M.N. Rao, J.@mdashAs all these matters are inter-connected, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. Writ Appeal No. 1752 of 1987 arises out of W.P.No. 11437 of 1986 filed by Tallapaka Venkata Sreenivasacharyulu, the appellant herein, seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the Tirumala-Tirupathi Devasthanams (for short "the T.T.D.") represented by its Executive Officer to pay compensation in respect of Ac.3-50 cents of land covered by Survey Nos. 679/2 and 645 situate at Tirumala village in Chandragiri Taluk, Chittoor District. The case of the appellant was that the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor in the proceedings under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short "the Inams Abolition Act") rendered a decision after enquiry that an extent of Ac.28-58 cents covered by Survey Nos. 586,645 and 679 of Tirumala village are inam lands in ryotwari village and not held by an institution. The appeal preferred by the T.T.D., against the order of the Deputy Tahsildar (JLnams) was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 10-2-1984 and that order was confirmed in revision by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records in case No.V2/507/85, dated 7-2-1986.
3. The appellant''s father was the inamdar and after his death, the appellant and his brothers became entitled to the aforesaid lands as inamdars. Ryotwari patta also was granted in their favour on 17-7-1984. He alleged that the T.T.D., encroached on the land in an extent of Ac.3-50 cents on 10-7-1986 without any authority of law and dispossessed them. Compensation was sought for wrongful deprivation of land in violation of the guaranteed right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
4. The T.T.D., filed W.P.No. 11895 of 1986 seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the revisional order passed by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and land Records on 7-2-1986 in case No.V2/507/85. It was pleaded by the T.T.D., inter alia thatas per the recitals in title deed Nos. 2920 and 2921, the grant was in favour of Sri Venkateswara Swamy temple and, therefore, the patta granted in favour of Tallapaka Venkata Sreenivasacharyulu (R-4 in the writ petition) and his brothers was illegal. The T.T.D., has been paying cist for the lands since 1961 and the grant in question was the subject matter of suit O.S.No. 45 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate Judge''s court, Tirupathi which ended in favour of the T.T.D. The land is covered by buildings constructed by the T.T.D., and the fourth respondent (appellant; herein) has neither raised any objection to the constructions nor questioned the same before any appropriate forum.
5. Both the matters were heard together by a learned single Judge, who, by a common judgment, allowed W.P.No. 11895 of 1986 filed by the T.T.D., taking the view inter alia that the grant in question was to the institution and the possession of Tallapaka Venkata Sreenivasacharyulu and his brothers (for short "the Tallapaka people") on the relevant dates (for the purpose of claiming patta under the Inams Abolition Act) was only on behalf of the institution - Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple - but not in recognition of their rights as inamdars. The finding of the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records that the inam was burdened with service was held to be contrary to the recitals in the two title deeds. On that view, the impugned revisional order of the Commissioner was quashed and consequently, W.P.No. 11437 of 1986 filed by Tallapaka Venkata Sreenivasacharyulu was dismissed.
6. Tallapaka Venkata Sreenivasacharyulu filed W.A.No. 1752 of 1987 against "the common judgment and orders" in W.P.No. l1437 of 1986 and W.P.No. 11895 of 1986dated 17-4-1987. An order of status quo was granted by a Division Bench while admitting the writ appeal on 19-1-1988 in W. A.M.P.No. 3015 of 1987. The respondents in W.P.No. 1 1895 of 1986 filed by the T.T.D., are the Commissioner of Survey and Settlements, the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Tallapaka Venkata Sreenivasacharyuly (R-4) and Tallapaka Venkata Krishnamacharyulu (impleaded as R-5 as per the order dated 16-4-1987 in W.P.M.P.No. 5476of 1987). In W.P.No. 11437 of 1986 filed by Tallapaka Venkata Sreenivasacharyulu, the sole respondent is the T.T.D. It appears when the matter came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, it was pointed out by the Division Bench that only one writ appeal was filed when the judgment appealed against covered two writ, petitions. At that stage, the Tallapaka people realised the mistake and filed W.A. (SR) No. 52559 of 1991 and W. A.M.P.No. 1485 of 1991 seeking condonation of delay of 4 years and 74 days. In the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay, it is averred that against the common judgment, W.A:No. 1752 of 1987 was filed "by way of common writ appeal" bonafide believing it to be the proper course. It is further averred in the affidavit that "wheras I have filed a common writ appeal, now I understand that separate writ appeals should be filed separately. Already my writ appeal is now being heard. Now I am filing this writ appeal with abundant caution. This is a genuine and bona fide mistake and not deliberate or intentional." This application was opposed by the T.T.D., contending that there cannot be one writ appeal against a common judgment in two writ petitions. The parties being different in the two writ petitions and as the judgment in W.P.No. 11895 of 1986 filed by the T.T.D., became final, W.A.No. 1752 of 1987 must be dismissed as not maintainable on the principle of res judicata. No sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay the matter was part heard on 26-7-1991 and sufficient time was granted.
7. It is true that by a common order if two matters are disposed of and an appeal is filed only against one, the judgment in the other becomes final and the appeal preferred must fail on the ground of res judicata. In this case, realising this grave technical lapse, a separate writ appeal has been preferred, although belatedly, seeking condonation of delay. We are of the considered view that the mistake was bonafide and not intentional. This is evident from the memo of appeal in W.A. No. 1752 of 1987, wherein it is mentioned that against the common judgment, the writ appeal is being preferred. Dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay will result in grave injustice and in the present fact situation, it is neither fair nor just not to condone the delay especially when we are exercising equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The delay is, therefore, condoned and the Registry will assign a number to the W.A. (SR) No. 52559 of 1991. (W.A.4/93).
8. During the pendency of the proceedings Tallapaka Venkata Sreenivasacharyulu died and his legal representatives filed W.A.M.P.No. 1321 of 1992 in W.A.No. 1752 of 1987 and W.A.M.P.(SR) No. 10068 of 1992 (W.A.M.P.6/93) in W.A. (SR) No. 52559 of 1991 (W.A.4/93) to bring them on record as the legal representatives of Tallapaka Venkata Sreenivasacharyulu. These petitions are ordered.
9. W.A.M.P. No. 1377 of 1991 in W.A.Mo.1752 of 1987 was filed by Tallapaka Venkata Krishnamacharyulu for impleading himself as the second respondent in the said writ appeal. He was impleaded as the fifth respondents W.P.No. 11895 of 1986. The application is, therefore, ordered.
10. The entire land involved in this litigation admeasures Ac.28-58 cents as detailed below:-
Survey No. Extent 586 .. Ac.0.46 cents 645 .. Ac.0.97 cents 679 .. Ac.27.15 cents Total extent .. Ac.28.18 cents
It is claimed that there are two Inam Title Deeds (for short ITD) in respect of this land. I.T.D. No. 2920 relates to S.Nos. 586 and 645 admeasuring Ac.1-43 cents. I.T.D.2921 relates to S.No. 679 admeasuring Ac.27-15 cents, before adverting to the contentions raised, we think, it is useful to refer briefly to the past history and the concept of Inam.
11. Tallapaka Annamacharya, the celebrated saint-composer and reformer of the Fifteenth Century was the progenitor of the appellants-Tallapaka people. The great saint-composer was also known as Chinnamayya. The devotional songs composed by him in praise of Lord Venkateswara Swami earned him not only everlasting fame but the patronage of the Emperor and the local Kings of Vijayanagar. Vast properties were endowed for religious and charitable purposes by Tallapaka Annamacharya and his descendants for over a century, See "Inscriptions of Krishnaraya''s Time" published by TTD, 1935, Vol. III. Shri Krishna Devaraya, the Vijayanagar Emperor granted an extent of Ac.27-04 cents (the local measurement was Ac.20-07 guntas) on Tirumala Hills to Tallapaka Annamacharya for Dharmadayam purpose. The certified extract of the Inam Register dated 12-5-1870 mentions in Column No. 8 that the land was a garden containing mango and other fruit bearing trees as well as sandal wood trees, the produce of which was appropriated for the use of the temple. There are also two mandapams in the garden to which the idol at Tirumalai is taken in procession periodically. Column No. 9 says that the grant is free of land revenue. The tenure is unconditional and hereditory as per the entry in Column No. 10. Column No. 11 mentions that the grant was by Shrikrishna Devaraya. Column No. 12 says that no written instruments in support of the original grant and connected documents are available. The original grantee''s name is mentioned in Column No. 3. Tallapaka Venkata Seshacharyulu of Tirupathi was the twelfth descendant of the original grantee as per columns 16,17 and 18. Columns 19 and 20 contain the names of the heirs of Tallapaka Seshacharyulu. The Deputy Collector''s opinion and recommendation as contained in Column No. 2l is:
"To be confirmed free of tax as long as the conditions of the grant are fulfilled."
The decision of the Inam Commissioner in Column No. 21 reads:
"I want some further information before confirming the claims in these cases. These Inams appear to be gardens on the Tirupathi Hill. Is the hill considered to be Government property and are any lands cultivated and any assessment collected on them by Government? Are all these topes more than fifty years old? If there are any topes planted recently they must be charged with half assessment. The Tahsildar will also enter in Col.No. 7 the assessment of the land according to the rates borne by similar Government lands."
12. During the period of Vijayanagsr Emperor, the temple was under the direct administration of the Rulers. Thereafter the Sultans of Golkonda and Nawabs of Arcot assumed the management. After the advent of the British the Tahsildar of Tirupati was placed in management of the temple. In 1843 the management of the TTD was transferred by a Sannad to the head of the Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupati. By Regulation VII of 1871, the control of the temples was vested in the Board of Revenue through the Collector of the District. The position continued till 1932 when T.T.D. Act was passed by the erstwhile State of Madras for better administration of the T.T.D. The 1932 Act was superseded by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 which in turn was repealed in 1967 by another enactment passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature. The 1967 Act was subsequently repealed by Act 30 of 1987 See "Administration of Temples" by TTD, Tirupati, at pp.4-5.
13. Inam is a beneficial grant; it is an Arabic word which literally means a gift. The term is applicable to all Government grants as well. The Rulers did not claim anything more than a share in the produce of cultivated lands and their right was, therefore, confined to collection of a share of the produce. When a grant is made by the State:
"in favour of individuals or religious or charitable institutions the presumption is that it intends to convey only its right to the grantee, which is the right to receive the royal share of the produce; and the rights of other persons in the soil, such as village land-holders, permanent tenants, district and village officers, and of persons holding by previous grants under it, remain unaffected by the grant even though their rights are not expressly reserved" See Sundara Raja Iyengar, Land Tenures in Madras" pp.96-97."
The grantee of an Inam from the Govemment is prima facie entitled only to land revenue i.e., Melwaram. Some times the Government used to grant the proprietary right also - Melwaram and Kudiwaram by way of an Inam. Personal grants were generally made in favour of Brahmins-Brahmodayam- meaning:
"the grants held by Brahmuns for their personal benefit, generally free of assessment, though services, almost nominal, were reserved, Op. Cit. p.113.
The assignment of land or land revenue to remunerate services rendered by servants was known as service grant Op.Cn.,p.l32. The Crown could given up the reversionary rights in lands previously held on Inam tenure by levying annual quit rent and converting the lands into ordinary heritable and transferable property. For enfranchising the inams, rules were framed in 1859 and an Inam Commissioner was appointed to sell the reversionary rights of the crown and to issue a title deed to the inamdar in proof of such enfranchisement. As certain doubts arose with regard to the enfranchisement, Act VIII of 1869 was passed to clarify that inam title deed was not meant to define, limit, infringe or destroy the rights of any description of holders or occupiers of land or to affect the interests of any person other than the holder of the inam. The effect of enfranchisement of an inam would not operate as a resumption and regrant nor, would it alter the nature of the property in the hands of the grantee. The holder of an enfranchised inam holds his lands subject to payment only of the quit rent, Op. Cit., 170-173.
14. Major inams fall under the purview of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. By Act 26 of 1948-Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act - all estates governed by the Madras Estates Land Act were abolished. In order to provide for conversion of all inams other than the estates into ryotwari tenure Act 37 of 1956-Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act-was enacted. The definition of ''inam land'' in Section 2(c) excludes inams constituting an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act. An (sic) clause (d) of Section 2 is one which is so designated as such in the revanu accounts of the Government. Clause (j) of Section 2 defines TahsilcL exclusively. The expression takes in Deputy Tahsildar also. Section 3 deals with determination of inam lands: it confers power on the Tahsildar to enquire and determine either suo motu or on application:
(i) Whether a particular land in his jurisdiction is an inam land;
(ii) Whether such inam land is in ryotwari, zamindari or inam vjllage;
(iii) Whether such inam land is held by any institution.
By sub-section (2) of Section 3 the Tahsildar is obliged, before holding such an enquiry, to cause publication in the village or town where the lands are situate a notice in the prescribed manner requiring every person or institution claiming interest in any inam land to file before him a statement of particulars referred to in sub-section (1) within the prescribed time. By sub-section (3) the Tahsildar is under a duty to afford a reasonable opportunity to persons or institutions to adduce evidence in support of their case and he is empowered to examine any relevant document in possession of the Government for giving a decision and communicate the same to the persons or institutions concerned. The aggrieved persons or institution may prefer an appeal under sub-section (4) to the Revenue Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the Tahsildar''s decision and the Revenue Court shall pass orders on the appeal after hearing both sides and after affording reasonable opportunity. The decision of the Revenue Court is made final by sub-section (5). In a case where no appeal is preferred the decision of the Tahsildar rendered to under sub-section (3) shall be final. Sub-section (7) lays down that the decision of the Tahsildar which attained finality and the decision of the Revenue Court shall bind all persons and institutions claiming interest in any inam land even though they have not filed any applications or statements or adduced any evidence or participated in the proceedings before the Tahsildar or the Revenue Court, as the case may be. Section 4 deals with conversion of inarn lands into ryotwari lands. In the case of an inam land in a ryotwari or zamindari village, sub-section (1) says that the person or institution:
"holding such land as inamdar on the date of commencement of this Act shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect thereof."
Sub-section (2) deals with conversion of inam land in an inam village. Section 7 deals with grant of ryotwari pattas. The determination of the nature of the land u/s 3 is essential for grant of ryotwari patta u/s 7. Section 14-A confers revisional jurisdiction on the Board of Revenue to call for and examine the records relating to any proceedings under the Act. The jurisdiction is both suo motu or on application made to it. The revisional jurisdiction is confined to examining the correctness regularity, legality or propriety of any decision made or order passed under the Act.
15. The T.T.D. in the year 1962 filed an application M.P.4 of 62 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chandragiri under Act XIX of 1951 - Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951-against Tallapaka Venkata Seshacharyulu (father of appellant No. 1 in W.A.1752 of 87) seeking resumption of the inam land in question alleging that the inam was inclusive of Melwaram and Kudiwaram rights. It was for "devadayam" purpose in favour'' of the:
"Manager for the time being of Nandanavanam at Tirumala or Tirupati to be held for the support of Sri Venkateswaraswami Pagoda at Tirumala and to be held so long as the conditions of the grant are duly fulfilled."
The grant was for maintenance of flower and Tulsi garden and fruit growing trees for daily worship and offering to Sri Venkateswaraswami at Tirumala. But no such offerings are made and no such plants and trees are maintained. No flowers and Tulsi plants or fruits are supplied from the Nandanavanam to Sri Venkateswara Swami by the inamdars nor any necessary arrangements made for such supply. The twin reliefs sought were:
(i) for resumption of the inam and determining it as a grant of both Melwaram and Kudiwaram.
(ii) for regranting the inam to T.T.D. as an endowment.
That application was disposed of by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chandragiri on 30-6-64 taking the view that the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri after enquiry had already issued ryotwari patta u/s 4 of the Inams Abolition Act in favour of T.T.D. and, therefore, no further relief was called for. Aggrieved by that Tallapaka Venkata Sreenivasacharyulu carried the matter in revision to the Commissioner, Survey Settlements and Land Records (for short Commissioner) u/s 14-A of the Inams Abolition Act. By an order dated 19-8-82 in Case No.V2/251/82, the Commissioner set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and remanded the matter to the Inams Deputy Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. He noted the argument of the counsel for the T.T.D. that:
"Originally inam was not granted to the T.T.D. The patta issued by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar is not with the T.T.D., but there are entries in the Inam B Register."
After perusing the records the Commissioner observed that:
"It is found that no notice was issued to the parties by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar."
The matter was therefore remitted.
16. After remand the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri conducted enquiry under sub-section (3) of the Inams Abolition Act after notice to both sides and rendered his decision in Form II under Rule 3 of the rules made under the Act, holding that the land in question:
(i) is an Inam land;
(ii) is in Ryotwari village; and
(iii) is not held by an Institution.
The T.T.D., carried the matter in appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer constituting the Revenue Court under the Inams Abolition Act. Before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the T.T.D., filed Inam Title Deed 2920 covering an extent of Ac. l-43 cents issued by the Inam Commissioner on 9-5-1882. The other Inam Title Deed 2921 covering an extent of Ac.27-15 cents was not filed. The argument advanced was that when title deed was available Inam Fair Register (I.F.R.) should not be relied upon. The inamdars plea was that on the crucial date the owner was in existence. Till 1958 the produce was appropriated by him and that the entries in I.F.R. are also very important. As he was in possession of the land on 8-8-1959, he was entitled to patta u/s 4 of the Inams Abolition Act. It was brought to the notice of the Deputy Collector that the land was used as grave-yard by Tallakapakm people. After considering the arguments advanced by both sides and perusing the relevant records the Revenue Divisional Officer observed:
"I have noticed that no ryotwari patta was given previously to the T.T.D. in respect of the lands of Tirumala, H/o. Tirupati covered vide T.D.Nos. 2920 and 2921. The Advocate for the petitioner could file the I.T.D. No. 2920 only. He failed to produce the I.T.D. No. 2921."
Observing that the I.F.R. is the main basis and it should be relied upon, the entries therein show that the lands are Dharmadayam and not held by any institution, the appeal was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The matter was further carried in revision by the T.T.D., u/s 14-A to the Commissioner contending that the lands are temple inam lands; even as per the enquiry by the Inams Commissioner in 1859 and 1860 the T.T.D., was paying land revenue for these lands. By an order dated 7-2-86 the Commissioner dismissed the revision petition observing that:
"The counsel for the T.T.D. concedes that the lands were in possession of the respondents on the crucial dates and that in the notice issued by the Executive Officer, T.T.D. in his ROC.No.G l/10291/59 dated 8-8-1959 it has been clearly stated that Tallapakam Venkata Seshacharyulu and others were in possession of the lands since 7-5-1933."
The Commissioner also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1963-11 An.W.R. 214 in which the expression "inamdar" was interpreted as one who is in possession and enjoyment of the land but not in an absolute ownership. Incidentally the Commissioner also observed that the title deed was issued:
"To the holder of an office burdened with service and it was not specifically issued to an institution. It cannot be deemed to be grant to the institution since it will be meaningless for an institution to burden itself with service and hence the presumption is that the grant was not in favour of an institution and that to an office bearer and his successors who were burdened with service."
17. As already mentioned at the beginning itself, challenging the above view of the Commissioner, the T.T.D. filed W.P.No. l1895 /86 and Tallapaka Venkata Sreenivasacharyulu, the inamdar filed W.P.No. 1l437/86allegingthatan extent of Ac.3-05 out of the land in question was illegally occupied by T.T-D., without paying compensation and, therefore, he should be compensated for wrongful deprivation. We have already referred in brief, to the grounds on which the writ petition filed by the T.T.D., was allowed by the learned Judge - the inam was to the institution and the Commissioner''s finding that it was burdened with service was contrary to the two inam title deeds. As a consequence of accepting the plea of the T.T.D., the learned single Judge dismissed the other writ petition filed by the inamdars.
18. Sri Ramachander Rao, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Judge should not have placed reliance upon the recitals in I.T.D. No. 2921 in respect of Survey No. 679 admeasuring Ac.27-15 cents, which was not filed either before the appellate authority - the Revenue Divisional Officer or the revisional authority - the Commissioner. Serious objection was taken by the appellants in regard to the attempts of the T.T.D. to draw support from the recitals in the said I.T.D. The I.T.D. cannot confer any rights inconsistent with the I.F.R. The Inam Commissioner under the provisions of Act No.VI of 1862 and Act No.IV of 1866, after enquiry, prepared title deeds and as there was considerable confusion as to what was the position of an inamdar whose inam was enfranchised, to clarify the legal position, Act No.VIII of 1869 was enacted in order to declare the true intent of the aforesaid two Acts. This enactment was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. If the I.T.D. is eschewed from consideration, the case of the appellants that they are inamdars on the relevant dates u/s 4(1) of the Inarm Abolition Act must be accepted: their possession was lawful. The T.T.D., also admitted before the Commissioner that the inamdars were in undisputed possession from 7-6-1933 onwards. The recitals in the I.F.R. clearly establish the fact that the ancestors of the appellants were the real inamdars and that the grant was a personal inam unburdened with any requirement as to service of any nature. The original grant was by Srikrishna Devaraya in favour of Tallapaka Annamacharyulu - also known as "Chlnna Ayyavarlu". Not only the grantee but also his progeny endowed liberally huge properties for religious and charitable purposes and therefore, it would be totally unrealistic to contend, as was done by the T.T.D., that the inam was granted for the purpose of maintaining Nandanavanam. Insisting on the expression "Nandanavanam" by the T.T.D., in support of their plea is mis- leading. Nandanavanam has a different context so far as the present inam is concerned; it is the name of the land belonging to Tallapaka family. There was no material, whatsoever, to infer that the expression "Manager of Nandanavanam" meant only the temple. The incidental observations of the Commissioner in the revisional order that the inam was burdened with service should be ignored for the reason that it was never the case of the T.T.D. that the grant was a personal inam burdened with service. In fact, these pbservations were questioned by the T.T.D., in the writ petition taking the specific plea that the grant was to the institution but not to any individual with a condition to render service. As the revisional order was in favour of the inamdars, there was no occasion for them to challenge the aforesaid observations of the Commissioner especially when the T.T.D. themselves have challenged the same in the writ petition.
19. In opposition to these submissions, Sri Subrahmanya Reddy, learned counsel for the T.T.D., has contended that the entries in the I.F.R. cannot prevail over the recitals in the I.T.D. Whatever evidence was available after the I.T.D. was issued, must be ignored. Even if there was objection as to considering I.T.D. No. 2921, inasmuch as the recitals in both the I.T.Ds., i.e., I.T.D. No. 2920 covering Ac.1-50 cents and I.T.D. No. 2921 covering Ac.27-15 cents, being identical, no objection could be taken for receiving a photo-copy of I.T.D.No. 2921 at the stage of the hearing in the writ petition and, therefore, the learned single Judge acted correctly in accepting the plea of the T.T.D. based upon the recitals in the two I.T.Ds. The two I.T.Ds., do not confer title to the descendents of Tallapaka Annamacharyulu; the only conclusion that must be drawn is that the grant was in favour of the temple. The recitals in the I.T.D. that title was granted to "the Manager, for the time being, of Nandanavanam at Tirupathi and Tirumala" necessarily imply that the grant was in favour of the temple and, therefore, it could not be a grant in favour of any private individual. Even if the T.T.D''s plea that the grant was in favour of the institution is not accepted, the finding of the Commissioner mat it was a personal grant burdened with service having become final, as the same was not questioned by the appellants, by virtue of Section 76 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "the Endowments Act"), the grant shall be deemed to be in favour of the T.T.D. and the appellants shall be deemed to be encroachers.
20. As the applicability of Section 76 of the Endowments Act, 1987 was not raised before the learned single Judge, the appellants were permitted to raise the plea regarding the constitutionality of the said section. Sri Rangacharyulu, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondent has argued that subsequent to the disposal of the appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, proceedings were initiated for granting patta culminating in the order passed on 17-7-1984 by the Deputy Tahslldar granting patta u/s 7 in favour of the inamdars and that order became final. The finality of that order cannot be questioned. Even otherwise, the plea of the T.T.D., that the grant was in favour of the institution cannot be sustained. The entries in the I.F.R. in columns 10 and 13 go to show that it was hereditary grant in favour of the ancestor of the appellants and it was not burdened with any service, whatsoever, I.T.D. No. 2920 produced by the T.T.D. does not show that the grant was given to the T.T.D. The expression "Nandanavanam" is the name of the land belonging to Tallapaka family and there is no mention of Lord Venkateswara in the said I.T.D. Nandanavanam is not an institution and there is no evidence, whatsoever, that T.T.D. was known by the name of '' Nandanavanam''. Even if the recitals in the I .T.D. are looked into, there being no conflict or irreconcilability between the I.T.D. and I.F.R. the case of T.T.D. must be rejected.
21. As regards the finality of patta issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer u/s 7 of the Inams Abolition Act in favour of the appellants, we are not inclined to express any views for the reason that in these two writ appeals that issue does not arise. After the Revenue Divisional Officer upheld the order of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, patta was issued in favour of the inamdars before the revisional order of the Commissioner was passed u/s 14-A of the Inams Abolition Act. As the nature of the land was decided u/s 3 of the Inams Abolition Act to the effect that the land does not belong to the institution, it is probable that the institution was not heard when the patta was granted. We, therefore, see no justification, whatever, to express any view on the finality of the patta granted by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar u/s 7 of the Inams Abolition Act in favour of the appellants.
22. On two/grounds, the learned judge held that the grant in question was in favour of the T.T.D. (1) The recitals in the title deed show that the grantee was the institution; and (2) the possession of the land by the appellants on the relevant date was not "as inamdars" and, therefore, u/s 4(1) of the Inams Abolition Act, they are not entitled to a ryotwari patta.
23. As already noticed, I.T.D. No. 2921 in respect of Ac.27-15 cents was not produced before the concerned statutory Tribunals - Revenue Divisional Officer and the Commissioner. Before the learned Judge, a xerox copy of the same was filed and the appellants in their counter-affidavit objected that the xerox copy cannot be looked into. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that overruling the objection of the appellants, the xerox copy of the title deed was considered by the learned Judge.
24. The appellate authority''s findings on facts cannot be disturbed except on permissible grounds of judicial review - conclusions recorded without any evidence, violation of principles of natural justice, failure to notice relevant provision of law or misdirection either in regard to questions of law or fact. The appellate order of the Revenue Divisional Officer shows that I.T.D. No. 2920 dated 9-5-1882 was produced by the T.T.D. The Revenue Divisional Officer found the entries in that I.T.D,, to the effect that the land was used as grave yard by Tallapaka people. In no unmistakable terms, the appellate authority observed:
"as per the entries in I.T.D. No. 2920 (title deed),,the land was used as grave yard by Tallapaka people."
No attempt was made by the T.T.D. to canvass the correctness of this finding before the revisional authority or before the learned Judge on the ground that this finding has no factual basis. Even before us, no argument was advanced although, during the course of the hearing, we pointed out this aspect. In the material papers filed along with the writ petition, we find a copy of I.T.D. No. 2920 which reads:
"No. 2920:
Title Deed granted to the Manager for the time being of Nandanavanam at Tirupati and Tirumala.
1. By order of the Governor in Council of Madras acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for India-in-Council, I acknowledge your Title to a Devadayam of Nandanavanam Inam consisting of the right to the Government Revenue on land claimed to be (One) 1.53 acres of dry and situated in the village of Tirumalai, Taluk of Chandragiri, District of North Arcot and held for the support of Venkateswara Swamy Pagoda in the village.
2. This Inam is confirmed to you and your successors tax free to be held without interference as long as the conditions of the grant are duly fulfilled.
Sd/-
Inam Commissioner".
Dated
Madras
9th August, 1882.
Rs.6-15
25. It will be seen from the recitals of the above I.T.D. that there is no reference at all to the existence of grave yard or the use of the land as grave yard by the Tallapaka people. We think it is legitimate, therefore, to infer that I.T.D. No. 2920 filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer was different from the one placed before us. The other I.T.D.No. 2921 - either its certified copy or a xerox copy - was never produced before the appellate and revisional authorities. It is not, therefore, open to us to proceed on the supposition that both the I.T.Ds., are couched in identical language. We seriously doubt whether I.T.D. No. 2921 is in existence at all. The finding by the appellate authority that the land covered by I.T.D.No. 2920 contained graves of the Tallapaka people totally excludes the possibility of such a land being the subject matter of inam in favour of the T.T.D. In this fact situation, we are not inclined to take into consideration the recitals in the two title deeds (I.T.D. No. 2920 was filed as a material paper and the alleged photo- copy of I.T.D.No. 2921 was, for the first time, produced before the learned Judge).
26. When once the I.T.Ds., are eschewed from consideration, the matter has to be decided with reference to the entries in the I.F.R. (Inam Fair Register). Rulings were cited by the learned counsel for the T.T.D. that when the title deed is available, the entries in the I.F.R. have no relevance. For the reasons stated above, it is unnecessary for us to consider the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the T.T.D.
27. In
"Inam registers have always been treated as evidence of the utmost importance."
28. The I.F.R, is an important piece of evidence disclosing the history of the property contained in it. Great importance is attached to that document. The Privy Council in Arunachallam v. Venkatachalapathi, AIR 1990 PC 62. observed:
"It is true that the making of this Register was for the ultimate purpose of determining whether or not the lands were tax-free. But it must not be forgotten that the preparation of this register was a great act of State, and its preparation and contenst were the subject of much consideration under elaborately detailed reports and minutes. It is to be remembered that the Inam Commisioners through their officials made enquiry on the spot, heard evidence and examined documents, and with regard to each individual property, the Government was put in possession not only of the conclusion come to as to whether the land was tax-free, but of a statement of the history and tenure of the property, itself. While their Lordhsips do not doubt that such a report would not displace actual and authentic evidence in individual cases, yet the board, when such is not available, cannot fail to attach the utmost importance, as part of the history of the property, to the information set forth in the Inam Register."
The appellate authority under the Inams Abolition Act is bound to consider the various recitals in the revenue accounts of the Government including any other document like the I.F.R. or any other account which is relevant for the purpose, See Kalamata Venkayya v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram (1967 (2) An.W.R. 1) and
29. The certified extract of the I.F.R. is dated 12-5-1870. The relevant entries have already been referred to supra (pages 12 and 13). The inam was granted for "Dharmadayam" which implies charitable purposes. Tallapaka Annamacharyulu, also known as "Chinna Ayyavarlu", was the original grantee about 500 years ago, the grantor being Sri krishna Devaraya. The owner of the land by the date of the I.F.R. - Tallapaka Seshacharyulu - was the 12th descendent of the original inamdar - Tallapaka Annamacharyulu. The inam is described in column No. 8 as garden containing mango and fruit trees as well as sandal trees but the produce whereof is appropriated for the use of the temple. It also mentions that there are two Mandapams in the garden to which the idol at Tirumala is taken in procession periodically. The fact that the original grantee''s name is mentioned in column No. 13 shows that the grant was intended to be personal See
"Unless the grant is made in favour of the Deity or the Manager for the time being, as representing the temple, it cannot be considered as a grant to the Deity."
That is a case in which in the title deed, the inam, was described as ''Devadayam Pagoda Inam'' but nonetheless, it was held to be not indicative of the fact that the inam was granted to the Deity. The Division Bench also observed that the recommendations contained in the I.F.R. have to be read along with the recitals in the inam title deed. Column No. 10 mentions that the grant is hereditary and it is not qualified by any restrictive expressions. It must, therefore, be taken that the inam was intended to be "absolute" See AIR 1937 Mad. 852 . Column Nos. 13 to 16 were held to be "decisive entries" having regard to the scheme of the I.F.R. by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Hindu R.E. Board v. Koteswara AIR 1937 Mad. 852. Column Nos. 14 and 15 are left blank and they relate to the register prepared as per Regulation XXXI of 1802 and the name entered in the survey accounts. Column No. 16 mentions the name of the present owner as Tallapaka Seshacharyulu and his residence in Column No. 17 is shown as ''Tirupathi''. The opinion of the Deputy Collector as contained in column No. 21 is that the inam "to be confirmed free of tax as long as the conditions of the grant are fulfilled". This does not suggest that the inam was not a personal grant.
30. A close scrutiny of the entries in the I.F.R. clearly go to show that the inam was not in favour of the institution; Tallapaka Chinna Ayyavarlu, the original grantee from Sri Krishna Devaraya, could not be described as a servant of the temple. As already noticed, he and his descendents endowed vast properties for religious and charitable purposes. There is nothing in the I.F.R. suggesting, even remotely, that the grant was to the ancestor of the appellants on behalf of the temple. The view taken by the appellate authority viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, therefore, cannot be faulted.
31. Section 4(1) of the Inams Abolition Act says that:
"In the case of an inam land in a ryotwari or zamindari village, the person or institution holding such land as inamdar on the date of commencement of this Act shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect thereof".
The finding of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar was that the inam land in question is in ryotwari village. Sub-section (2) says:
"In the case of an inam land in an inam village if held by an inamdar other than an institution on the date of commencement of the Act and is in actual occupation on that date, he is entitled to a ryotwari patta."
It is not in dispute that on both the crucial dates, the Tallapaka people were in possession. The Commissioner in the revisional order has mentioned that the counsel for the T.T.D., admitted that "the Tallapaka people were in possession of the lands since 7-6-1933". Purporting to follow a judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Punniah v. Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy Varu 1963 (2) An.W.R. 214, the Commissioner observed that title to the land is not condition precedent for grant of patta. After so observing, the Commissioner proceeding further has stated:
"The respondents are undisputably in possession and enjoyment of the lands i.e., in their words, they were holding the inam land and they will be eligible for a patta subject to the other provisions of the Act. Besides, no case has been made out that there exists a master and servant relation- ship between the contesting parties in this case. The title deed cannot be construed to be in favour of the institution as it was issued to the holder of an office burdened with service and it was not specifically issued to an institution. It cannot be deemed to be a grant to the institution since it will be meaningless for an institution to burden itself with service and hence the presumption is that the grant was not in favour of an institution and that it is to an office bearer and his successors who were burdened with service. Suffice it to say that the respondents have been in continuous possession of the lands on the crucial dates which is sufficient to grant the pattas under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act."
32. The learned Judge after referring to the decision in Punniah''s case (14 supra) and the decisions of the Supreme Court in
33. The argument before the Division Bench in Punniah''s case (14 supra) was that "the holder of an office enjoying the inam cannot be regarded as an inamdar". Dealing with that argument with reference to Section 4(1) of the Inams Abolition Act, the Division Bench speaking through the learned Chief justice held:
"So, in order to entitle a person to claim a ryotwari patta, it should be shown that he was holding such land as inamdar. In our opinion, the word ''inamdar'' is not a term of art. It only means "one who is in possession and enjoyment of the land". We are not satisfied that it connotes absolute ownership of the land in, the sense that he could alienate it. In Wilson''s Glossary, the meaning of the word ''inamdar'' is given as "the holder of a rent-free grant". Some of the meanings given to the word ''hold'' in the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary are: "to keep; to have; to grasp; to have in one''s possession, keeping or power". Therefore, the expression ''inamdar'' only means ''one who is in possession and enjoyment of a rent-free land". It does not further imply that he must have absolute title to the property. It cannot be stated that the concept of the word ''inamdar'' is foreign to a service-holder."
In the context of the argument that a person who was holding an office and enjoying the inam must be treated as an inamdar for purposes of Section 4(1) of the Inams Abolition Act, the Division Bench expressed the above view. It was not the intention of the Division Bench to lay down the proposition that whosoever happens to be in possession, whatever be the nature of his claim, should be entitled to a ryotwari patta, is made clear by Gopalakrishnan Nair, J. in jagdev''s case (17 supra). The learned Judge was a party to the decision in Punnaiah''s case (14 supra). In Jagdev''s case (17 supra) the learned Judge accepted the contention that the expression "holding" signifies ownership of the land; that it indicates the person in whom title to the land rests and even if such a person is out of possession, he cannot be regarded as one who is not holding the land. According to the learned Judge, it is not a correct proposition of law to say that even a squatter upon an inam land can take advantage of Section 4(1) of the Inams Abolition Act. Therefore, the view expressed by the learned Judge in the judgment under appeal as to what constitutes the ratio in Punniah''s case (14 supra) is correct. .
34. The assumption that the Tallapaka people are not holding the land in question as inamdars on the relevant dates is factually incorrect. The question that on the crucial dates they were not the inamdars was never raised by the T.T.D. The entries in the L.F.R. clearly show that the ancestor of the Tallapaka people was the inamdar. When once we hold that the I.F.R. supports the case of the Tallapaka people, their admitted possession on the crucial dates must be construed as possession as inamdars within the meaning of Section 4 of the Inams Abolition Act.
35. The observations of the Commissioner in the revisional order that if was an inam burdened with service is totally unwarranted. There was no plea raised in that regard before the Commissioner. The revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner u/s 14-A of the Inams Abolition Act is confined only to examining the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the decision rendered by the appellate authority. The findings recorded by the appellate authority on questions of fact when not questioned do not fall within the ambit of revisional jurisdiction. That is the reason why, the Commissioner has upheld the conclusion of the appellate authority that the inam was not to the institution but a personal one. The revisional authority cannot go into a question which was not raised before it and when it was not the subject matter of adjudication by the appellate authority. The opinion expressed by the Commissioner that it was an inam burdened with service, is therefore, a gratis dictum and so must be ignored.
36. It is rather paradoxical that the T.T.D. having questioned in the writ petition the opinion expressed by the Commissioner that the inam was burdened with service, is now seeking to rely upon that finding, on the ground that it became final as the Tallapaka people have not questioned it. We do not find any merit in this contention. The result having gone in favour of the Tallapaka people, they rightly felt that there was no need to question the observations of the Commissioner that the inam was burdened with service, more so, when that observation was attacked by the T.T.D. in the writ petition: vide ground No.III in W.P.No. 11895 of 1986. Apart from the fact that the observations of the Commissioner are in the nature of gratis dictum, they cannot be sustained even otherwise. Having held that there is no master and servant relationship between the T.T.D. and the inamdars, there is no justification in holding that the inam was burdened with service, which was nobody''s case. What is more, the Commissioner has not even referred to any basis for making such an observation. Even assuming that it was operating in the mind of the Commissioner that the master and servant relationship which is a feature of service jurisprudence was the applicable jural relationship between the institution and the inamdar - the institution being the master and the inamdar being the servant and when such relationship was found to be absent, the observation that the inam was burdened with service loses all its relevance and weight. What is legally sustainable in the order of the Commissioner is his finding that the appellate order of the Revenue Divisional Officer does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 14-A of the Inams. Abolition Act. In view of the foregoing discussion, we think it unnecessary to refer to the application and the significance of Act No. VIII of 1969 after the enfranchisement of the inam. As the possession of the inamdars on the crucial dates u/s 4 of the Inams Abolition Act was in their capacity as inamdars and as the observations of the Commissioner that the inam was burdened with service are utterly unsustainable and irrelevant, we are of the view that there is no need to consider the constitutionality of Section 76 of the Endowments Act, 1987.
37. There is documentary evidence to show that the land in question was never claimed by the T.T.D. as belonging to the temple. In O.S.No. 51 of 1937 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor - a suit filed by the T.T.D. against Mahant Prayag Dasji varu for recovery of possession of vast extents of land - the present inam land was specifically excluded as can be seen from the plaint schedule. The T.T.D. claimed 16 plots of land describing them as "Nandana- vanams" or gardens belonging to the temple. Significantly, the present inam land was neither described as "Nandanavanam" nor any relief sought for its recovery. At the relevant time when enquiries were conducted by the Inam Commissioner in the eighties of the last century, the T.T.D. was under the management of the Mahant of Hatiramjee Mutt and so if the grant was intended for the temple, it would not have been made in favour of the "Manager for the time being of Nandanavanam See pp.4-5 Administration of temples T.T.D. Publication 1991., as recited in I.T.D.2920. The foundation for the plea of the T.T.D. that the inam was for the institution was traceable to the application M.P.No. 4 of 1962 filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chandragiri, seeking resumption of the grant on the ground that the inamdars failed to make daily offering of flowers and fruits to the Deity, Sri Venkateswaraswamy varu. In that application, it was asserted by the T.T.D. that the inam was inclusive of both Melwaram and Kudiwaram. No evidence in support of such a plea - that the inam was inclusive of both the warams - was placed before the statutory Tribunals. An inam comprehending Kudiwaram right in favour of a temple is a rarity - ordinarily what would be assigned in a grant in inam is only Melwaram right.
38. In the result, both the writ appeals are allowed. W.P.No. 11895 of 1986 filed by the T.T.D. is dismissed. W.P.No. 11427 of 1986 filed by Tallapaka Venkata Sreenivasacharyulu is allowed. If a part or whole of the inam land in question has already been occupied by the T.S.D. for the purpose of the institution, the Tallapaka people are entitled to compensation in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
