands,

communal lands, river streams, porambokes, tanks, tank beds etc.

vested in the government, free from encumbrances. No person can,

therefore,  have  any  claim  to  tenancy,  occupancy  or  otherwise  in

respect  of  any  land  and/or  water  body  which  has  vested  in  the

government free from encumbrances under Section 2A of the 1956

14

Act.  

8. Section 7(1) of the 1956 Act provides as follows:

“7. Grant of  Ryotwari  Pattas:-  (1)  As  soon as  may be

after  commencement  of  this  Act  and  subject  to  the

provisions of sub section (4),  the Tahsildar may suo motu

and shall, on application by a person or an institution, after

serving a notice in the prescribed manner on all the persons

or institutions interested in the grant of ryotwari pattas in

respect of the inam lands concerned and after giving them a

reasonable opportunity of being heard and examining all the

relevant  records,  determine  the  persons  or  institutions

entitled to ryotwari pattas in accordance with the provisions

of Section 4 and grant them ryotwari patta in the prescribed

form.”

9. 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  Sarvepalli

Ramaiah, since deceased, applied for grant of ryotwari patta for the

two plots of land.

10. The appellants claim that by an order dated 29th September,

1980, the Inams Deputy Tehsildar, Chittoor granted ryotwari patta to

Sarvepalli Ramaiah, since deceased, for the plot comprising 6 acres

of land.

15

11. According  to  the  appellants,  by  another  order  dated  4th

December,  1980  the  Inams  Deputy  Tehsildar,  Chittoor  granted

Sarvepalli Ramaiah, since deceased, ryotwari patta for the other plot

comprising 5 acres of land.

12. 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.

13. The  appellants  and/or  their  predecessor  in  interest  late

Sarvepalli Ramaiah 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.  

14. Almost  ten  years  after  the  purported  ryotwari  pattas  were

issued Sarvepalli Ramaiah, since deceased filed Writ Petition No.2759

of  1990  for  issuance  of  a  Mandamus  for  implementation  of  the

ryotwari  pattas.   By an order dated 19th March,  1990, the learned

Single  Bench  of  the  High  Court  disposed  of  the  writ  petition  by

directing the respondents to implement the pattas, if they were found

to be genuine.

15. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Single Bench, the Mandal

Revenue Officer, Tirupati (Rural) sought the approval of the Collector

to  implement  the  pattas  granted  to  Sarvepalli  Ramaiah,  since

deceased, but approval was declined.

16

16. Thereafter,  Sarvepalli  Ramaiah,  since  deceased  filed  Writ

Petition Nos.29664 and 29665 of 1995 in the Andhra Pradesh High

Court seeking orders for implementation of the ryotwari pattas.

17. The respondents filed a counter affidavit to the writ petitions,

disputing the genuineness of the rytowari pattas and contending that

there were no entries relating to the ryotwari pattas in the Register of

Ryotwari Pattas issued from 1977 to 1980.

18. By  an order  dated 28th November,  2001,  the  learned  Single

Bench disposed of the writ petition directing the Collector, Chittoor to

conduct  an  enquiry  and  pass  appropriate  orders  within  the  time

stipulated in the said order.

19. Thereafter  the  Collector,  Chittoor  conducted  an  enquiry  and

passed an order,  relevant part whereof is extracted herein below:

“The  case  has  been  examined.  The  land  claimed  by  the

petitioner  is  situated  in  S.No.234 of  Tiruchanur  Village  of

Tirupathi Rural Mandal. The entire extent of 113-67½ acres

in  the  above  S.No.234  of  Tiruchanur  was  declared  as

Peddacheruvu  Tank  and  this  decision  was  published  in

District Gazette No.9 dated 3-9-1984.  Thereafter, litigations

came up and the Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 13-4-

1992 in W.A. Nos.941/88 and 1070/88 has directed the IDT

to pass a reasoned order. In pursuance of the above orders,

the  I.D.T.  Chittoor  has  passed  a  reasoned  order  in  I.D.T.

No.1/83  dated  11-5-1993  declaring  the  entire  extent  of

Ac.113-67½ in S.No.234 of Tiruchanur as Tank poramboke

17

falling u/s 2-A of the L.A. Act, 1956.

Thereafter, it is needless to mention that it is a fact

that  the land in  S.No.  234 of  Tiruchanur was declared as

Tank  poramboke and  was  brought  u/s  2-A  of  the  LA  Act,

1956 and such communal lands are not available for grant

of  ryotwari  patta.   This  fact  was  also  confirmed  by  His

Lordship  Mr.  Justice  Lingaraj  Rath,  and  Mr.  Justice  Y.

Venkatachalam of  the  Hon’ble  High  Court  in  their  orders

dated  9-11-1994 in  W.A.  No.193/90.  Moreover,  the  above

ryotwari pattas purported to have been granted by the then

IDT,  Chandragiri  during 1980 are not  finding place in  the

official records of  the IDT and the same fact was already

deposited by the IDT before the Hon’ble High Court through

the counter-affidavits.

In view of the above, I  am of the opinion that the

documents produced by the petitioner upon which evidence

sought  for  implementation  are  non-existing  one  in  the

official  records  and  the  land  claimed by  the  petitioner  in

S.No.234 of Tiruchanur Village of Tirupathi Rural Mandal is

not  available.  Hence,  question  of  implementation  of  the

ryotwari pattas said to be granted on fictitious records does

not arise.  This order is issued in strict compliance of the

common orders issued by the Hon’ble High Court on 28-11-

2001 in W.P. No.29664/95 and in W.P. No.29665/95.”

20. Sri Sarvapalli Ramaiah, since deceased, filed a writ petition

18

No.5807 of 2003, challenging the said order of the Collector, which

was summarily dismissed by the Single Bench of the High Court by

an order dated 23rd April, 2003. The appeal filed by Late Sarvepalli

Ramaiah before  the  Division  Bench  has  been dismissed  by  the

judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2006, impugned in the

appeal.

21. There  is  no  infirmity  in  the  judgment  and  order  dated  22nd

February, 2006, of the Division Bench upholding the dismissal of the

writ petition by the Single Bench, that calls for interference in this

appeal.

22. In my view, 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. As noted by my esteemed sister,

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.

19

23. 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.

24. In this case, the impugned decision, taken pursuant to orders of

Court,  was  based  on  some  materials.  It  cannot  be  said  to  be

perverse, 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.

25. 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.

26. 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

20

appeal  over  the  decision  impugned,  nor  does  it  adjudicate  hotly

disputed questions of fact.

27. 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.

28. 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. The respondents

could not, therefore, be compelled to grant ryotwari pattas in respect

of the said plots.  

29. 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.

21

30. At  the  cost  of  repetition,  it  is  reiterated  that  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.

31. 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.

32. This Court has time and again emphasized the need to retain

and restore water bodies and held that water bodies are inalienable.

Land comprised in water bodies cannot be alienated to any person

even if it is dry.  Reference may be made to the judgments of this

Court in:

(1)  Susetha vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2006) 6 SCC 543; (2) M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes Matter) vs.   

Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 715 and (3)  Intellectuals Forum v. State of Andhra Pradesh  reported in (2006) 3 SCC 549

22

33. Both  the  Single  Bench  and  the  Division  Bench  having

concurred in their well reasoned findings, interference of this Court is

not warranted.  For the reasons discussed above, I agree with my

esteemed sister in dismissing the appeal.  

  .................................J. (INDIRA BANERJEE)

NEW DELHI MARCH 14, 2019

23