Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1360 (AP)

Inakoti Prasada Rao v. Pydi Srinu Srinivasarao

2024-09-25

HARINATH N., R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT : (R. Raghunandan Rao, J.) : As all the Writ Appeals arise out of similar orders of a learned Single Judge, dated 23.09.2022, 26.09.2022 and 27.09.2022 and raise the same questions of law and fact, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. The parties to these Writ Appeals are being referred to as they arrayed in W.A.No.943 of 2022. 2. The private respondents, in these Writ appeals, had approached this court by way W.P. No. 29987 of 2022, W.P. No. 29974 of 2022, W.P. No. 29994 of 2022, contending that the 6th respondent- Tahsildar, without notice or opportunity being given to the private respondents, had marked, in orange and red, the adangal record, maintained online, in relation to their lands in Sy.No.165-2 and Sy.No.165-4 of Kopperla Village, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District, and included them in the dispute register and the said action was illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar pass Books Rules, 1989. 3. A learned Single Judge of this Court, at the stage of admission had disposed of these writ petitions, following an earlier order of this Court, dated 24.06.2021, in W.P.No.11738 of 2021. 4. The Judgment in W.P.No.11738 of 2021 dealt with the question of marking of online revenue records with red colour and inclusion of such lands in the dispute register. The learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.11738 of 2021 after noticing Rule 9(1)(iv), Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) and Rule 9(1)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 had held that any such changes can be done only after appropriate notice has been given to all the persons who would be interested in the said entry and failure to issue such notices would render the entries in the disputed register as an illegality. 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, in these writ petitions, the appellant herein filed the present appeals with leave. 6. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant also has a right and claim over the said land and had been litigating this issue with the private respondents herein and other persons due to which the recording authority had put an orange mark and red mark against the entries relating to these lands. 6. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant also has a right and claim over the said land and had been litigating this issue with the private respondents herein and other persons due to which the recording authority had put an orange mark and red mark against the entries relating to these lands. The appellant contends that his grandfather along Sri Narasimhulu had acquired land to an extent of Ac.3.20 cents in Sy.No.165/1 of Kopperla Village under a deed of sale, dated 16.03.1938, and registered as Document No.591/1938. The appellant also states that the proceedings of Sri Visakha Grameena Bank, Kovvada in the year 1985 and the filing of O.S.No.219 of 1985 against the father of the appellant, for recovery of a loan amount and subsequent sale of Ac.3.02 cents of land, by way of E.P.No.107/1986, demonstrates the ownership of the members of the family of the appellant over this land. It was on this basis that, the Appellant had approached the Tahsildar, who put a orange/red mark against the online entries and entered the details of the land in the dispute register after notice had been given to the private respondents. The appellant contends that none of the facts could be placed before the learned Single Judge due to the disposal of the writ petition at the stage of admission and that there is every need to look into the facts of the case to determine whether the action of the official respondents in placing an orange mark and red mark on the online entries and entering the details in the dispute register is appropriate and legal or not. 7. Both the Tahsildar of the area as well as the private respondents herein have filed their counter affidavits. Reference to the Counter affidavits in Writ Appeal no. 943 of 2022, would suffice for disposing these writ appeals. 8. The affidavit of the Tahsildar states that Kopperla Village was an estate village of the erstwhile Vizianagaram estate which had been taken over under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act. The revenue records prepared on the basis of survey and settlement operations conducted a long time back, and the settlement and fair adangal shows that the land in Sy.No.165-2 admeasuring Ac.0.37 cents is recorded as ryotwari land in the name of Pydi Srinu and Smt. Addagarla Lakshmi. The revenue records prepared on the basis of survey and settlement operations conducted a long time back, and the settlement and fair adangal shows that the land in Sy.No.165-2 admeasuring Ac.0.37 cents is recorded as ryotwari land in the name of Pydi Srinu and Smt. Addagarla Lakshmi. Similarly a land in Sy.No.165-4 measuring Ac.0.37 cents was also recorded as Ryotwari Dry land in the name of Smt. A. Lakshmi. The 6th respondent-Tahsildar, contended that the writ petitioners ought to have filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram against the orders of the Tahsildar, or invoked the remedy of revision under Section 9 of the R.O.R Act. The Tahsildar, contends that the respondents 1 and 2 should not have approached this Court for relief and that who should have established their title by way of a decision of the competent Civil Court. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of himself and the 2nd respondent. The case of the respondents 1 and 2 is that the land in question belonged to their maternal grandfather late Akkisetti Sanyasappadu. After his demise, their mother Sanyasamma inherited the property and respondents 1 and 2 inherited the same after her demise. 9. The respondents 1 and 2 disputed the claim of the appellant that the grandfather of the appellant and Narasimhulu had acquired land to an extent of Ac.3.20 cents in Sy.No.165/1 of Kopperla Village under a registered deed of sale dated 16.03.1938 and that the said deed of sale which was registered as Document No.591/1938 relates to land in Sy.No.72 and not Sy.No.165-1. The respondents 1 and 2 also dispute the contention of the appellant that the proceedings of Sri Visakha Grameena Bank, Kovada in the year 1985 and the filing of O.S.No.219 of 1985 against the father of the appellant, for recovery of a loan amount and subsequent sale of Ac.3.02 cents of land, by way of E.P.No.107/1986 are incorrect infact O.S.No.219 of 1985 E.P.No.107 of 1986 was filed against their mother and not the father of the appellant herein. The further contention of the appellant that notice had been given to the respondents 1 and 2 before the lands were get in the dispute register is also denied. It is contended that the notice was issued only to the 1st respondent and no notice was sent to the 2nd respondent. The further contention of the appellant that notice had been given to the respondents 1 and 2 before the lands were get in the dispute register is also denied. It is contended that the notice was issued only to the 1st respondent and no notice was sent to the 2nd respondent. Apart from that, the claim and right of the appellant or his father is denied on the ground that no document has been produced to demonstrate this. 10. It is contended that in such circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge has to be upheld. 11. It is also submitted that pursuant to the orders of the learned Single Judge, the revenue authorities had removed the orange and red marking on the online revenue records and that the said lands have also been removed from the dispute register. Consideration of the Court: 12. The facts as stated in the writ petition as well as in the appeal would go to show that there are disputed claims over the lands mentioned above. However, the question before this Court is whether the revenue authorities could have affixed orange and red colour to the online revenue entries and enter these lands in the dispute register. 13. A perusal of the R.O.R Act and Rules reveals that there is no provision for setting up a dispute register in the said Act or the Rules. 14. Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents has produced a circular, issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration A.P., Mangalagiri bearing Ref.No.LR-II/ROR-II/144/2021 dated 19.03.2024. This circular relies upon a circular of even number dated 09.04.2022. It appears that this circular, which has been issued under Rule 33 of the R.O.R Rules, provides for placement of disputed lands, in a dispute register. The guidelines for placing such land in a dispute register were set out in the circular dated 09.04.2022 and certain amendments were carried out to these guidelines by subsequent guidelines of 19.03.2024 and 29.04.2024. 15. The aforesaid guidelines stipulate that lands may be placed in a dispute register only if the circumstances set out in the circular are fulfilled. The guidelines for placing such land in a dispute register were set out in the circular dated 09.04.2022 and certain amendments were carried out to these guidelines by subsequent guidelines of 19.03.2024 and 29.04.2024. 15. The aforesaid guidelines stipulate that lands may be placed in a dispute register only if the circumstances set out in the circular are fulfilled. The said guidelines stipulate that lands can be placed in such dispute registers when there are directions by the appropriate courts before whom litigation is pending; where family members of a deceased pattadar are unable to come a settlement and a Tahsildar is unable to carryout necessary mutation in the absence of a joint statement from the family members; where an appellate authority or the Revisional Authority under the ROR Act, direct placement of the lands in a dispute register on account of a pending ROR Appeal/Review; where the R.D.O/ Commissioner-Appeals direct placement of the land in a dispute register on account of pending Inam appeal/review; where CSSLR/Commissioner- Appeals direct placement of the land in a dispute register on account of pending Estate Abolition appeal/review; where Joint Collector/Commissioner-Appeals/Government ask for placement on account of pending Appeals/Reviews/Revision under the A.P. Assigned Land (POT) Act 9/77 or where there is a direction from the CSSLR/Commissioner-Appeals to place lands in dispute register on account of pending Appeals/Reviews under Regulation-II of 1970. 16. The subsequent amendments to these guidelines by the circulars dated 19.03.2024 and 29.04.2024 do not make out any material change in the guidelines. 17. The common factor in all these guidelines, except where the recording authority, on account of disputes between the legal heirs of an existing pattadar, is unable to record the successor, is that, there has to be an express direction by the High Court/Civil Court/Appellate Authorities/Provisional Authorities to place such lands in the dispute register on account of pending litigation before them. In the present case, no such direction has been placed before this Court. In the absence of any such direction, an entry being made in the dispute register is clearly not permissible. 18. Accordingly, there are no merits in the Writ Appeals and they are dismissed. However, it is open to the appellant to seek inclusion of the lands in the dispute register by obtaining such orders from any authority before whom litigation is pending. 18. Accordingly, there are no merits in the Writ Appeals and they are dismissed. However, it is open to the appellant to seek inclusion of the lands in the dispute register by obtaining such orders from any authority before whom litigation is pending. However, the authorities so approached would consider such application only after notice is given to the respondents 1 and 2 and after hearing them. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.