AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions and certain others totalling 88 persons claimed grant of ryotwari pattas u/s 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970 (Andhra Pradesh Regulation 2 of 1970), for short ''Regulation 2 of 1970, before the Settlement Officer Unit No.1, Bhadrachalam, Khammam district who is arrayed as respondent No.4 to the writ petitions. Their claims are rejected by the fourth respondent. Being aggrieved by the orders of the fourth respondent, the petitioners and others preferred appeals to the Director of Settlement, Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad (the third respondent) u/s 9(3) of Regulation 2 of 1970. The third respondent by his common order dated 17-7-1992 dismissed the appeals. The petitioners and others preferred second appeals to the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (the second respondent) and those appeals are also dismissed by the second respondent by his common order dated 8-4-1993. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the validity and legality of the orders of the respondents 2 to 4. The facts pleaded in all the writ petitions are similar and the questions of law which fall for consideration and resolution are common. Further, the claims of all the petitioners are rejected by the first appellate authority and second appellate authorities by common orders. Hence all these writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and they arc being disposed of by this common judgment.
The pleadings of the petitioners are totally unsatisfactory, cumbersome, repetitive and contradictory in terms. The pleas taken by the petitioners destroy each other. The very same pleas taken by the petitioners in support of their claims in earlier proceedings before the Civil Courts and the statutory adjudicatory authorities which were rejected are restated and reiterated in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions despite the fact that those judgments and decrees of the Courts as well as the orders made by the statutory authorities have become rinal and are binding on the petitioners. If one goes strictly by the pleadings of the petitioners, it is rather difficult to understand what is actually the case of the petitioners and where they stand. However, the established facts on the basis of the documents, the judgments and decrees of the Civil Courts, the orders of the statutory quasi-judicial authorities and the orders of this Court in earlier writ proceedings can be summarised briefly as under:
The subject land measures Ac.917.00 in Original Survey No. 17 situate in Purushothapatnam village, Bhadrachalam Mandal which land is hereinafter shortly referred to as ''the subject land''. The subject land was purchased in a public auction by one late Sri Somarajit Purnshothamadas in the year 1870 from the Secretary of State of India, through the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Godavari Central Province, free of land revenue. The said Purshothamadas gifted the subject land in favour of Sri Scetaramachandraswamy vari Devasthanam, the first respondent Devasthanam under a registered gift deed dated 12-10-1878. The first respondent-Devasthanam was, then, under the Trusteeship of H.E.H. The Nizam of Hyderabad and the Trusteeship came to an end in 1948-1949 when the State of Hyderabad formed part of India by an instrument of accession signed between the H.E.H. The Nizam of Hyderabad and the Government of India, The Nizam of Hyderabad ceased to be the Trustee of the temple inasmuch as the temple was taken over under the administration of the Endowments Department of Hyderabad (Part-B) State. When the H.E.H. The Nizam was the Trustee of the temple, it was under the administrative control of the Subedar, Warangal, who in a public auction sold away the lease-hold rights of the subject land in favour of one late Sri Abdul Hussain on 24-8-1912. After the death of the auction purchaser, his widow, namely, Smt. Rashida Fathima Begum succeeded to the leasehold rights in the subject land and the succession was recognised by the Subedar, Warangal in 1926. On 23-5-1938, Smt. Rashida Fathima Begum sold away the said lease hold rights under a registered document in favour of M/s. Majety Ramachandraiah and Repaka Venkatamtnam. Sometime later, some of the petitioners herein or their predecessors appeared to have entered into this land unauthorisedly. But according to the petitioners, in the year 1940, some of the petitioners and the predecessors of the remaining petitioners took the subject land on lease from M/s. Majely Ramachandraiah and Repaka Venkatarainam. M/s. Majely Ramachandraiah and Repaka Venkatarainam filed the suit OS No.81/48 on the file of the sub-Court at Rajahmundry for declaration of title and for recovery of possession against some of the petitioners and their predecessors on the ground that the defendants denied their title to the subject property, describing the defendants as trespassers. In the said suit, the petitioners and their predecessors setup the plea that the first respondent Devasthanam is the owner of the property. In the said suit, the first respondent Devasthanam was not made a party. The Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry decreed the suit OS No.81/48 against the defendants therein on 11-2-1950. Subsequently, there appears to be some settlement between the parties to the suit and an unregistered agreement of sale appears to have been entered into on 14-3-1957 between the lessors and some of the petitioners herein and their predecessors whereunder a separate clause was inserted under which a sum of Rs.246/- was to be paid annually to the first respondent Devasthanam which was hitherto being paid by M/s. Majety Ramachandraiah and Repaka Venkataratnam to the tempte. One Sri S. Purushothamadass, grandson of the original donor, also filed a suit OS No.9/46 on the file of the Special Assistant Agent, Bhadrachalam, which suit was subsequently transferred to the District Court, Rajahmundry and renumbered as OS No.62/48 wherein the plaintiff prayed for a decree to set aside the permanent lease granted in favour of M/s. Majety Ramachandraiah and Repaka Venkataratnam. The said suit was dismissed for default on 23-1-1958. In the said suit, the first respondent temple was not made a party and at the time of the institution of the suit, the Trusteeship of the temple was retained with the H.E.H. The Nizam of Hyderabad.
The administrative control of the first respondent Devasthanam was under the Endowment Department of the Hyderabad (Part-B) State till the formation of State of Andhra Pradesh on 1-11-1956. Thereafter, the administrative control of the temple was under the Endowment Department (Telangana Wing) of the State of Andhra Pradesh since day-to-day administration of the temple was carried out by an Amin both during the trusteeship of the Nizam as well as when it was under the administrative control of Endowments Department of Hyderabad (Part-B) State. After the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, a paid Trustee was appointed and later replaced by the appointment of the Executive Officer on 12-6-1960 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The Executive Officer found that the petitioners were in possession of the subject land and that they were in arrears of rent and hence issued notices immediately after his appointment. There was a compromise between the petitioners and the Executive Officer of the first respondent-Devasthanam on 9-8-1960 whereunder the petitioners agreed to pay Rs.3/- per acre and also agreed to execute the lease deeds renewable at an interval of five years. However, the petitioners neither executed lease deeds nor paid the stipulated rent as agreed to by them on 9-8-1960. Inspite of several demands, the petitioners never cleared the arrears. Hence, the Executive Officer filed an application u/s 18 read with Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, before the competent authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayawada for grant of a certificate to enable him to take delivery of possession of the subject land, in OA No.32 of 1963. The petitioners herein and their predecessors engaged an advocate and contested the application and dented the ownership of the Devasthanam in respect of the subject land and they claimed that they themselves are the absolute owners of the subject land. However, at a later stage, the petitioners filed a memo on 16-2-1965 stating that they recognised the first respondent temple as the absolute owner of the subject land that they had no objection if a certificate is issued as prayed for and that they intend to pay arrears and withdraw their contest. This memo was signed by all the petitioners as well as their advocate. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayawada passed orders issuing a certificate by his order dated 3-3-1965 in OA No.32 of 1963. Inspite of their memo, the petitioners did not clear the arrears and tried to avoid payment of arrears and the cist as agreed to by them earlier on 9-8-1960 and also in the memo dated 16-2-1965. In the circumstances, the Executive Officer intended to take delivery of possession of the subject land and the petitioners then entered into a second compromise on 22-10-1966 whereunder the petitioners agreed to clear all outstanding arrears and also agreed to pay Rs. 12.60 per acre for wet land and Rs.7/-per acre for dry land and Rs.3/- per acre towards pasturage. However, the petitioners neither cleared the arrears nor paid the rentals at the rates as agreed to by them on 22-10-1996. Therefore, the Executive Officer filed an application numbered as CMP No. 1/71 before the First Class Magistrate, Badrachalam u/s 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 to direct delivery of possession of the subject land after evicting the petitioners from the subject laud pursuant to the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Endowments) Vijayawada in OA No.32/63, dated 3-3-1965. This application CMP No. 1/71 was entertained by the First Class Magistrate, Badrachalam and the said application was ordered on 22-8-1972. All the petitioners herein voluntarily surrendered possession of the subject land and executed the surrender letters on 23-11-1972 and 24-11-1972 and delivered possession of the subject land to the Executive Officer of first respondent Devasthanam. Later, when the Executive Officer attempted to cultivate the lands, the petitioners filed WP No.3483 of 1973 in this Court for quashing of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (Endowments) passed in OA No.32 of 1963, dated 3-3-1965. In WP MP No.6611 of 1973, filed in the said writ petition, the petitioners sought for suspension of the order made in CA No.32/63. This Court suspended the order of the Deputy Commissioner on 18-8-1973. After obtaining the interim order, the petitioners re-entered the subject land. WP No.6611/73 was ultimately dismissed on 18-7-1975. The petitioners preferred Writ Appeal No.752 of 1975 and the said writ appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27-1-1976. In the writ petition and the writ appeal, the petitioners contended that the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act is applicable to them and that they are tenants entitled to invoke the beneficial provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act. This Court while disposing of the writ appeal observed that several material facts are in dispute and if the petitioners think that they are entitled to invoke Andhra Tenancy Act, they may approach the appropriate forum for redressal, if any. However, the petitioners neither approached the tenancy authority nor approached any Civil Court for establishing their alleged rights.
After Regulation 2 of 1970 came into force, the fourth respondent-Settlement Officer initiated suo motu enquiries on the basis of the cases built up by the survey party and issued notices to the petitioners as well as to the first respondent-Devasthanam in all the enquiries. The Settlement Officer by orders dated 22-5-1985 and 4-7-1985 granted ryotwari pattas u/s 9 of the Regulation 2 of 1970 in favour of first respondent-Devasthanam and overruled the claims of the petitioners for ryotwari pattas. The orders made by the fourth respondent- ''Settlement Officer are upheld and confirmed by the third and the second respondents-the first and the second appellate authorities respectively, as stated supra.
As pointed out in the beginning of the order itself, the pleadings of the petitioners are contradictory in terms. The petitioners alleged in one breath that they are the absolute owners and in the second they claim to be the tenants entitled to invoke the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act. The petitioners, again, in one breath assert that the second compromise dated 9-8-1960 was entered into under duress and again alleged that they paid rents at the enhanced rates till 1975 and that later rents were refused to be received by the first respondent temple. The petitioners after voluntarily entering into compromises, resiled to discharge the obligation undertaken by them. The petitioners having accepted the temple as the owner of the lands in their memo filed in OA No.32 of 1963, now contend that the temple is no longer the owner of the subject land. This contention is absolutely untenable in law. The petitioners allege that the second compromise dated 22-10-1966 was entered into on the specific assurance by the temple authorities that they would withdraw OA No.32/63 from the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Vijayawada. But the said OA No.32/63 was ordered on 3-3-1965 after the petitioners themselves filed the memo agreeing for the issuance of the certificate by the Commissioner. The second compromise was entered into on 22-10-1966, that is one year seven months after the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayawada passed orders in OA No.32/63 on 3-3-1965. Hence the allegation of the petitioners that they entered into compromise on the assurance that OA No.32/63 would be withdrawn is ex facie incorrect and untenable. The allegation of the petitioners that the first respondent temple lost all its rights and ownership in 1912 when the leasehold rights were put to auction by the H.E.H. The Nizam of Hyderabad is not correct inasmuch as what was transferred was only a leasehold right and not the absolute rights in the property. Secondly, Immovable property held by a Deity at the relevant point of time was not alienable in law. When the Subedar, Warangal, sold away the lease-hold rights of the subject land in a public auction in 1912 in favour of Sri Abdul Hussain, no statute law was governing the transaction. It is well settled law by the decision of the Privy Council in Sri Vidya Varuthi Thirtha Swamigal v. Balusami Ayyar and others, 41 MLJ 346 , that under the Hindu Law, the image of a Deity of the Hindu pantheon is a ''juristic entity'' vested with the capacity of receiving gifts and holding property; that when the gift is directly to an idol or a temple, the seizin to complete the gift is necessarily effected by human agency called by whatever name and such human agency is only the manager and custodian of the idol or the institution and he is accountable or answerable to the juristic entity of the Deity or idol and that he could not create any permanent or perpetual interest in a third party beyond his term of appointment. The Privy Council held that a Mahant is incompetent to create any interest in respect of the Mutt property to enure beyond his life. The High Court of Judicature at Madras in Sri Chidambara Siva Prakasa Pandora Sannadhi Avergal v. Maniakam Pillai and another, 64 MLJ 577, followed the principle enunciated in Vidya Varuthi Thirtha''s case (supra). Therefore the claim of the petitioners that the first respondent temple lost all its rights of ownership in 1912 when the leasehold rights were put to auction by the Subedar, Warangal is untenable.
As could be seen from the facts stated supra the petitioners'' claim that they became tenants of the subject land in the year 1940 under M/s. Majety Ramachandraiah and Repaka Venkataratnam and subsequently they became the absolute owners of the subject land tracing their rights to the purchase of the subject land made by late Abdul Hussain on 24-8-1912 is untenable in view of the position in law at the relevant point of time noted supra and the finding recorded by the Civil Court in OS No.81/48 that the petitioners and their predecessors were trespassers. Realising that the petitioners have no case on the basis of the above noted pleas, Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would not press into service any of the contentions taken in the writ petitions except the argument that there is clinching evidence to show that the petitioners became tenants of the subject lands in pursuance of a compromise entered into between the petitioners and the Executive Officer of the temple atleast on 9-8-1960, and even after OA No.32/63 was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 3-3-1965 granting certificate to the temple, there was again another compromise on 22-10-1966 under which the tenancy of the petitioners continued and therefore the petitioners had been in continuous lawful possession of the subject land from 9-8-1960 till Regulation 2 of 1970 came into force on 1-7-1970, and in view of this clinching evidence, the petitioners arc entitled to ryotwari pattas under second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section? of the Regulation 2 of 1970.
On the other hand, Sri A. Rangacharyulu, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent temple at the outset contended that u/s 7 of the Regulation 2 of 1970, only the owners are entitled to ryotwari pattas and the tenants arc not entitled to ryotwari pattas. Alternatively, he would contend that even assuming that the tenants are also entitled to ryotwari pattas u/s 7, the petitioners have utterly failed to establish that they arc the tenants of the subject land under the ownership of the first respondent-temple. The learned Counsel would maintain that the established facts clinchingly prove that when Regulation 2 of 1970 came into force with effect from 1-7-1970, the petitioners were in possession of the subject land as trespassers and later by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court in the writ proceedings. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents would support the contention of the learned Counsel for the first respondent temple.
The Court does not find it necessary to record any finding on the larger question raised by the learned Counsel for the first respondent temple that only the owners of the land are entitled to grant of ryotwari pattas u/s 7 of the Regulation 2 of 1970 and not the tenants. It is because even assuming that the tenants are also entitled to grant of ryohvari pattas under Regulation 2 of 1970, if the petitioners fail to prove their jural relationship of tenancy under the first respondent temple and that they were in lawful occupation and possession of the subject land as on 1-7-1970 when the Regulation 2 of 1970 came into force, they arc not entitled to grant of ryotwari pattas. Only in the event of the Court finding that the petitioners arc the tenants and their possession and occupation was lawful then only, it may be necessary for the Court to consider the larger question raised by the learned Counsel for the first respondent temple. Therefore, the main point for consideration is whether the petitioners are the tenants of the subject land and whether the petitioners'' possession was lawful or not as on the date the Regulation No.2 of 1970. In other words, whether the possession held by the petitioners as on that date was void or illegal under any law for the time being in force.
The Governor of Andhra Pradcsh with the assent of the President made the Regulation 2 of 1970 and the same came into force with effect from 1-7-1970. Subsection (2) of Section 1 states that the Regulation applies to all lands in the Scheduled Areas in the Andhra Area in respect of which no settlement has been effected other than those comprised within the Muttas and the Muttas governed by the Regulations providing for the abolition of the Muttas and Mahals is certain Scheduled Areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh, and to the estates in the said areas. Section 7 reads:
Lands in which ryot is entitled to ryotwari patta :--(1) Every ryot in the Scheduled Areas to which this Regulation applies shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of all cultivable lands which were properly included or which ought to have been properly included in the holding and which are not lands in respect of which any other person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under any other law For the time being in force in the State relating to grant of ryotwari patta:
Provided that in the case of lands in the estates which have been taken over under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and _ Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 a person who would be entitled to a ryotwari patta under that Act shall be granted a patta, if the lands have been continuously in the occupation of that person from the notified date;
Provided further that in respect of lands other than those to which a person is entitled to a ryotwari patta under the first proviso, no ryot who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of cultivable land unless-
(a) such a person had been in possession or in occupation of the land for a continuous period of not less than eight years immediately before the commencement of this Regulation;
(b) such possession or occupation shall not be void or illegal under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, or any other law for the time being in force.
Explanation :--In this sub-section, the expression "notified date" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (10) of Section 2 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.
(2) No lessee of any lanka land and no person to whom a right to collect the rent of any land has been leased before coming into force of this Regulation including an ijaradar or a farmer of rent, shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of such land under this section."
Regulation 2 of 1970 applies to all lands in the Scheduled Areas in respect of which no settlement has been effected except areas covered by the Muttas and Mahals in the Scheduled Area u/s 1(2) of the Regulation. The Regulation is comprehensive covering areas covered by estates taken over by the Government under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and also those areas covered by ryotwari villages, pre-hold villages etc., in respect of which no settlement has been effected previously. u/s 9 of the Regulation, the Settlement Officer is required to enquire and grant pattas to the persons who are entitled to them and there is no reference to the expression ''ryot'' in Section 9 of the Regulation. Section 7 of Regulation specifies the persons who arc entitled to ryotwari pattas. The said section covers both estate villages as well as areas not covered by estates. While the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Regulation applies to estate lands, the second proviso thereof applies to lands in ryotwari villages and pre-hold areas. In the case of estates, every ryot is entitled to a patta if two conditions are satisfied viz., that the said ryot is entided to a ryotwari patta under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, and that his possession is not unlawful under any law for the time being in force. In the case of other lands, a non-tribal is entitled to ryotwari patta only if such person is in possession of the land for eight years before the commencement of the Regulation and that such possession or occupation ''shall not be void or illegal under any other law for the time being in force.
In the suit OS No.81/48 on the file of the Sub-Court, Rajahmundry filed by Majety Ramachandraiah against the petitioners and their predecessors for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the petitioners and their predecessors set up the plea that they are the tenants of the subject land. The Civil Court framed number of issues and issue No.2 reads :
"Whether the lease set up by defendants is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff or they are mere trespassers and whether the plaintiff and defendants 16 to 18 are entitled to eject them?"
This issue came to be framed in the said suit having regard to the pleading of the plaintiff that the petitioners and their predecessors are trespassers and the pleading of the contesting defendants therein viz., petitioners and their predecessors that they are the tenants of the subject land under the temple. The Civil Court after due trial, in para 14 of the judgment held that the petitioners and their predecessors are trespassers and they are liable to be evicted from the subject land. This judgment dated 11-2-1950 became final. After this event, there is absolutely no satisfactory evidence to conclude that the petitioners became the tenants of the subject land. The reliance on two compromises dated 9-8-1960 and 22-10-1966 is of no help to the petitioners to establish their jural relationship of tenancy under the first respondent temple. No doubt, there was a compromise on 9-8-1960 between the parties under which certain terms and conditions were agreed upon on the basis of which lease agreements were required to be executed. It is an admitted fact that in pursuance of that compromise, the petitioners did not execute lease deeds. It is not that the petitioners are the joint tenants of the subject land and they claim joint tenancy right under the temple. Each of the petitioners, 88 in all, claimed individual tenancy right under the temple, and accordingly each one of them laid claim for a separate ryotwari patta under Regulation 2 of 1970. It is the specific case of the temple administration throughout that the compromise entered into between the parties on 9-8-1960 was never acted upon and the petitioners failed to execute lease deeds as per the compromise and failed to pay the agreed rents. Thereafterwards the Deputy Commissioner in OA No.32/63 issued certificate in favour of the temple to recover possession of the subject land by passing the order u/s 87 read with Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. This order was passed on 3-3-1965. It is needless to state that the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner enabled the temple to recover possession of the subject and from the encroachers and trespassers and this order of the Deputy Commissioner came to be made, as already noted above, on the basis of the memo filed by the petitioners themselves admitting that the temple is the owner of the subject land and they had no objection to grant certificate as prayed for in OA No.32/63. Therefore it should be held that as on 3-3-1965, even according to the petitioners themselves, they were not the lawful tenants of the subject land. Then came the second compromise entered into between the parties on22-10-1966. Here again, certain terms and conditions were agreed upon between the parties on the basis of which lease agreements should be executed by the petitioners. Here also the specific case of the temple throughout is that the petitioners did not execute the lease deeds and they did not otherwise fulfil the terms and conditions of the compromise. Admittedly, the petitioners did not execute lease agreements in pursuance of the compromise dated 22-10-1966. Under the circumstances, the Executive Officer filed the application CMP No. 1/71 before the 1st Class Magistrate, Bhadrachalam for delivery of possession of the subject land with the assistance of the police in pursuance of the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner in OA No.32/63, and that application was ordered on 22-8-1972 and thereafterwards the petitioners voluntarily surrendered possession of the subject land in favour of the temple and executed letters of surrenders on 23-11-1972 and 24-11-1972. Only thereafterwards, when the Executive Officer attempted to get the subject land cultivated, the petitioners moved this Court in WP No.3483/73 for quashing the orders of the Deputy Commissioner passed in OA No.32/ 63, dated 3-3-1965. The writ petition was dismissed. The writ appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by this Court as noted supra. The petitioners did not take any steps to establish their tenancy rights under the Andhra Tenancy Act before the appropriate forum. Only by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court in WP MP No.6611/73 in WP No.3483/73, dated 18-8-1973, the petitioners continued in possession of the subject land. Further, during the pendency of the proceedings before the respondents 2 to 4, having regard to the several decisions of this Court that during the pendency of the proceedings for grant of ryotwari pattas before the authorities under the Regulation 2 of 1970, the status quo should be maintained, the petitioners continued to be in possession of the subject land till date. The discussion above establishes that the petitioners never became tenants of the subject land at any point of time. On the other hand, the petitioners throughout have been treated as trespassers. Only lawful ryots and whose occupation or possession is lawful are entitled to ryotwari pattas under the second proviso to subsection (1) of Section 7. Since the petitioners have utterly failed to prove their lawful possession when the regulation came into force, they are not entitled to ryotwari pattas. Therefore no exception can be taken to the orders made by the respondents 2 to 4.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, would make a passionate appeal to the Court to remand proceedings to the authorities with a direction to reconsider the claims of the petitioners de novo in the light of the rent receipts produced in the case by the petitioners. No doubt, as could be seen from the orders of the authorities below some rent receipts are produced in the cases. As pointed supra, as many as 88 persons claimed grant of ryotwari pattas in respect, of the same subject land. Nowhere it is established that all the petitioners have paid all Vents from the date of first compromise i.e., 9-8-1960. Even assuming that some of the petitioners chose to pay the rents after they suffered adverse order in OA No.32/63 that fact itself will not enure to the benefit of the petitioners to establish that they are the tenants of the subject lands. The order made by- the Deputy Commissioner in OA No.32/63 became final with the dismissal of the writ petition and the writ appeal by this Court, and the certificate issued in OA :No.32/63 was executed by filing CMP No. 1/71 before the First Class Magistrate, Badrachalam and the petitioners themselves voluntarily surrendered possession of the subject land in favour of the temple and executed two letters of surrender on 23-11-1972 and 24-11-1972. These facts cumulatively prove that the petitioners were never treated by the temple as tenants at any point of time and on the other hand the petitioners throughout have been treated as trespassers.
The findings recorded by the respondents 2 to 4 in their respective orders on questions of fact are based on substantive evidence and well-presented reasoning, and they do not call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is quite often reiterated by the Constitutional Courts that judicial review is not directed against the decision itself but it is directed against decision-making process. It is apt to quote what the Supreme Court has stated in para 8 in the case of H. B. Gandhi v. Gopi Nath and Sons :
"Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness pf a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court, Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself''''
In view of the finding of the Court that the petitioners are not the tenants of the subject land they were not in lawful occupation and possession of the subject land as on 1-7-1970 and consequently they are not entitled to ryotwari pattas under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Regulation, there is no need to consider the contention of the learned Counsel for the first respondent temple that only the owners are entitled to seek grant of ryotwari pattas under the Regulation.
In the result the writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.