Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1167 (AP)

Muvva Atchutha Rao v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2023-08-08

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. The above writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "... to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 entertaining representation filed by the 6th respondent after long lapse of 23 years and thereby 4th respondent passing impugned orders dtd. 18/4/2016 in its proceedings in Rc.No.9680/2015-A which is confirmed by the 3rd respondent in Revision Petition in D.DIs.No.1675/2016- D5, dtd. 23/1/2018, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction, arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice, violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and rules framed there under and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300- A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the orders passed by the 3rd respondent passed vide its an order its Revision Petition in D.Dis.No.1675/2016-D5, dtd. 23/1/2018 thereby confirmed the order passed by the 4th respondent dtd. 18/4/2016 in Rc.No.9680/2015-A and pass any other order or orders ..." 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner and respondent No.6 are son and father. Respondent No.6, claiming to be owner of the property, made representation before respondent No.4 to cancel pattadar passbook and title deeds granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of land to an extent of Ac.1-41 cents, Ac.1-32 cents and Ac.0-17 cents in survey Nos. 28/1A, 24/3 and 28/3 respectively in Yendrai Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District. In the representation, respondent No.6 stated that by virtue of registered partition, dtd. 22/7/1965, the property referred to supra fell to his share and other properties fell to the share of the petitioner. In the partition deed, there was a clause that respondent No.6 will enjoy the property during his life time and after death of respondent No.6, the properties will be vested with the petitioner. Respondent No.4 without conducting proper enquiry cancelled the pattedar passbook and title deed vide Rc.No.9680/2015-A dtd. 18/4/2016. Against the said order, petitioner preferred revision before respondent No.3 vide D.Dis.No.1675/2016-D5 and the same was dismissed by respondent No.3, on 23/1/2018. Aggrieved by the same, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5. It was contended, inter alia, that as per the available record, subject property is recorded as patta land, which is ancestral property of respondent No.6. Aggrieved by the same, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5. It was contended, inter alia, that as per the available record, subject property is recorded as patta land, which is ancestral property of respondent No.6. Partition of properties was affected between the petitioner and respondent No.6 vide document No.1137 of 1965 dtd. 22/7/1965. The subject property of this writ petition is in enjoyment of respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 made representation to respondent No.4 under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short the 'ROR Act'), requesting to cancel the entries pertaining to the property mentioned supra, in pattadar passbook, issued in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.4, after conducting enquiry passed the order, against which revision was filed and the same was dismissed. Respondent No.4 considered representation as appeal under Sec. 5(5) of the ROR Act and thereafter passed orders. 4. Respondent No.6 filed counter affidavit and contended that the property referred to supra fell to his share in partition deed, dtd. 22/7/1965. Respondent No.6 has been enjoying the property with absolute rights. Petitioner got addicted to bad vices and alienated some of the property fell to his share. He also got alienated some of the properties of respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 also lodged criminal complaint against the petitioner. Respondent No.6 has to take care of mentally retarded daughter. Petitioner neglected respondent No.6 and in fact physically assaulted him. Respondent No.6, along with his wife executed Will, dtd. 27/9/2016 in favour of his elder daughter bequeathing their properties. Said Will was registered as document No.151 of 2016. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel on either side. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that passbook was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year, 1997 as per partition deed, dtd. 22/7/1965. Respondent No.6 after long lapse of time made representation, which was considered as appeal by respondent No.3. He would submit that respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to cancel pattedar passbook and title deed under Sec. 5(5) of the ROR Act in view of the ratio laid down in Ratnamma Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2015 (5) ALT 228 . 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader supported order of respondent Nos.3 and 4. 8. He would submit that respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to cancel pattedar passbook and title deed under Sec. 5(5) of the ROR Act in view of the ratio laid down in Ratnamma Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2015 (5) ALT 228 . 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader supported order of respondent Nos.3 and 4. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 would submit that petitioner played fraud and got his name mutated in the revenue records, without the knowledge of respondent No.6, in respect of the property fell to his share and on coming to know about the fraud played by the petitioner, respondent No.6 made representation to respondent No.4. Respondent No.4, after conducting enquiry passed the order and the same was confirmed by respondent No.3. He would submit that petitioner, who got addicted to bad vices, is not taking care of respondent No.6 and mentally retarded sister. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. As seen from the order of 4th respondent, respondent No.6 made representation to respondent No.4 to cancel pattadar passbook issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of Ac.1-41 cents, Ac.1-32 cents and Ac.0-17 cents in survey Nos.28/1A, 24/3 and 28/3 respectively of Yendrai village of Amaravati Mandal, Guntur District. Initially, notice was issued to both the petitioner and respondent No.6 to attend office on 28/11/2015 for enquiry. Petitioner failed to attend the enquiry and hence another notice was issued directing petitioner as well as respondent No.6 to attend office on 19/12/2015. Enquiry continued on 23/1/2016. Respondent No.6 produced registered partition deed bearing document No.1137 of 1965 before the authority. Based on the partition deed, 4th respondent concluded that the petitioner got Pattedar Passbook for Ac.4-31 cents in survey No.28/1A including his father's property of Ac.2-90 cents, Ac.1-32 cents and Ac.0-17 cents in survey Nos.28/1A, 24/3 and 28/3 of Yendrai village, Amaravati Mandal. Thus, the authority cancelled the entries. 10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the ratio laid down in Ratnamma's case (referred to supra), Revenue Divisional Officer, has no power to cancel the entries. No appeal would lie seeking cancellation of Pattadar Passbook or title deed. Though the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is in consonance with law declared in Ratnamma's case, this Court has to see, whether, setting aside the order of respondent No.4 confirmed by respondent No.3, would revive illegality. No appeal would lie seeking cancellation of Pattadar Passbook or title deed. Though the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is in consonance with law declared in Ratnamma's case, this Court has to see, whether, setting aside the order of respondent No.4 confirmed by respondent No.3, would revive illegality. It is settled principle of law that illegality cannot be perpetuated. 11. In Gadde Venkateswra Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1966 SC 828 . Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the action of the State Government under Andhra Pradesh Panchayats Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1959 came to the conclusion that the Government had no power under Sec. 72 of the Act to review an order made under Sec. 62 of the Act but refused to interfere with the orders of the High Court on the ground that if High Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order and, therefore, the High Court rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdictional power. 12. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that there was partition between the petitioner and respondent No.6 in the year, 1965. Three items of the properties mentioned supra, admittedly fell to the share of the petitioner's father i.e. respondent No.6. However, petitioner got entries in pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour to the extent referred to supra. The Tahsildar, competent authority under the Act, to update revenue records and to issue pattadar pass books, in the case on hand, in the opinion of this Court, failed to adhere to the procedure. Basis of updation of record of rights is registered partition deed. In respect of properties fell to the share of 6th respondent, issuance of Pass Book and Title Deed in favour of petitioner does not arise. 13. Further as seen from the written arguments filed by the petitioner before the Revision Authority, petitioner, himself produced registered partition deed. Petitioner placed reliance upon registered partition deed and requested the authority not to alter the entries since he got vested remainder. 14. During the life time of petitioner's father, petitioner will not get any right over the property. This Court, while exercising equity jurisdiction, in certain cases, should consider, factual aspects also. Petitioner, without any right and title, got his name mutated in respect of lands referred to supra. 14. During the life time of petitioner's father, petitioner will not get any right over the property. This Court, while exercising equity jurisdiction, in certain cases, should consider, factual aspects also. Petitioner, without any right and title, got his name mutated in respect of lands referred to supra. Though the order passed by respondent No.4 is against the principle laid down in Ratnamma's case, in the opinion of this Court, if the order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer is set aside, it amounts to revival of illegality and the same is not permissible. 15. In view of discussion supra and in the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered opinion that there are no merits brooking interference by this court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.