Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 225 (AP)

Alavala Venkkata Reddy v. State of A. P.

2023-01-30

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2023
ORDER : This writ petition is filed for the following relief : ‘…to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the proceedings for cancellation of pattadar pass Books issued vide patta No.307 issued in favour of respondent No.11 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.10.39 cents in Sy.No.303/1 and patta No.309 issued in favour of respondent No.12 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2.84 cents in Sy.No. 297/2B of Dharbagudem Village and not issuing pattadar pass book and title deed book in favour of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.301/1, Ac.1.39 cents in Sy.No.303/1 and Ac.2.84 cents in Sy.No.297/2B of Dharbagudem village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, W.G. District by considering the representations of the petitioner in accordance with law is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to pattadar pass book and title deed book for the lands admeasuring Ac.2.30 cents Ac. 1.39 cents, Ac. 2.84 cents in Sy.No.301/1, 303/1 and 297/2B respectively of Dhabagudem Village, Jeelugupmilli Mandal, W.G. District in the matter…’ 2. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.J.V.N. Pundareekakshudu, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel for the unofficial respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner took a lot of effort to argue the matter. A written note was also filed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner’s predecessor in title is the owner of Ac.30.45 cents of land. He alienated Ac.23.92 cents of land under various sale deeds which are mentioned at more than one place in the writ petition and that a balance of Ac.6.53 cents of land is still available and is in possession of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner as expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, basing on the record, is that he has made a request to survey the land and to fix boundaries of Ac.6.53 cents and that the same was not done. In addition, it is also submitted that the unofficial respondents have managed to get pattadar passbooks and record of rights book for the entire extent of land without taking into consideration that the sales were only for Ac.23.92 cents. In addition, it is also submitted that the unofficial respondents have managed to get pattadar passbooks and record of rights book for the entire extent of land without taking into consideration that the sales were only for Ac.23.92 cents. The petitioner, according to the learned counsel, made representations to the respondents, but no action was taken to cancel the passbook issued to the unofficial respondents or for issuing pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioner for Ac.6.53 cents of land (2.30 cents in Sy.No.301/2, Ac.1.39 cents in Sy.No.303/1 and Ac.2.84 cents in Sy.No.297/2B). 4. Learned counsel points out that pattadar passbooks were issued to the unofficial respondents on 03.07.2009 and that the writ was filed on 22.12.2009. In addition, it is submitted that even prior to the issuance of the pattadar passbook, the petitioner’s protest has been lodged with the respondents, but they did not take any action. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the contention of the respondents that there are disputed questions of fact etc., is not correct and that as the official respondents had failed to exercise their statutory functions, this Court has the authority and the power to issue a Mandamus. It is also submitted that there is no dispute per se about the title or the flow of the title. Relying upon R.S. Murthy and another v. Joint Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada and others, 2001 (4) ALT 337 , it is argued that a direction can be given to the respondents to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. He also relies upon the case of Polavarapu Veera Raghava Sarma and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by District Collector, Guntur and others, 2014 (1) ALT 452 , where a Mandamus was issued to respondent No.4 to issue pattadar passbook. He also relies upon copies of 10 (1) adangal and other documents, which are filed as additional documents to argue that there is no dispute about the petitioner’s predecessor’s title. 5. On behalf of the official respondents, the Government Pleader for Revenue argued the matter at length. He relied upon the counter affidavit of the 5th respondent to argue this case. 6. The Government Pleader relies upon the extents which are sold and which are mentioned at more than one place in the counter affidavit. 5. On behalf of the official respondents, the Government Pleader for Revenue argued the matter at length. He relied upon the counter affidavit of the 5th respondent to argue this case. 6. The Government Pleader relies upon the extents which are sold and which are mentioned at more than one place in the counter affidavit. It is also mentioned that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.297/2B, 303/1 and 301 of Dharbagudem Village were sold by pattadar and legal heirs as per 1933 RSR. It is also submitted that pattadar passbooks and Record of Rights books were given pursuant to the documentary evidence produced by the 11th respondent. It is asserted at more than one place that the petitioner is not at all in possession of the land in the survey numbers mentioned above. It is also reiterated and stated that although the petitioner made a request for a survey, he did not attend for the survey despite a notice being issued. 7. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appears on behalf of the unofficial respondents. He points out that there are very seriously disputed questions of fact and law in this writ petition. It is submitted that in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It is also asserted that unofficial respondent Nos.11 and 12 are in settled possession of the property with good clear title to the same. It is also mentioned that the petitioner’s father A. Sesha Reddy, the original pattadar entered into a registered exchange deed by which Ac.10.00 cents of land with certain specific and clear boundaries were exchanged between the parties even though survey number was wrongly mentioned. Apart from this, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner has not filed any document to base his claim apart from the entries in the revenue records. Relying upon Nagar Palika v. Jagat Singh, AIR 1995 SCC 1377 he argues that relief cannot be granted on the basis of revenue records. Therefore, he submits that the writ should be dismissed. 8. He also contends that the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) is a self-contained code and that there is a specific time bound schedule given for filing appeal etc., against entries made in the revenue records. Therefore, he submits that the writ should be dismissed. 8. He also contends that the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) is a self-contained code and that there is a specific time bound schedule given for filing appeal etc., against entries made in the revenue records. He submits that without exhausting the said remedy under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition and therefore he states that he is not entitled to any relief. 9. This is an alternative submission made by the learned senior counsel. 10. COURT: This Court after examining the issues raised, documents filed and submissions made notices that the Act, is a self-contained code. It enables the revenue authorities to pass orders on an application made after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Section 5 provides for remedy which is noticed by the Division Bench in the case of R.S. Murthy’s case (1 supra). In that case also, the third party raised a question of title. While holding that revenue authorities cannot decide the question of title, the Division Bench directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to pass appropriate order. 11. In the case on hand also, this Court notices that lot of emphasis has been placed by either party on revenue records, entries etc. The petitioner has been making effort to agitate his rights. It must however be said that he was not pursuing his remedies correctly. The patadar passbooks were issued to the 11th respondent on 03.07.2009. Entry in the 1-B register was also made on 05.10.2009 according to the petitioner. Thereafter, instead of pursuing the proper remedy under the Act, the writ petition was filed in December, 2009. Appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to file a proper application before the statutory authorities within the stipulated time. Instead of doing so, he has approached the writ Court probably under legal advice. The fact however remains that for a decision on the issues raised including the question of possession and extents in possession of the parties, it is the revenue authorities on the ground level alone who can examine the issue to come to a conclusion. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into these areas. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into these areas. However, it is made clear that the Revenue Authorities cannot decide the issue of ‘title’ per se. A statutory power is conferred upon the revenue authorities to take the necessary decision as per the Act. 12. The prayer made is also misconceived. Time and again this Court has held that it is only the entries in the revenue records that can be corrected or modified. The pattadar pass books are a mere reflection of the entries. This Court notices that even here the petitioner did not get proper advice and he filed the writ petition seeking cancellation of the pattadar pass book issued to the respondents and for issuance of pass book in his name. The proper prayer should have been for cancellation of the entries in the revenue records and a consequential direction for issuance of pattadar pass books in the petitioners favour if he succeeds. 13. Therefore, instead of relegating the writ petition to a civil Court, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met in this case if a direction is given to the 5th respondent to proceed in accordance with the Act since the writ is filed in 2009 itself. The petitioner is directed to make an appropriate and comprehensive application along with all the documents that he wishes to rely upon in support of his case. Notices should be issued to all the parties interested including the respondents Nos.11 and 12 to file a counter along with their documents etc., in support of the case. If necessary, oral hearing should also be held and representation by the learned advocate be permitted. 14. All the questions of fact and law are available to be raised by both parties to the writ petition in the said proceedings. Merely because an order is passed by this Court, the 5th respondent should not be influenced and he should decide the matter on its own merits. This entire exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed not to take any adjournments and to ensure that the procedure is followed and the time lines prescribed are adhered to. 15. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. This entire exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed not to take any adjournments and to ensure that the procedure is followed and the time lines prescribed are adhered to. 15. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.