Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 59 (AP)

Chitumalla Veeramallaiah v. Joint Collector

2013-02-04

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
JUDGMENT :- The petitioner, respondent No.4 and the father of respondent No.5 are brothers. The petitioner states that he purchased land, admeasuring Ac.3.03 guntas in Survey No.949/1 (first bit) and Ac.3.29 guntas in Survey No.950/1 (second bit) of Chigurumamidi Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District under an unregistered document, dated 06.03.1950. It is also stated that an extent of Ac.1.30 guntas in the first bit and Ac.1.00 guntas in the second bit were gifted by him to his brother i.e., 4th respondent, through a registered document in the year 2004. It is the case of the petitioner that the remaining property is under his exclusive ownership and enjoyment. 2. It is stated that the 5th respondent filed an application on 27.09.2007 before the Tahsildar, Chigurumamidi Mandal, 3rd respondent herein stating that his father was entitled to 1/3rd share in the two bits referred to above and that his name be entered in the revenue records against the corresponding extents in the two bits. The 3rd respondent is said to have referred the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, 2nd respondent herein and the latter in turn passed order, dated 05.09.2011 directing that the name of the 5th respondent be entered in the revenue records to the extent of 1/3rd in the two bits. 3. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Book Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Joint Collector, Karimnagar, 1st respondent herein. The revision was dismissed, through order, dated 12.03.2012. Hence, this writ petition. 4. The petitioner contends that he was issued pattadar pass books and title deeds showing the entire extent in the two bits, excluding the one that was gifted and that there was no justification for the 2nd respondent in issuing directions in favour of the 5th respondent, much less for the 1st respondent in dismissing the revision. He contended that if the 5th respondent wants to claim any share, he has to file a suit for partition and no adjudication of rights can take place in the proceedings that are initiated under the Act. 5. A common counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. It is stated that the land in the two bits was held by the joint family, so much so the three brothers were issued ryotwari pass books for equal extents. 5. A common counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. It is stated that the land in the two bits was held by the joint family, so much so the three brothers were issued ryotwari pass books for equal extents. They contend that the petitioner was also issued pattadar pass books and title deeds under the Act, showing his 1/3rd share in the year 2004, but, clandestinely, he got the remaining extent shown in pattadar pass books, in the year 2006. 6. Heard Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 3, Sri Rammohan Palanki, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 7. The dispute is about the respective shares of three brothers in the two bits of land referred to above. The petitioner claims exclusive rights over the land and states that he has parted with Ac.2.30 guntas in the two bits in favour of his brother i.e., 4th respondent by way of gift deed. 8. In the year 2007, on an application submitted by the 5th respondent, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 05.09.2011 directing that he is entitled for 1/3rd share in the two bits of land. The revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected. 9. In case, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the entire land, his other brothers cannot claim shares in it. Much however would depend upon the nature of acquisition and the rights, which the other members of the joint family enjoyed vis-a-vis the land. There are conflicting versions as to the status of the family. Respondents 4 and 5 plead that there was a oral partition in the year 1964 and on the basis of the partition effected therein, the three brothers were issued ryotwari pass books. Added to that, O.S No. 84 of 1970 was filed by the father of the 5th respondent for partition, but that in turn reflects something else. In case, the three ryotwari pass books issued to three brothers reflect their respective shares, a semblance of partition can be inferred, subject to proof, if any otherwise. The pattadar pass books and title deeds contemplated under the Act are, in a way, continuation of the ryotwari pass books. 10. In case, the three ryotwari pass books issued to three brothers reflect their respective shares, a semblance of partition can be inferred, subject to proof, if any otherwise. The pattadar pass books and title deeds contemplated under the Act are, in a way, continuation of the ryotwari pass books. 10. Though respondents 4 and 5 did not take any steps to get the pattadar passbooks and title deeds, one fact which convinces this Court to remand the matter is that the petitioner was issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in the year 2004, in which the land to an extent of Ac.1.22 guntas in Survey No.949/1 and Ac.1.35 guntas in Survey No.950/1 was mentioned, whereas two years later, he got included Ac.0.31 guntas and Ac.0.34 guntas in the two survey numbers respectively. The circumstances, under which such inclusion came into existence, are not before this Court. Since the title deeds and pattadar passbooks are to be issued after obtaining the approval by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is better that the entire matter pertaining to the issuance of pattadar passbooks to the petitioner be examined by the said authority, after calling for the original record and issuing notice to the effected parties. If it emerges that the parties enjoyed their respective shares, before the pattadar pass books were issued to the petitioner, necessary entries be made. If on the other hand, there is any uncertainity, the parties have to work out their remedies in a civil court. 11. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 05.09.2011 and 12.03.2012 passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively are set aside. The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for a detailed examination and verification of the pattadar pass books issued to the petitioner in the year 2004 as well as the inclusions made therein in the year 2006. Detailed orders on the lines indicated in the preceding paragraphs shall be passed by the 2nd respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving opportunity to the concerned parties. 12. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.