Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 820 (AP)

Moku Narayana Reddy v. Joint Collector, Warangal

2013-09-26

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2013
Judgment : 1. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the proceedings in Rc.No.E5/3866/2012 dated 10.07.2013 of respondent No.1. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioners were granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds in the year 2000. Feeling aggrieved thereby, respondent Nos.4 to 7 have filed an appeal before respondent No.2 in the year 2004. The said appeal was allowed by respondent No.2, vide his order dated 24.03.2012, whereby he has set aside the patttadar passbooks and title deeds issued to the petitioners and directed respondent No.3 to round off the names of the petitioners and mutate the names of respondent Nos.4 to 7 in the record of rights. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed a revision petition before respondent No.1. By the order impugned in this writ petition, respondent No.1 has dismissed the revision petition by a cryptic order, which reads as under: “On perusal of the claims of the petitioner and after careful examination of the records, the revision petition is not maintainable U/s 9 of ROR Act, as the dispute regarding Title and Possession, which should be decided by a competent civil Court only. With this the revision petition is hereby disposed.” 4. In my opinion, respondent No.1 has committed a serious jurisdictional error in dismissing the revision petition on the ground of non-maintainability. Under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), against every order passed under Section 5(5) of the Act, the aggrieved party is entitled to file a revision petition. Therefore, it is imperative for the revisional authority to dispose of the revision petition on merits. After discussing the merits of the case, the revisional authority has to affirm the order of the appellate authority or reverse the same. If the revisional authority is of the opinion that the nature of the facts of the case is such that the dispute needs to be decided by a Court of competent civil jurisdiction, it can relegate the parties to the civil Court after discussing the facts. The petitioners cannot be left in lurch after the appellate authority has set aside the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in their favour. The petitioners cannot be left in lurch after the appellate authority has set aside the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in their favour. If respondent No.1 has felt that the dispute needs to be adjudicated by the civil Court, the same reasoning will apply to respondent No.2 also. But to the misfortune of the petitioners, respondent No.2 has interfered with grant of pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued to them. By declining to adjudicate the revision petition on merits, respondent No.1 failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, there is no option for respondent No.1 other than to decide the case on merits by adjudicating on the validity or otherwise of the order passed by respondent No.2. As respondent No.1 failed to do so, the impugned proceedings dated 10.07.2013 cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. The case is remanded to respondent No.1 for fresh adjudication on merits in the light of the observations made hereinabove. 6. Since both the parties claim that they are in possession of the property, status quo as on today shall be maintained in all respects till disposal of the revision petition by respondent No.1. 7. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 8. As a sequel to allowing the writ petition, interim order dated 29.07.2013 W.P.M.P.Nos.27422 and 27423 of 2013 is vacated and W.P.M.P.Nos.27422 and 27423 of 2013 and W.V.M.P.No.2774 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.