Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 280 (AP)

R. J. Paul v. Joint Collector

2024-02-23

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. - Heard Sri. Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. M.R.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, Smt. S. Pranathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 11 and Sri Gangisetti Uma Sankar, learned counsel for the applicants in I.A.No.2 of 2023. 2. Mr. L.W. Griffin, who died in 1959, was said to be the owner of Ac.25.00 cents of land in Sy.No.179/2 of Chinnamusidivada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam. He is said to have executed a Will bequeathing his property in favour of his brothers J.J. Griffin and Robert James Griffin. The probate of the Will was taken up in O.P.No.13 of 1960 on the file of District Court, Visakhapatnam. One Mrs. Ruth Paul set up a claim over the property. The District Judge, after considering her claim, had observed that she had made out a case for making a claim over the property and the question of title in regard to this land cannot be decided in any application for the grant of letters of administration. On that basis, letters of administration were granted to the brother of late Sri Griffin, except the Ac.25.00 cents of land mentioned above. 3. Thereafter, Smt. Ruth Paul is said to have gifted this land to her niece Smt. R.J. Paul. In parallel proceedings, the brother of late Sri Griffin sold away about Ac.8.65 cents of the said land to one Sri S. Pydaiah, by way of a registered deed of sale, in 1968. Subsequently, the remaining Ac.17.30 cents were also sold to Sri S. Pydaiah, who in turn, sold away Ac.8.65 cents of land, purchased by him in 1968, to Sri M. China Apparao, in 1978. Subsequently, Sri M. Chinna Apparao and Sri Sadaram Apparao, the son of S. Pydaiah, who had passed away in the meanwhile, had entered into a development agreement with M/s.Ravi Tej Constructions (respondents 5 and 6) for developing the said land. 4. It may also be mentioned that Smt. R.J. Paul had been given pattadar pass book and title deeds, on 13/9/1996, and her name was included as owner of the land in the revenue records. 4. It may also be mentioned that Smt. R.J. Paul had been given pattadar pass book and title deeds, on 13/9/1996, and her name was included as owner of the land in the revenue records. Aggrieved by these proceedings, Sri M. China Apparao, who is arrayed as 3rd respondent in the writ petition, filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, on 18/10/1999. This appeal is said to have been filed under Sec. 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the R.O.R Act'). The said provision does not provide for any appeal. This power has to be traced to Sec. 5 (5) of the R.O.R Act and this appeal would have to be treated as filed under Sec. 5 (5) of the ROR Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order dtd. 10/12/1999, set-aside the pattadar pass book and title deed. However, no orders were passed in relation to the changes in the revenue records as no such request had been made. Smt. R.J. Paul being aggrieved by this order moved a revision before the Joint Collector which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, she moved this Court, by way of the present writ petition. Smt. R.J. Paul passed away during the pendency of this writ petition and petitioner No.2 impleaded himself as the legal representative of the late Smt. R. J. Paul. His claim was based on a Will said to have been executed in his favour by Smt. R. J. Paul. 5. Smt. R.J. Paul also appears to have executed various deeds of alienation in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 11 and they have impleaded themselves as successors in interest of Smt. R.J. Paul. 6. Sri Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd petitioner and Smt. S. Pranathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 11 contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer could not have taken up the appeal as the said appeal is not maintainable. They contend that the appeal was filed only to the extent of the issuance of the pattadar pass book and title deed and no appeal was filed for change of the revenue records. They contend that the appeal was filed only to the extent of the issuance of the pattadar pass book and title deed and no appeal was filed for change of the revenue records. They would contend that this Court in Ratnamma vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and Others1 had held that an appeal under Sec. 5(5) of the R.O.R Act, cannot be filed if it is only for setting aside the pattadar pass book and title deed and such an appeal would be maintainable only where the change in the revenue record is sought to be rectified. 7. The learned counsel would also submit that the said appeal was disposed of without an opportunity of hearing being given to Smt. R.J. Paul or the persons who had purchased the land from her. They would submit that the appellate order suffers from the twin vice of lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural LAWS(APH)-2015-7-21 justice. They would further submit that the revisional order, had been passed without application of mind and without considering either of these contentions raised before the revisional authority and as such both the appellate and the revisional orders would have to be set aside. 8. Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior counsel for respondents 5 and 6, contends that the 2nd petitioner as well as respondent No.7 onwards, while attacking the appellate order and the revisional order have chosen to remain silent over the significant developments which had taken place, in the Civil Courts. 9. Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar would submit that the deceased 1st petitioner, Smt. R.J. Paul, had filed O.S.No.125 of 1975 for a declaration of title and injunction, before the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the same came to be dismissed on 11/3/1977 holding that Smt. R.J. Paul had no title to the property. Thereafter, A.S.No.66 of 1980 filed by her against the order of dismissal was also dismissed on 12/9/1986 holding that she was not the owner of the property and her claim to adverse possession is also not acceptable. Subsequently, L.P.A.No.39 of 1987 filed by Smt. R.J. Paul against the order in A.S.No.66 of 1980 was also dismissed on 29/11/2011. 10. Sri M.V. S. Suresh Kumar would also draw the attention of this Court to O.S.No.83 of 1986 on the file of I Additional Senior Judge, Visakhapatnam for perpetual injunction filed by the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, L.P.A.No.39 of 1987 filed by Smt. R.J. Paul against the order in A.S.No.66 of 1980 was also dismissed on 29/11/2011. 10. Sri M.V. S. Suresh Kumar would also draw the attention of this Court to O.S.No.83 of 1986 on the file of I Additional Senior Judge, Visakhapatnam for perpetual injunction filed by the 3rd respondent. He would submit that the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, by a Judgment dtd. 25/9/1996, had decreed the suit and granted perpetual injunction in favour of the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, A.S.No.320 of 1996 filed by the 1st petitioner herein, before the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam was allowed on 30/12/2004 on the ground that the 3rd respondent had not demonstrated his possession over the property. Later, the Second Appeal No.490 of 2005 filed against the order in the appeal, was dismissed for default on 31/5/2010 by a Division Bench of this Court. 11. Sri M.V. S. Suresh Kumar, on the basis of the above documents would contend that the claim of the petitioners has been rejected and the entries in the revenue record, would make no difference in view of the findings of the civil Court. He would further submit that even if it is to be held that the appellate order and revisional order suffers from twin vice of lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice, this Court can always refused to interfere on the principle that an illegal order need not be set aside if setting aside such an illegal order would revive an earlier illegality. 12. In the present case, the Civil Court has found in favour of respondents 1 to 6. This court, in Ratnamma vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and Others, 2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB):: 2015 (5) ALT 228 had held that an appeal, under Sec. 5 (5) of the R.O.R Act, for setting aside issue of pattadar passbooks and Title deeds, without a challenge to the change in the revenue records is not maintainable. In the present case, the appeal dealt with only the issue of pattadar passbooks and Title deeds and did not deal with the changes made in the revenue records. The orders of the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority are without jurisdiction. In the present case, the appeal dealt with only the issue of pattadar passbooks and Title deeds and did not deal with the changes made in the revenue records. The orders of the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority are without jurisdiction. The appeal proceedings do not show that any opportunity of hearing has been given to the 1st petitioner, before her pattadar passbook and title deeds were cancelled. The appellate order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It may also be noted that the name of the 1st petitioner continues to be included in the revenue records. 13. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 1) The order of the Appellate Authority in Rc.No.1499/2000- D2 dtd. 5/7/2000 and the Revisional Authority in Rc.No.2405/99-E dtd. 10/12/1999 are set-side; 2) The setting aside of the orders of the appellate authority and the revisional authority will not preclude the respondents 1 to 6 from moving fresh appeals before the revenue divisional officer; 3) Upon any such appeal being filed, it would be open to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the appeal, in accordance with law and after due notice and hearing; 4) The appeal, if any filed, shall be treated to be in time as the time taken for disposal of the appeal, the revisional order and the present writ petition would have to be excluded. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.