Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 35 (AP)

Jamjala Eswarama v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2020-01-22

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2020
JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “.....to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 06.03.2010 passed in D. Dis. Case No. (E3)/139/10 passed by the Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore District, cancelling the Pattadar passbook and title deeds issued in favour of them and consequential endorsement D. Dis. No. (E3)/4914/07, dated 03.02.2016 issued by the Collector, SPSR Nellore as illegal, highhanded, arbitrary, mala-fide, contrary to the provisions under A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and violation of principles of natural justice by setting aside the same and consequentially direct the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to restore the mutations effected on the names of the petitioner sin respect of their respective lands in Sy. No. 98/A, 98/B2, 98/C and 264/C of Nuthakkivari Kandriga H/o Yeturu Village, Chejarla Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and consequentially restore the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued to the petitioners in respect of their respective lands in the interest of justice and to pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. This Court has heard Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader representing Respondents 1 to 5, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the 6th to 8th respondents and Sri P. Anand Seshu, learned counsel for the implead petitioners-9 to 98, who appeared by fling through I.A. No. 1 of 2018. I.A. No. 1 of 2018 is allowed and the learned counsel Sri P. Anand Seshu was also allowed to argue the matter. The office is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the cause title. 3. Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners strongly argued that this is a fit case in which the Court should interfere since the action of the respondents in cancelling the Pattadar passbooks and title deed issued to them and the consequential endorsement should be set aside. He points out that there is virtually no dispute about the title of the petitioners, which can be traced to 19th century itself. Apart from that he also points out that the names of the petitioners and their ancestors were recorded in the revenue records itself. He points out that there is virtually no dispute about the title of the petitioners, which can be traced to 19th century itself. Apart from that he also points out that the names of the petitioners and their ancestors were recorded in the revenue records itself. He relies upon the survey and settlement registers of the village, which are filed. Apart from that he also points out that on 14.07.2019 the rights of the petitioners were also recognised by the survey conducted by the Deputy Inspector of Survey and the Revenue Divisional Office. Later, he points out that the Village Revenue Officer also certified about the extent of land and the ownership of the petitioners. Learned counsel argues that there is overwhelming evidence to show that the petitioners have lawful rights over the property. He also points out that the Pattadar passbooks and record of rights, which were given are perfectly valid and that the impugned order dated 06.03.2010 does not consider the flow of title at all. He also relies upon the report given by the Tahsildar in February-2010, wherein the flow of title was also discussed and thereafter he recommended the issuance of Pattadar passbooks and title deed books. Learned counsel Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu argues that despite the evidence that is available, the impugned order was passed in 06.03.2010 cancelling the pattadar passbooks and thereafter the order dated 03.02.2016 was passed. It is his contention that as the action of the State is totally mala-fide and incorrect the writ Court should interfere and should grant him relief. It is also his contention if the further proceedings dated 03.02.2016, by which further appeal was rejected and a recommendation was made to workout their remedies in a court of law is untenable under law. Therefore, it is his contention that this is a fit case for this court to interfere. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the 5th respondent-Tahsildar relies upon the counter and states that the petitioners, who claimed title through J. Eswaraiahare guilty of enormous latches. He points out that an elaborate exercise was carried out for distribution of Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds, but till 2009 no application was made by the petitioners. He virtually argues in line with the counter that is filed. He points out that an elaborate exercise was carried out for distribution of Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds, but till 2009 no application was made by the petitioners. He virtually argues in line with the counter that is filed. He also points out that some parts of the land have also been acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act that the compensation was also paid to some third parties. He argues that both the 2010 order of the Joint Collector directing the cancellation of the pattadar passbooks and the subsequent order of 2016 are validly passed. He also argues that the petitioners are not in possession of the property. Lastly, he submits that the report of the Tahsildar on which heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is also not available in the office of the concerned department and doubts the same. Learned Government Pleader also submits that this is mentioned clearly in the impugned order of 2010. 5. On behalf of the 7threspondent Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar appears and argues in line with his counter. It is his contention that there was no civil Court in the year “1861” to auction the property. He also raised a serious dispute about the inam title deed, which is filed as a material paper, which is the source of title for the petitioners. Learned counsel also argues that the succession in this matter from 1861 should be pleaded and proved clearly before any order is invited from this Court. It is his contention that the original documents are not filed and some of the documents, which are supposed to convey title to such a huge extent of land are not even registered. Therefore, he argues that this is not a case for this court to interfere as there are seriously disputed questions of fact. 6. Sri P. Anand Seshu learned counsel for the newly impleaded petitioners also argued that the implead petitioners have got their own pattadar passbooks and record of rights, which are issued after due enquiry. It is his contention that there is a presumption that these documents are valid. 98 petitioners have been added as respondents 9 to 106. 6. Sri P. Anand Seshu learned counsel for the newly impleaded petitioners also argued that the implead petitioners have got their own pattadar passbooks and record of rights, which are issued after due enquiry. It is his contention that there is a presumption that these documents are valid. 98 petitioners have been added as respondents 9 to 106. Sri Anand Seshu argues that all these 98 newly impleaded respondents have title to the land and that some of them who also been given land acquisition compensation for properties acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. It is also his contention that seriously dispute questions of facts are there and this is not a case for this Court to interfere. 7. This court after hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side also has to agree what is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents. This is not simple case of cancellation of pattadar passbooks. The origin of the title and the sources of the title is a matter which needs to be sufficiently pleaded and established. The flow of title and the succession is also matter, which needs to be established. The documents filed by the writ petitioner on an ex-facie reading do not categorically establish the title of the petitioners. This is an opinion being expressed for the sake of this Writ Petition only. 8. The title deed dated 26.08.1861 should also be properly and adequately proved. Subsequent events also have to be seen to decide whether the present set of petitioners can alone claim title to the property. The possession of the petitioners is also a matter of dispute. This is also an issue that needs to be decided in comprehensive trial. The available documents do not disclose the clear title or the clear possession of the petitioners. There is also a serious allegation about the surveyors' of report 2010 and its authenticity. Last but not the least, the implead petitioners also filed copies of their pattadar pass books and record of rights. These are the documents, which are normally issued after due enquiry as per the relevant act. 9. As per the settled law just because some evidence is to be taken the Writ Court cannot refuse to exercise jurisdiction. But in the case on hand it appears that there are not “mere questions of fact” but there are very seriously disputed questions of fact. 9. As per the settled law just because some evidence is to be taken the Writ Court cannot refuse to exercise jurisdiction. But in the case on hand it appears that there are not “mere questions of fact” but there are very seriously disputed questions of fact. Matters which need to be adequately and properly proved cannot be decided merely on the strength of affidavits that are filed. This Court is of the opinion that as there are very seriously disputed questions of title; questions of possession and enjoyment etc. a Writ Petition is not the proper remedy. 10. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this Writ Petition. In view of the seriousness of the defences raised and the issues that are raised, particularly about the right, title and possession this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed.