Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1254 (AP)

Karanam Suryanarayana Murthy v. State of A. P.

2022-11-10

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief: "...to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref./D.Dis.No.8141/2015C dt.14/9/2018 issued by the 3rd respondent entertaining the representation made by the 5 to 7 respondents against the issuance of pattadar pass books (PPB) and title deed in favour of the petitioners relating to the property of an extent of Ac.2.80 cts in Sy.No.13/1, 13/1A, 13/2 and 13/2C of Anakapalli, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as appeal and passed orders as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of AP Rights in land and pattadar pass book Act and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ...." 2. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject property, having acquired the same from his ancestors, by virtue of the partition affected in the year 1970. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar, after considering the records and the documents, issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the 1st petitioner, in the year 1995 and revenue records were mutated in his name. In the year 2014, the 1st petitioner executed settlement deed in favour of his wife-2 nd petitioner for an extent of Ac.1.40 1/2 cts of the subject property and the 4th respondent issued pattadar passbooks in her favour on 20/5/2015, after making necessary entries in the Revenue Records. While so, Respondents 5 to 7 submitted a representation dtd. 21/7/2015, to the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, claiming right over the subject property and sought cancellation of the Pattadar Passbooks and the entries made in online account in Katha No.433, 665 and 10407 and requested to enter their names. Acting on the said representation, the 3 rd respondent called for a report from the 4th respondent, who in turn stated that the entries made in favour of the petitioners are correct. Acting on the said representation, the 3 rd respondent called for a report from the 4th respondent, who in turn stated that the entries made in favour of the petitioners are correct. The petitioners having come to know about the representation, filed objections, specifically stating that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the representation as appeal and there is no appeal provided against issuance of pattadar passbooks and further informed that the petitioners filed O.S.No.121 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, against respondents 5 to 7. It is the further case of the petitioners that when there was threat of dispossession, they filed W.P.No.2557 of 2018, before this Court questioning the proceedings taken up by the 3rd respondent as appeal and the same was disposed of vide order dtd. 30/1/2018, giving liberty to the petitioners to raise all the grounds including the point of jurisdiction before the 3rd respondent and directed the 3rd respondent to consider the point of jurisdiction. However, the 3rd respondent, without considering the point of jurisdiction, has entertained the representation of respondents 5 to 7 as appeal and passed orders directing the 4th respondent to revoke the digital signature and hold the concerned record in dispute register, till finalization of the civil suit and also withheld the passbooks. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri PSP Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for Respondents 5 to 7 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration of what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the Tahsildar, on the request made by the petitioners issued passbooks and title deeds to the petitioners, which are placed on record and has drawn attention of the Court to the same. It is further contended that the respondents 5 to 7 herein, after two years of issuance of pattadar passbooks to the petitioners, made a representation dtd. 21/7/2015 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, questioning the same and the same was taken on file and issued notices to the petitioners. The petitioners have filed objections stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the same cannot be taken into consideration. The said objections are also placed on record and draw the attention of this Court. The petitioners have filed objections stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the same cannot be taken into consideration. The said objections are also placed on record and draw the attention of this Court. The petitioners also constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.No.2557 of 2018 and the same was disposed of on 30/1/2018 and the same is also placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that in spite of raising objection before the 3rd respondent, about absence of jurisdiction to entertain the representation as appeal, without answering the said objection has allowed the representation made by respondents 5 to 7 herein and directed the Tahsildar to withhold the entries made in the record of rights IB Register, pending disposal of O.S.No.121 of 2016. It is further contended by the learned counsel Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao that the said suit is filed by the petitioners, that too, for an injunction when the respondents 5 to 7 are interfering with their possession and if at all respondents 5 to 7 have any grievance with regard to the title, they have to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of title. Without doing so, they have made a representation before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer has entertained the same as appeal, which is contrary to the settled principles of law and contrary to Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of this High Court in T. Rajeswari v. Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore District, 2015(6) ALT 339 and Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur District, 2015(5) ALT 228 and also relied on the decision of this High Court in G. Krishnachari v. State Government of Andhra Pradesh,2014(1) Andh LD 406. Accordingly, prayed to consider the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7, Sri PSP Suresh Kumar, contended that there is a suit pending before the competent Civil Court and in the said circumstances, the entries should not have been adhered to in the revenue records until the Civil Court gives any finding in the suit. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7, Sri PSP Suresh Kumar, contended that there is a suit pending before the competent Civil Court and in the said circumstances, the entries should not have been adhered to in the revenue records until the Civil Court gives any finding in the suit. He further draw attention of this Court to the observations of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2557 of 2018, vide order dtd. 30/1/2018, which is placed on record. It is contended that the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that when there is a serious dispute with regard to title of the properties, the 3rd respondent therein should not have entertained the claim for correction of entries and should have relegated the parties to the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. It is contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer's directions in the impugned order, dtd. 14/9/2018, are in consonance with the above directions and the Revenue Divisional Officer is justified in directing the 4th respondent to revoke the digital signature and hold the concerned record in Dispute Register until finalization of the Civil Suit in O.S.No.121 of 2016 and also for withholding the Title Deeds/Pattadar Passbooks. Therefore, the same cannot be agitated before this Court and no indulgence can be shown in this Writ Petition. He further contended that O.S.No.121 of 2016 is still pending and as per the directions in the said Suit, the authorities will take steps. In support of his contention he drew attention of this Court to the decision of the Telanga High Court in C.V. Vishwanatha Reddy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer in Writ Appeal No.1171 of 2018 and draw attention of this Court to the following: "The appellant, if disagrees with the basic circumstances viz., pendency of suit, incorporation of name in revenue record for the property in lis before the civil court etc., the complaint of appellant could be independently examined. On the other hand, there is no dispute on the circumstances which are considered by the order under appeal for holding that at this stage of the matter, no order under ROR Act cannot be made in favour of one or the other. On the other hand, there is no dispute on the circumstances which are considered by the order under appeal for holding that at this stage of the matter, no order under ROR Act cannot be made in favour of one or the other. We have in this intra Court appeal examined the order impugned in this appeal and also the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge within the scope of clause 15 of Letter Patent. The findings recorded in the order under appeal conform to the scheme as provided under Sec. 8 of the Act. The parties are free to agitate their rights before the Civil Court and subject to the outcome of the civil litigation, the recording authority is under obligation to mutate the name of a person as decreed by the Court. No ground is made out warranting interference. The Writ appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs." Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is not a positive direction and he is justified in passing such an order directing the Tahsildar to withhold the entries made in the revenue records and no prejudice would be caused to either parties, as such, the same is as per law. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioners' names were mutated in the revenue records in the year 2015 itself and passbooks were also issued in their favour. It is not in dispute that Respondents 5 to 7 made representation in the year 2015 to the 3rd respondent, questioning the mutation of the petitioners' names in the revenue records. It is also not in dispute that O.S.No.121 of 2016 is filed by the petitioners herein and it is suit for mere injunction. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2557 of 2018, which is placed on record reads as follows: "As per the above averments, it is clear that O.S.No.121 of 2016 is pending on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, seeking injunction. The suit property relates to an extent of Ac.1-40 1/2 cents situated in Survey No.13/1 and 2. The present claim relates to nearly Ac.12-14 cents. The suit property relates to an extent of Ac.1-40 1/2 cents situated in Survey No.13/1 and 2. The present claim relates to nearly Ac.12-14 cents. When there is a serious dispute with regard to title to the properties, the third respondent should not have entertained the claim for correction of entries and should have relegated the parties to the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. Be that as it may, in view of the objections filed by the petitioners, the third respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law including on the point of jurisdiction." The learned Single Judge has not taken up the case on merits. The grievance that is raised in the Writ Petition was not taken into consideration. But, however, observed that the Revenue Divisional Officer should have relegated the parties to the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief, instead of correcting the entries. The petitioners raised the same objections before the Revenue Divisional Officer, including the objection of jurisdiction. In the objections so made by the petitioners, before the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is also placed on record, they have raised the jurisdiction ground also independently. The 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer while taking up objections has not adverted to the very jurisdiction ground raised by the petitioners. The order impugned is silent with regard to the jurisdiction vested with the Revenue Divisional Officer in entertaining the petition made by respondents 5 to 7 herein. In respect of the Pattadar passbooks and title deed issued in favour of the 1st petitioner, in the year 1995 and issued in favour of the 2 nd petitioner, on 20/5/2015, the respondents 5 to 7 filed representation on 21/7/2015. Moreover, the suit filed by the petitioner is only for injunction. Respondents 5 to 7 ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title. There is no serious dispute of title before the Civil Court that is pending and it is only a suit for injunction and the respondents have not chosen to file any suit before the competent Civil Court. 8. Respondents 5 to 7 ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title. There is no serious dispute of title before the Civil Court that is pending and it is only a suit for injunction and the respondents have not chosen to file any suit before the competent Civil Court. 8. In these circumstances, the representation submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, by the Respondents 5 to 7, questioning the mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioners, in accordance with the Act, should not have been entertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer, without any appeal and without there being any application for condonation of delay. Though the petitioners have raised the ground of jurisdiction, the Revenue Divisional Officer has not dealt with the same. Even otherwise, the pattadar passbooks and title deed does not confer any title and it is only having evidentiary value to show that a particular person is having title. Even otherwise, this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.2557 of 2018 has categorically observed that when there is a serious dispute with regard to the properties, the 3rd respondent should not have entertained the claim for correction of entries and should have relegated the parties to the competent Civil Court. In this case, the suit, which is pending, is filed for mere injunction, as such, the 3 rd respondent ought to have relegated the parties to the civil Court to clear the cloud of title instead of entertaining the representation of R5 to R7. 9. In view of foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the order of the 3rd respondent in Ref.D.Dis.No.8141/2015 C, dtd. 14/9/2018 is unsustainable and contrary to the settled principles of law and accordingly, the same is hereby set-aside. However, this order does not preclude respondents 5 to 7 from taking steps as per law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Against any order of mutation in the revenue records, there is an appeal under Sec. 5 (5) of the ROR Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer. If at all respondents 5 to 7 have any grievance against the mutation of the petitioners' name in the revenue records, they ought to have filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer within 60 days. If at all respondents 5 to 7 have any grievance against the mutation of the petitioners' name in the revenue records, they ought to have filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer within 60 days. Here in the present case, respondents 5 to 7 have not filed any appeal under Sec. 5(5) and filed only a representation, that too, beyond 60 days, without there being any application for condoning delay