Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 973 (AP)

Singamaneni Pullamma v. Joint Collector, Ongole

2003-08-01

BILAL NAZKI, E.DHARMA RAO

body2003
JUDGMENT : BILAL NAZKI, J. 1. The appellants filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 16887 of 2002 seeking quashing of proceedings being Procs. No. D3/390512001 dated 25-2-2002 and R.C. No. B-175/2001, dated 11-4-2002. They further sought a direction that the respondents should issue pattadar pass books in their favour in respect of the lands held by them. The parties shall be hereinafter referred to as “petitioners” and “respondents” as they appeared in the writ petition. 2. Petitioner No. 2 is the daughter and respondent No. 4 is the daughter-in-law of petitioner No. 1. It was contended that they belonged to a Joint family and property was partitioned in the year 1975 and the petitioner No. 1 became successor to the properties that had fallen to the share of her husband. An extent of Ac. 19-49 guntas in Sy. Nos. 660/2, 788, 984/A, 1005, 747 and 705 situated at Bodduvanipalem village of Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam district had fallen to the share of her husband. Respondent No. 4 was also a successor to the share of the properties that had fallen to the share of her husband: An extent of Ac 17-29 guntas in Sy. Nos. 716/A, 604, 744, 846, 766. 767, 748, 716/C and 478/2 had fallen to the share of the husband of respondent No. 4. After the death of the respondent No. 4's husband, the 4th respondent, with the connivance of the revenue officials, got tampered the Resettlement Registers and fabricated the pattadar pass books, Ryotwari pass books and title deeds. The 4th respondent filed a suit being O.S. No. 213 of 1989 in the Court of Addl. District Munsiff, Addanki against the husband of 1st petitioner and petitioner No. 2 for injunction. The suit was dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court was confirmed in A.S. No. 47 of 1996. A second appeal was also filed being S.A. No. 551 of 2001 which was also dismissed. While dismissing the second appeal the High Court observed that the 4th respondent was at liberty to file a suit for declaration and possession. So far the 4th respondent has not filed any suit. It was further submitted by the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1's husband, on 29-8-1989, had executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner No. 2 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 984/A, admeasuring Ac. So far the 4th respondent has not filed any suit. It was further submitted by the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1's husband, on 29-8-1989, had executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner No. 2 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 984/A, admeasuring Ac. 1-00 vide document bearing No. 1078 of 1989 towards Pasupu Kumkum and also alienated an extent of Ac. 3-00 of land in Sy. No. 984/A vide registered sale deed bearing document No. 1072, dated 28-8-1989 in favour of petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 2 was given pattadar pass books, ryotwari pass book and title deeds by the revenue authorities in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 4-00. The petitioners got issued a legal notice to the respondents 2 and 3 through their counsel asking them to cancel the pattadar pass book and title deeds in respect of Sy. No. 747, 705, 984/A, 1005 and 984, admeasuring Ac. 3-51, 3-65, 5- 82, 2-45 and 4-00 guntas respectively which had been issued in favour of the 4th respondent. They also sought issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour. The 2nd respondent, after due enquiry in the matter, cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the 4th respondent and directed the 3rd respondent to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2. Accordingly pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in favour of the 1st petitioner in respect of land in Sy. Nos. 747, 705, 984-A, 1005, admeasuring Ac. 3-51, 3-15, 1-82 and 2-45 guntas respectively and the petitioner No. 2 was issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of land in Sy. No. 984/A, admeasuring Ac. 4-00 vide orders dated 28-5-2001 in D. Dis. No. 450 of 2001. The 4th respondent, feeling aggrieved of the order of 2nd respondent, filed a revision before the 1st respondent who stated that the matter was sub-judice, therefore the revision could not be entertained. The 4th respondent filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 16142 of 2001 which was disposed of on 4-9-2001 with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the matter afresh. The 1st respondent, vide order dated 25-2-2002, disposed of the revision keeping the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in abeyance. The 4th respondent filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 16142 of 2001 which was disposed of on 4-9-2001 with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the matter afresh. The 1st respondent, vide order dated 25-2-2002, disposed of the revision keeping the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in abeyance. This order of abeyance was challenged by way of the writ petition which has now been dismissed by the learned single Judge and the order of the 1st respondent has been upheld. Therefore the appeal. 3. The revision was entertained by the 1st respondent on the strength of an order of the High Court passed in W.P. No. 16142 of 2001. The High Court passed the following order: “The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration by the Joint Collector in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that the Joint Collector shall dispose of the revision petition uninfluenced by any of the observations, if any made, in this order since the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The Joint Collector shall dispose of the revision petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 4. Now the learned counsel for the petitioners, among other grounds, has agitated that the order of the 1st respondent is not an order disposing of the revision and he has kept the controversy alive. Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) lays down: “9. Revision - The Collector may either suo moto or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation.” 5. In terms of this section, the Collector or an officer invoking the jurisdiction under this section has to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to him that any such decision, order or proceedings has to be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly. Besides the mandate of this provision, the 1st respondent-Joint Collector had specifically been asked to dispose of the revision on merits by the High Court. In our view, the 1st respondent was not correct in keeping the order which was challenged before him in abeyance till the matter was decided by the Civil Court. One could understand such a course taken by him if the Civil Court was seized of the matter, but there was nothing pending on the Civil Court at that time. It is true that the entry made in the revenue records can be challenged in a civil suit, but that does not mean that the revenue authorities will not exercise any discretion which they are required to do under the Act. Pattadar pass books are governed by the Act and in case of grievance about the entries in pattadar pass books or about issuance or non-issuance of pattadar pass books the revenue authorities are supposed to do their job under the Act. Whether a revision had to be allowed or dismissed was a matter which had to be decided by the revisional authority. In case anybody or any party before it was aggrieved of that order, they could workout their remedies. Therefore what we feel is that the 1st respondent has failed to exercise his jurisdiction although the High Court had clearly asked him to exercise it and even without a direction from the High Court, he was supposed to pass an order in terms of Section 9 of the Act. We have not gone into the arguments made at the bar because that would prejudice either of the parties since we are again remanding the matter back to the 1st respondent. He shall hear the parties and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the mandate of Section 9 of the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the orders of the 1st respondent and the learned single Judge are set aside.