Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 321 (AP)

Balaga Ramanamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-02-20

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2025
Order : (RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.) Impugning the orders of the Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Srikakulam, Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda vide proceedings in Rc.No.1979/2021/D8, dated 23.03.2022 & Rc.No.167/2020/A, dated 18.09.2021 respectively and endorsement of the Tahsildar, Palakonda vide Letter No.167/2021/B, dated 18.10.2021, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri A.V.Pardha Saradhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for official respondents and Sri Vijay Kumar Naidana, leaned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.8 and 9. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the petitioner is the absolute owner of Ac.2.00 cents of land bearing survey No.84/2 situated at Nandivada village, N.K.Rajapuram, Palakonda Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District and the same was devolved upon her under Gift Settlement deed executed by her husband. Subsequently, the revenue authorities have mutated the name of the petitioner in revenue records and issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in her favour. He further submitted that the unofficial respondents made application dated 04.07.2020 through mee-seva for mutation of their names for an extent of Ac.1.72 cents in the said survey number. As the Tahsildar has rejected the said application, they made a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda to enquire into the matter and respondent No.6- Revenue Divisional Officer has taken the same on file as an ROR appeal. The Revenue Divisional Officer, without any notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, passed order dated 18.09.2021 directing the Tahsildar to mutate the names of the unofficial respondents for an extent of Ac.1.71 cents of land bearing survey No.84/2 of Nandivada. He further submitted that aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the Joint Collector, Srikakulam District. Since the said Revision though was heard and posted for orders, no order was passed till the end of August, 2022. In the meanwhile there was bifurcation of districts and when the petitioner approached respondent No.4, he was informed that her Revision Petition would be transmitted to the office of Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam District and on enquiry in the office of Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam District, he was informed that the file was not received by their office. In the meanwhile there was bifurcation of districts and when the petitioner approached respondent No.4, he was informed that her Revision Petition would be transmitted to the office of Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam District and on enquiry in the office of Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam District, he was informed that the file was not received by their office. He further submitted that the petitioner filed W.P.No.28170 of 2022 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 05.09.2022 directed the Joint Collector, Srikakulam District to consider the revision petition filed by the petitioner. He further submitted that in the meanwhile, the Joint Collector, Srikakulam transmitted the copy of the order dated 23.03.2022 passed in Revision and as seen from the said order, it is found that the copy of the order was posted on 29.08.2022 i.e., five months after passing of the order. He further submitted that the Joint Collector, Srikakulam District without looking into the facts of the case, treating the issue as ‘Property dispute within the family’, directed/advised the petitioner and the unofficial respondents to file a suit before the competent Civil Court to decide the title over the property and accordingly dismissed the Revision vide order dated 23.03.2022. He further submitted that in the meanwhile basing on the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the application made by the unofficial respondents has been entertained by the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, has allowed the unofficial respondents’ application under proceedings dated 18.10.2021. He further submitted that though the Joint Collector has come to a conclusion that there is a title dispute and when particularly given an advice to the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents to approach the competent Civil Court, he did not set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Joint Collector ought to have set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Tahsildlar, taking into consideration the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, has entertained the unofficial respondents’ application and got mutated their names in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed and this Court vide order dated 03.01.2023 granted status quo with regard to the subject property. Hence, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed and this Court vide order dated 03.01.2023 granted status quo with regard to the subject property. Hence, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit of the Joint Collector-respondent No.5 herein contended that in spite of service of notice, the petitioner did not produce any crucial link documents in support of her case and by taking into consideration the documents available on record, the parties are relegated to Civil Court. As such, the Tahsildar has rightly entertained the mutation application filed by the unofficial respondents and implemented the order of Revenue Divisional Officer. There is neither procedural irregularity nor illegality in passing the said order. He further submitted that the writ petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the Revisional Authority & Joint Collector, Srikakulam against the orders issued by the Appellate Authority & Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was dismissed on 23.03.2022 subsequently, the Revision petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.28170 of 2022 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 05.09.2022 directed the Joint Collector, Srikakulam to consider the revision petition filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. He further submitted that consequent to the formation of Parvathipuram Manyam District, the Palakonda Mandal falls within the jurisdiction of Parvathipuram Manyam District, as such, the file was transferred to the Collector’s Office, Parvathipuram Manyam District. He further submitted that in obedience to the orders issued by this Court in W.P.No.28170 of 2022, respondent No.5-Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam District has passed order dated 10.10.2024 setting aside the orders issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 18.09.2021 and advised the petitioner as well as unofficial respondents to settle the title of the subject land in civil Court which was the appropriate forum for resolving title dispute and the copy of the said order has been served on the petitioner and respondents on 14.10.2024. He further submitted that the Writ Petition is lack of merits and is liable to be dismissed and prayed to dismiss the Writ petition. 5. Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Tahsildar has issued notices to the petitioner, but the petitioner has not responded to the said notices. 5. Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Tahsildar has issued notices to the petitioner, but the petitioner has not responded to the said notices. He further submitted that the Revisional Authority-cum-Joint Collector, Parvathipuram has entertained the petitioner’s Revision and accordingly vide order dated 10.10.2024 has set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional officer, Palakonda dated 18.09.2021 and advised the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos.8 and 9 to settle the title over the subject land in Civil Court, which would be appropriate forum for resolving the title disputes. He further submitted that in view of the title dispute between the parties, filing Writ Petition is not proper under law and the issue cannot be decided in the present Writ Petition and this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the dispute with regard to the subject property. The Writ Petition is misconceived and devoid of merits and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the reply affidavit submitted that the order passed by the Joint Collector, Srikakulam dated 23.03.2022 is impugned in this writ petition along with the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda. He further submitted that now, after this Writ Petition is filed and on direction to file counter, another order is passed by the Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Mandal on 10.10.2024. The subsequent order passed by the Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam is to be ignored, as there cannot be two orders in one revision, unless the earlier order passed by same authority is set aside by competent authority or Court of law. Hence, the jurisdiction sought to be made by the Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam Mandal in his counter affidavit is untenable. He further submitted that the petitioner was not at all given full opportunity of placing the petitioner’s case in detail with relevant documents.Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. The record would show that unofficial respondents made an application before the Tahsildar to mutate their names in the revenue records with regard to subject property. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. The record would show that unofficial respondents made an application before the Tahsildar to mutate their names in the revenue records with regard to subject property. As the said authority has rejected the said application, the unofficial respondents made a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda, who has taken the same on file as an ROR appeal and passed order vide proceedings in Rc.No.167/2020-A dated 18.09.2021 directing the Tahsildar, Palakonda to consider the mutation application made by the unofficial respondents and take necessary action for issuance of pattadar pass books. While giving such direction, the Revenue Divisional Officer also cancelled the correction carried out in the name of the petitioner herein under Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Rules, 1989. 9. Perusal of the said proceedings would show that notices have been issued to both the parties and also to the Tahsildar, Palakonda and hearing was conducted on 20.02.2020, 07.03.2020, 07.11.2020, 08.12.2020, 20.03.2021 and 24.07.2021. The respondent therein, who is the petitioner herein, did not attend on any of the above dates and one advocate represent on 20.03.2021 on behalf of the respondent i.e., the petitioner herein. The said Appeal was allowed. Assailing the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the Joint Collector and the Revisional authority i.e., Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Srikakulam, wherein the Revision was dismissed directing the parties i.e., petitioner herein and respondent Nos.8 and 9 to approach the competent Civil Court. In the Revision, the petitioner herein has categorically taken a ground that no notice was served on him from the Revenue Divisional Officer. In spite of specific ground taken by the petitioner, the authority has not answered in that regard. When the Joint Collector has directed the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.8 and 9 to go to Civil Court, he ought to have set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 18.09.2021. Without setting aside the same, he cannot direct the parties to go to the Civil Court. Perusal of the counter of respondent No.5 would show that the Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam has passed separate order on the petitioner’s Revision on 10.10.2024 vide Rc.2171/2021/D8 setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 18.09.2021. Without setting aside the same, he cannot direct the parties to go to the Civil Court. Perusal of the counter of respondent No.5 would show that the Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam has passed separate order on the petitioner’s Revision on 10.10.2024 vide Rc.2171/2021/D8 setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 18.09.2021. It is surprise to see as to how such an order has been passed by the Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam, when the earlier Joint Collector, Srikakulam has passed order on the same Revision. The order passed by the Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam is subsequent to bifurcation. In other words, without looking into the records, the authorities have passed orders. In fact the Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam, who is having jurisdiction over the subject property, is the competent authority to pass orders. Therefore, the order dated 10.10.2024, even though subsequent to the orders dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Joint Collector, Srikakulam, shall prevail. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that the Tahsildar has not issued any notice to the petitioner before entertaining the mutation application filed by the unofficial respondents. The Tahsildar has entertained the said application by duly taking into consideration the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer. There is no material placed on record to show that the Tahsildar has issued proper notices to all the interested persons including the petitioner before entertaining the unofficial respondents’ mutation application. Even otherwise, the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar dated 18.10.2021 would clinchingly show that the Tahsidlar has not followed the procedure envisaged under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and Rules 1989. In the said circumstances, the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar dated 18.10.2021 allowing the mutation application filed by the unofficial respondents is unsustainable and contrary to law and the said endorsement has to be set aside. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, taking the submissions of learned counsel for the parties into consideration and the material available on record, this Court is inclined to pass the following order: The endorsement dated 18.10.2021 issued by the Tahsildar, Palakonda is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tahsildar. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, taking the submissions of learned counsel for the parties into consideration and the material available on record, this Court is inclined to pass the following order: The endorsement dated 18.10.2021 issued by the Tahsildar, Palakonda is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar, Palakonda shall issue notices to the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents and also to the interested parties, if any, as per the ROR Act, 1971 and Rules 1989 and pass appropriate reasoned order afresh by taking into consideration the order of the Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam Mandal dated 10.10.2024 in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the parties concerned within a period of three (3) months thereafter. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.