The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a Single Judge’s order that had stalled an inquiry into the alleged irregularities in the regularization of surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, allowed the Writ Appeals filed by the State, reviving G.O.Ms.No.557 which ordered a probe into the allotment of land based on alleged fake documents.
The dispute centers on the regularization of surplus land in Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam, initially claimed by Pinnamraju Venkatapathi Raju and Kasi Naga Kanaka Brahmam based on unregistered sale documents. The State Government, suspecting the submission of fabricated documents, ordered an inquiry in 2012. A Single Judge quashed this inquiry in 2014, citing prejudgment by the Enquiry Officer. The Division Bench has now overturned that decision, holding that an inquiry into the disposal of public property is mandated by the Public Trust Doctrine and cannot be stalled merely on grounds of apprehension of bias.
Background of the Case
The subject land, originally owned by Mr. Addepalli Venkatappaya Sastry, was declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act) and vested in the State Government. The Writ Petitioners claimed to have purchased extents of 2,752 sq.mts. and 2,879 sq.mts. from the original owner in 1983 and 1987, respectively.
They applied for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002, a government policy permitting allotment of excess land to third parties in possession. Consequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.256 and G.O.Ms.No.424 in 2006, regularizing the land in their favor.
However, allegations arose that the petitioners produced fabricated tax receipts to prove the existence of structures—a condition for regularization. The Government initially kept the regularization orders in abeyance but later withdrew the abeyance orders via G.O.Ms.No.493 dated 26.03.2008 after the petitioners paid a higher slab rate.
In 2012, following questions raised in the Legislative Council regarding “illegal regularization,” the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.557, appointing the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) as an Enquiry Officer to probe the matter. The petitioners challenged this inquiry, and a Single Judge allowed their writ petitions on 21.03.2014, ruling that the Enquiry Officer had prejudged the issue in a letter to the government.
Arguments of the Parties
The State (Appellants):
- The State argued that G.O.Ms.No.455 did not permit regularization in favor of single individuals absent specific conditions.
- The learned Special Government Pleader contended that the petitioners submitted forged tax receipts and were not entitled to the land.
- The State maintained that the mere payment of a higher slab rate could not validate the regularization if the foundational eligibility—a registered document of purchase—was missing.
- The quashing of prior criminal proceedings against the petitioners did not preclude an administrative inquiry into the issuance of the Government Orders.
The Respondents (Writ Petitioners):
- The petitioners contended that since the Government had withdrawn the abeyance orders and accepted the higher slab rate, the matter could not be reopened.
- They argued that the Enquiry Officer, in a letter dated 28.05.2013, had expressed views suggesting the G.O.s were obtained by fraud, which amounted to prejudging the issue and violating the principles of natural justice.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench scrutinized Section 23 of the ULC Act and the policy guidelines under G.O.Ms.No.455.
1. Statutory Compliance: The Court observed that Section 23(1) allows allotment of surplus land for industry or residential accommodation for employees, while Section 23(4) allows disposal for “common good.” Crucially, G.O.Ms.No.455 mandated that “allotment of vacant surplus land not covered by any registered document of purchase shall not be considered.” The Bench noted that the petitioners failed to produce any registered sale deeds from the original owner and, in fact, admitted in possessory agreements with M/s Clover Associates (P) Ltd. that they held no such registered deeds.
2. Public Trust Doctrine: Invoking the Public Trust Doctrine, the Court observed:
“The doctrine of public trust puts an implicit embargo on the right of the State to transfer public properties to private party if such transfer affects public interest, and mandates affirmative State action for effective management of natural resources.”
The Bench held that the decision to hold an inquiry was in consonance with this doctrine. The Judges stated:
“The judicial review is permissible in the decision of the Government to hold the enquiry, but in such matters where the question is of allotment of ceiling surplus land, vested in State Government, contrary to or in violation of the statutory provisions and breach of the doctrine of public trust, the enquiry must be held and brought to a logical end.”
3. Prejudgment and Bias: Addressing the Single Judge’s finding that the Enquiry Officer had prejudged the issue, the Division Bench held that even if there was an apprehension of bias, the appropriate remedy was to change the officer, not to quash the inquiry itself.
“If a reasonable man would think on the basis of the existing circumstances that he is likely to be prejudiced, that is sufficient to quash the decision… strictly speaking, on such a ground at best the direction could be issued to change the enquiry officer, but not to stall the enquiry and to quash the G.O.Ms.No.557.”
Decision
The High Court allowed Writ Appeal Nos. 1090, 1106, and 1218 of 2014, setting aside the common judgment dated 21.03.2014.
The Court issued the following directions:
- Revival of Inquiry: G.O.Ms.No.557 is revived.
- New Enquiry Officer: The State Government shall appoint an Enquiry Officer of the rank of CCLA or equivalent to conduct the inquiry.
- Procedure: The petitioners shall be given due opportunity to participate, and the inquiry report must be submitted in a sealed cover to the State Government.
- Timeline: The exercise is to be completed within six months.
The Court clarified that the fate of the connected appeals (W.A. Nos. 1429 of 2016 & 785 of 2015), concerning building permissions and water supply to M/s Clover Associates, would depend on the final outcome of this inquiry.
