Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 572 (AP)

Nune Atchutha Ramayya v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-03-16

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2023
ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- "To issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 4th respondent herein in mutating the name of the respondents no.5 to 12 in revenue records (Adangal, etc.) pertaining to the lands to an extent of Ac.23.90 cts, Ac.17.42 cts, Ac.3.07 cts, 6.64 cts, Ac.25.46 cts, 51.04 cts in S.No.210, 211, 212/1, 212/2, 213, 222 of Purushothapatnam Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, contrary to the Civil Court decree in O.S.No.19/1988, dt.9-7-1991, is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Contrary to the Provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the rules made there under and Arts. 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to delete the entries made in revenue records pertaining to the Survey number and extent stated supra and pass such other orders." 2. The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents, more particularly, the 4th respondent in mutating the names of the respondents 5 to 12 in revenue records (Adangal, 1B, etc.) pertaining the lands to an extent of Acs.23.90 cents, Acs.17.42 cents, Acs.3.07 cents, Acs.6.64 cents, Acs.25.46 cents, Acs.51.04 cents in S.Nos.210, 211, 21s2/1, 212/2, 213, 222 of Purushothapatnam Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, contrary to the Civil Court decree in O.S.No.19/1988, dt.9-7-1991, is being illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter called, ‘the Act, 1971), and the rules made thereunder. 3. The petitioners and unofficial respondents herein belong to two branches, i.e., Smt. Nune Mangayamma and Chundru Rudraiah and both the parties are absolute owners and possessors of land to an extent of land and the said land has been purchased by Chundru Rudraiah in a Court auction dated 22.02.1960 and the petitioners belong to Smt. Nune Mangayamma family. It is asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the land of Acs.800.00 cents is a zeroity lanka land situated in the erstwhile Zamindari Village, Ramachandrapuram, H/o. Purushothapatnam. The said land was gradually dwindled down to 289 acres due to submersion of land into river Godavari. It is asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the land of Acs.800.00 cents is a zeroity lanka land situated in the erstwhile Zamindari Village, Ramachandrapuram, H/o. Purushothapatnam. The said land was gradually dwindled down to 289 acres due to submersion of land into river Godavari. One China Venkanna was the ryotwari pattadar under the Pithapuram Zamindar, an extent of Acs.110.00 cents was brought to sell and the same was purchased by Kumara Rajah of Pithapuram in the auction and the remaining extent of Acs.175.00 cents was in possession and enjoyment of the wife and children of Chinna Venkanna, who is ryotwari pattadar and as their family fell in the arrears of the rent to the land holders, the land was auctioned and the same was purchased by Teernati Subbanna, he in turn, sold the land to Komireddi Sreemalu, vide registered sale deed dated 23.12.1940, and he in turn, sold the same to his brother Komireddi Venkata Ratnam, vide registered sale deed dated 22.02.1945 and he mortgaged the land to Vaderevu Jogayyamma Educational Trust and the same was purchased by Chundru Rudraiah. Admittedly, Chundru Rudraiah and Nune Mangayamma are the share holders and Nune Mangayamma has executed a Will dated 02.04.1969 bequeathing her undivided share in the land to her husband-Nune Veerraju. 4. After the Madras Estate Abolition Act, 1948, came into force, the estate village stood vested in the Government, but the ryotwari lands in the estate did not stand transferred to the Government in view of Section 3 of the Act. As such, the petitioners, who are in possession of the land from 01.07.1939, are entitled to ryotwari patta. Though the petitioners are entitled for ryotwari patta, the Tahsildar, Korukonda, opposed granting of ryotwari patta to the petitioners and unofficial respondents herein and they preferred an appeal before the Director of Settlements and the appeal was dismissed. As such, the petitioners, who are in possession of the land from 01.07.1939, are entitled to ryotwari patta. Though the petitioners are entitled for ryotwari patta, the Tahsildar, Korukonda, opposed granting of ryotwari patta to the petitioners and unofficial respondents herein and they preferred an appeal before the Director of Settlements and the appeal was dismissed. Later, the Government got the possession of the land and thereafter, the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents herein filed O.S.No.19 of 1988 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Rajahmundry, against the Government seeking declaration of the title to the plaint schedule land and for possession and with past and future profits and the said suit was decreed by judgment dated 09.07.1991 for an extent of Acs.55.00 cents of land available on ground in S.No.210, 211, 212/2, 213 and 222, as shown in Ex.B41. The Government preferred appeal, vide A.S.No.1000 of 2011 before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and the same was dismissed on 29.09.1997, confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. 5. It is the case of the petitioners herein that as per the judgment and decree dated 09.07.1991 of the trial Court in O.S.No.19 of 1988, the petitioners herein are entitled for half share and the respondents 5 to 12 are entitled to the remaining half share. The respondents have handed over an extent of Acs.48.00 cents out of Acs.55.00 cents as per the Civil Court decree. As per the understanding between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents herein, the unofficial respondents’ branch was given Acs.37.30 cents in Sy.Nos.211, 213, 222 and the petitioners were allotted Acs.12.05 cents with an understanding that when the remaining land under the decree and also the remaining land that was submerged earlier, if again formed as lanka land in future, the said land has to be shared between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents of an extent of Acs.36.00 cents to be shared between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents and an extent of Acs.36.00 cents to the petitioners and Acs.12.00 cents. Accordingly, pattadar pass books and title deeds were handed over to the petitioners herein and mutated the names of the respective parties in the revenue records, i.e., Adangal, 1B, etc. 6. Accordingly, pattadar pass books and title deeds were handed over to the petitioners herein and mutated the names of the respective parties in the revenue records, i.e., Adangal, 1B, etc. 6. After forming of the lanka land, the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents herein made an application to the respondents to hand over the said land and the 2nd respondent herein-District Collector has directed the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to look into their claim and also appointed a Surveyor to inspect the lands and prepare a sketch of the available land, etc. While the things stood thus, the unofficial respondents herein belonging to the branch of Chundru Rudraiah family got influenced the respondents 2 to 4 herein and got their names mutated in the revenue records, i.e., Adangal, 1B, etc., online for the remaining extent of land for which the petitioners are entitled, i.e., after formation of lanka land. On coming to know the legal activity of the unofficial respondents herein in mutating the names of the unofficial respondents herein in Adangal, 1B, etc., they issued a legal notice dated 01.06.2020 to the respondents 2 to 4 herein and the same was received by the respondents, but did not enquire nor issued any notice to them before entering the name of the unofficial respondents herein on 12.06.2020. The petitioners herein applied to the 3rd respondent under the Right to Information Act on 16.06.2020 to furnish the entries made by the respondents with regard to the property in Sy.Nos.210, 211, 212/1, 212/2, 213, etc., and the 3rd respondent herein furnished a Xerox copy and on enquiry, the 4th respondent- Tahsildar informed that the Tahsildar has mutated the names basing on the order of the 2nd respondent-District Collector. Though the order does not give any direction to the 4th respondent to mutate the names in the revenue records in favour of the unofficial respondents and without considering the legal notice issued by the petitioners herein, the 4th respondent acted unilaterally and mutated the entries in the revenue records in favour of the unofficial respondents. Though the order does not give any direction to the 4th respondent to mutate the names in the revenue records in favour of the unofficial respondents and without considering the legal notice issued by the petitioners herein, the 4th respondent acted unilaterally and mutated the entries in the revenue records in favour of the unofficial respondents. The same have been assailed in the present Writ Petition on the ground that mutating the revenue records is contrary to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.19 of 1988 on the file of the District Judge, Rajahmundry, and no notice was issued before initiating the mutation and the respondents being public authorities ought to have been followed the procedure as per law before making changes in the revenue entries and as the petitioners are equally entitled to half share of the entire property as per the Civil Court decree. 7. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar filed counter denied all the averments made in the Writ Petition and contends that the names of the unofficial respondents 5 to 12 herein were mutated in the revenue records basing upon the notary affidavits filed before the Tahsildar-4th respondent herein. 8. The unofficial respondents filed counter and denied all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and it is asserted that due to the prolonged litigation between the petitioners along with the unofficial respondents with the Government, the branch of Nune Veerraju, the petitioners herein, expressed unwillingness and requested the other branch, i.e., Chunduru family, to conduct litigation and came to an understanding with Chunduru Bhaskara Rao to take care of the entire litigation and the branch belongs to the petitioners, i.e., Nune Veerraju, to receive 1/4th of the land that may be received from the Government. Accordingly, the unofficial respondents contested the matter against the Government and eventually the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.19 of 1988 has been confirmed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.S.No.1000 of 1992 and thereafter, E.P.No.19 of 1998 was filed for recovery of the land and ultimately, on account of persuasion and efforts of Chunduru Bhaskar Rao and Chnuduru Veera Swamy, the Government of Andhra Pradesh delivered possession of an extent of Acs.41.04 cents of land to both the families out of the total extent to which the title was declared. Both the families have addressed a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Seethanagaram, requesting to mutate the land in the name of the individuals by taking into consideration the prior understanding. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Seethanagaram Mandal, mutated the names of the respective individuals and issued pattadar pass books and title deeds and after continuous persuasion, the revenue authorities, after identifying the remaining land, have agreed to deliver the possession of the same to the unofficial respondents herein. It is asserted in the counter that the petitioners gave affidavits respectively to the revenue authorities to deliver possession and the land in the same ratio and accordingly, the 4th respondent mutated their names as pattadars and possessors in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.33.00 cents and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. It is the main contention of the unofficial respondents that the authorities have mutated their names in favour of the unofficial respondents herein basing upon the affidavits furnished to the official respondents, basing upon the previous agreement and they would contend that having given the affidavits in the same ratio, as was done previously, the writ petitioners were stopped from claiming more lands and accordingly, the 4th respondent has acted and mutated the names of the unofficial respondents in respect of the lands which came to the share of the unofficial respondents herein and the same was not done unilaterally by the 4th respondent. The unofficial respondents would contend that the remedy is by way of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act and further contends that the petitioners have not made out any case to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also contends that for the very same relief in the Writ Petition, they filed suit for partition, vide O.S.No.6 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 9. The unofficial respondents relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.D.Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, Manu/SC/3371/2008 = 2009(4) ALT 4 (SC) for the proposition that a party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. 10. The unofficial respondents relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.D.Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, Manu/SC/3371/2008 = 2009(4) ALT 4 (SC) for the proposition that a party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. 10. The petitioners herein filed reply affidavit and it is stated that they have signed on the affidavits without verifying the contents and on coming to know about the mischief committed by the unofficial respondents, they got issued a legal notice dated 01.06.2020 through their counsel to the official respondents claiming half share in the property and to update the record of rights and the 4th respondent without following due procedure as contemplated under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, has mutated the names of the unofficial respondents. As per the reply affidavit, it is admitted fact that the petitioners herein have issued affidavits to forego the share for contesting the suit and the appeal against the Government. 11. On annunciating the above averments of the case, the point that arise for consideration in this Writ Petition is, whether the petitioners can maintain writ against the mutation of the names of the unofficial respondents in the revenue records, i.e., Adangals, 1B, etc., without availing the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority and without adhering to the suit filed for partition for the very same relief and whether the petitioners have approached this Court with clean hands? 12. As per Section 5(5) of the Act, against every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment (an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such authority as may be prescribed), within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final. Under Section 5(6) of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall have the power to correct clerical errors, if any, in the Pass Books. As per the said provision, any amendment in the record of rights, an appeal shall lie under Section 5(5) of the Act. 13. Under Section 5(6) of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall have the power to correct clerical errors, if any, in the Pass Books. As per the said provision, any amendment in the record of rights, an appeal shall lie under Section 5(5) of the Act. 13. On analysis of the facts and contentions, it is evident that complex questions have been raised in the writ proceedings and it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners herein filed suit O.S.No.6 of 2021 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, for partition of plaint-A schedule property into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to all the plaintiffs and the remaining half share to all the defendants, who are the unofficial respondents herein. Under Section 8(2) of the Act, if any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. Therefore, it is suffice to state that any amendment to the record of rights is subject to the decision of the Civil Court, where the suit is pending. It is settled law that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an equity jurisdiction and one must approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective and equally, the judicial process should never become an instrument of oppression or abuse, or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice and who seeks equity must do equity. 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, 1995 AIR 1991, it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that for approaching a Court of equity, the blameworthy conduct of a person approaching a Court of equity, for obtaining discretionary relief disentitles him for grant of such relief. 15. 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, 1995 AIR 1991, it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that for approaching a Court of equity, the blameworthy conduct of a person approaching a Court of equity, for obtaining discretionary relief disentitles him for grant of such relief. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with an observation that the amendment to the record of rights, if any made, shall be subject to the decision in O.S.No.6 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.