1 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1130 & 1339 of 2017 APHC010515612017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL Nos: 1130 & 1339 of 2017 W.P.No.1130/2017 Between: The Sub Registrar & 2 Others, and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Sri N Ramesh Chennai 17 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FORESTS (AP) 2. SODUM ANVESHA 3. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) 2 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1130 & 1339 of 2017 W.A.No:1339 of 2017 Between: The District Collector, Chittoor and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND N Ramesh Chennai And 19 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) 2. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP) 2. GP FOR FORESTS (AP) 3. . 4. SODUM ANVESHA 3 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1130 & 1339 of 2017 Court made the following common order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) As both these writ appeals arise out of the same order of the learned Single Judge, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, learned G.P. for Assignments, learned G.P. for Forests, and Smt. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel appearing for the on official respondents. 3. Respondents 1 to 15 in W.A.No.1130 of 2017 as well as W.A.No.1339 of 2017 had participated in an auction conducted by the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II Chennai, in T.A.No.24 of 2007 in D.R.C.No.329 of 2010. After being declared as successful bidders and after payment of bid amount, a sale certificate, dated 10.02.2011 was issued in favour of these respondents for an extent of Ac.456.46 cents in Sy.Nos.75 and 84 of Padiri Kuppam Village of Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District. The said respondents sought details of the market value of the land from the Sub- Registrar of Assurances, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District, for the purpose of getting sale certificate registered. In reply, the Sub-Registrar by proceedings, dated 07.03.2011, informed the respondents that the said land belonged to a Forest Area and no registration can be carried out for these lands on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.786, Revenue Department, dated 09.11.1999 and letter No.G1/28081/02, dated 25.02.2003 issued by the Inspector General for Registration and Stamps Andhra Pradesh. Aggrieved by 4 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1130 & 1339 of 2017 these proceedings, respondents 1 to 15 approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.16230 of 2011. 4. The Official Respondents, who are the appellants in these two writ appeals, had filed counter affidavits, in the writ petition, stating that the land in question was classified as “Adavi Poramboke” and as such it cannot be treated as private patta land. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh suo moto impleaded the District Collector-cum-Magistrate, Chittoor as well as the Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor, for ascertaining the facts. The Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor East (WL) Division directed the Forest Range Officer, Satyavedu and Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Tirupati to conduct an inspection and certify the legal status of the lands in Sy.Nos.75 and 84 of Padiri Kuppam Village. A joint inspection was then conducted, on 19.06.2014, by these two officers. After the conduct of such survey, it was concluded that the lands in Sy.Nos.75 & 84 of Padiri Kuppam Village were situated outside the Vanellore Reserve Forest of Satyavedu Range and the same was submitted to this Court. 5. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of this survey report, took the view that the land in question cannot be treated to be forest land and that the description of land, in Sy.Nos.75 and 84 as “Adavi Poramboke” cannot be accepted in as much as the land in the revenue records was classified as assessed waste land. The learned Single Judge, after noticing the judgment of 5 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1130 & 1339 of 2017 the Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and Ors., vs. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and Ors., 1 had allowed the writ petition setting aside the impugned order of the Sub-Registrar dated 07.03.2011 with a further direction to the Sub-Registrar to register the subject land without raising any objection, other than the objections as to adequacy of stamp duty and registration fee. 6. Aggrieved by this judgment, dated 20.02.2017, the District Collector filed W.A.No.1339 of 2017. The Sub-Registrar of Assurances, District Registrar of Assurances and the Commissioner and Inspector General, Stamps and Registration, filed W.A.No.1130 of 2017. 7. The case of the appellants, in both the cases,is that the land in question is not private property and that the learned Single Judge had erred in holding that the land is not forest land. The appellants also raise the plea of alternative remedyin support of the contention that the land is forest land. The appellants also raised the ground that the order of the Joint Collector-cum- Settlement Officer, dated 31.03.2011, had declared the land as “Adavi Poramboke”, which had become final. 8. While the appeals were pending consideration, certain third parties moved I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.A.No.1130 of 2017 and I.A.No.1 of 2024 12016 (1) ALT 550 (F.B) 6 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1130 & 1339 of 2017 in W.A.No.1339 of 2017. These applications were for impleading the applicants therein as respondents in the writ appeals. These applications have been allowed by way of a separate order. However, these persons are being referred to as implead applicants, for the convenience of this court. 9. The case of the implead applicants is: a) Padiri Kuppam Village, in which the land in dispute is situated, was an estate village, which falls within the ambit of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short „the Estate Abolition Act‟). The implead applicants and their ancestors, who are the land holders of this land had been agitating for issuance of ryotwari pattas in their favour under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act. The litigation which commenced with the order of the Settlement Officer-III, Chittoor, dated 31.07.1950, rejecting the applications of the implead applicants as well as their ancestors, for issuance of ryotwari patta had continued till the year 2022 and the applications of the implead applicants for grant of statutory patta are still pending consideration. b) As stated above, the Settlement Officer had rejected the applications of the implead applicants, by order dated 31.01.1950, on the ground that the Padiri Kuppam Village does not fall within the ambit of the Estate Abolition Act, as the said village is an Inam Estate. This order was assailed in A.S.No.17 of 1964 on the file of the District Judge (Tribunal), Chittoor. The appellate Tribunal by order, dated 21.06.1966, held that the 7 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1130 & 1339 of 2017 village was not an Estate Village. Aggrieved by this order, dated 21.06.1966, W.P.No.4127 of 1969 came to be filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The erstwhile High of Andhra Pradesh allowed the writ petition by order dated 07.09.1973 holding that Padiri Kuppam Village is an Inam Village. W.A.No.275 of 1974, filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 07.09.1973, came to be dismissed. S.L.P.(C).No.652 of 1975 filed before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India was initially accepted and numbered as Civil Appeal No.79 of 1976. However, this appeal was also dismissed by order dated 30.08.1980. c) While the proceedings were pending, before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the implead applicants and others had filed an application before the Settlement Officer, Nellore on 10.07.1978 requesting issuance of pattas. Initially, these applications were kept in abeyance till the Estate Abolition Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor, by order dated 30.06.1983, directed the Settlement Officer, Nellore to number the application and conductthe enquiry. This enquiry ended in rejection of the application, by order of the Joint Collector, dated 31.03.2011. These orders came to be challenged by way of W.P.No.9294 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 01.06.2017, directing the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer to dispose of the claim applications of the implead applicants. After considering the said applications, the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer by order, dated 31.03.2021, had dismissed the said applications. Upon 8 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1130 & 1339 of 2017 appeal, the District Judge-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Chittoor, by order dated 31.10.2022, remanded the matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer-cum- Joint Collector for disposal of the applications. The proceedings in this relation are presently pending before the Joint Collector. 10. The implead applicants seek to implead themselves and press two grounds for consideration. Firstly, the purchase of this land by respondents 7 to 15 is invalid on the ground that the mortgage of the land to the bank is an illegal mortgage and consequently the bank could not have put the land to sale. Secondly, the title of the implead applicants is not clear as ryotwari pattas had not been issued and consequently any mortgage of land, even if done with the consent of the implead applicants, would not create any right or interest in the land. 11. The implead applicants, contend that some of the implead applicants and their predecessors had executed a general power of attorney dated 19.11.1983, which was registered as Doc.No.21 of 1983, and which was said to have been revoked, on 27.05.1987, by way of registered document Doc.No.8 of 1987. Similarly, some of the other implead applicants and their predecessors had executed another general power of attorney, dated 19.11.1983, which was registered as Doc.No.20 of 1983 and which was said to have been revoked, on 23.05.1987, by way of registered document No.6 of 1987. The implead applicants contend that the bank initiated recovery proceedings under T.A.No.270 of 1998 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, 9 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1130 & 1339 of 2017 Chennai, eleven years after the revocation of the general power of attorney, and as such there was no creation of any interest in the land, by way of mortgage of the property and any alleged deposit of title deeds by the power of attorney holders of the implead applicants and their predecessors, would not, in any manner, create any liability over the land in as much as the said power of attorney holders did not have any right or title to make such deposit of title deeds. 12. 12. The implead applicants also contend that the implead applicants though rightfully entitled to a ryotwari patta, have not been able to obtain any such patta, in view of the prolonged litigation between the Government and the implead applicants. In such circumstances, any deposit of title deeds either by the implead applicants or by their alleged general power of attorney holders, would not create any right over the property in as much as their title over the land had not yet been recognized by the Government. 13. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue would contend that the land in question is classified as “Adavi Poramboke” which would mean that the land would have to be treated as forest land in which no private interest can remain. The appellants had also filed a fair Adangal extract of the said village to demonstrate that the entire land in Sy.No.75 admeasuring 425.60 cents has been classified as forest land and that the land in Sy.No.84 admeasuring 181.90 cents is also classified as forest land. 10 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1130 & 1339 of 2017 Consideration of the Court: 14. The stand of the appellants, viz., the revenue authorities of the State, is that the land in question is classified as “Adavi Poramboke” and as such cannot be subjected to grant of ryotwari patta. Another contention of the appellants is that no ryotwari patta has been given to any person till now and as such no proprietary interest is available to any person to transfer such proprietary interest, by way of mortgage or by way of sale of the property. 15. While, the revenue authorities claim that the land is forest land, the officials of the forest department, after conduct of a survey, have specifically declared that the land in question is far away from any forest block and does not amount to forest land. The revenue authorities except reiterating their statement that the land is forest land, have not taken any steps to get any declaration or proceeding from the forest department certifying that the land is forest land or that the earlier view of the forest department that the land is not forest land requires to be changed. Consequently, this Court would agree that the view of the learned Single Judge that the land in question cannot be treated as forest land and ryotwari patta cannot be denied on such ground. 15. The implead applicants contend that they have no title, as of now, for creation of any security interest over the land. Apart from this, the implead petitioners would also contend that the mortgage of the land had been done by general power of attorney holders, whose power of attorney had been cancelled. However, the implead petitioners do not state as to whether the 11 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1130 & 1339 of 2017 mortgage of the property had been carried out before the cancellation of the power of attorney or after the cancellation of the power of attorney. In such circumstances, this Court cannot hold that the power of attorney holders did not have any authority to mortgage the property. 16. However, the question of right and title over the land and the ability of the bank to sell the property and give a document transferring title of the land to the purchasers remains. This aspect, had not been raised before the learned Single Judge. However, it would not be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge, as the said issue can be decided by this Court and any remand would only prolong the litigation. 17. The persons, on whose behalf the property had been mortgaged, do not have title to the property, in as much as, they have not yet been given any patta under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act or under the Inam Abolition Act. In the absence of such a patta, no title can be claimed over the land and consequently, any mortgage of the property and subsequent sale of such land by the bank would not create any title in favour of the purchasers. However, such title would arise, if the persons seeking ryotwari pattaare granted a ryotwari patta. Any such grant of ryotwari patta would feed the title, as stipulated under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which reads as follows: 43. Transfer by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest in property transferred.—Where a person 3[fraudulently or] erroneously represents that he is 12 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1130 & 1339 of 2017 authorised to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists. Nothing in this section shall impair the right of transferees in good faith for consideration without notice of the existence of the said option. 18. However, such an event has not yet come to pass and consequently, any sale of the property by the bank, to the purchaser, would not give confer title over the property to the private respondents until the implead petitioners are given ryotwari patta over the land in question. 19. In the circumstances, these writ appeals are disposed of with the following directions: 1. The land, in the absence of any certification by the Forest Department, cannot be treated to be forest land, which is incapable of transfer. 2. The registration of the sale deed, given by the bank, would not in any manner, confer any title in favour of the private respondents unless and until the implead petitioners are able to obtain ryotwari pattas. 3. The question of whether the mortgage of the land, by the power of attorney holders of the implead petitioners, is valid or not, cannot be raised before this Court, especially after the Debt Recovery Tribunal, had already passed orders, holding that there was a mortgage and directing sale of such property for recovery of mortgage deed. 13 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1130 & 1339 of 2017 4. This aspect would have to be agitated by the implead petitioners in an appropriate proceeding before an appropriate forum and the said liberty, subject to the provisions of law, is given to the implead petitioners. 5. Subject to the above observations / directions, the order of the learned Single Judge is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. ____________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J Js 14 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1130 & 1339 of 2017 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL Nos:1130 & 1339of 2017 (per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 23rd July, 2025 Js