Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 376 (AP)

Perikala Indravenamma v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2025-02-28

KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

body2025
ORDER : Heard Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenging the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent, confirming the proceedings of the 3 rd respondent, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition as culled out from the writ affidavit are that the 5 th respondent’s husband along with his son during their lifetime had agreed to sell an extent of Ac.6.24 cents of land in Sy. No.274, Etheru Revenue Village, Bapatla, under a registered agreement of sale dated 30.04.1977 vide document bearing No.555/1977, for a total sale consideration of Rs.56,000/-. It is further stated that out of the said agreed sale consideration an amount of Rs.3000/- was paid as advance and possession was delivered to the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that as agreed under the agreement, the petitioner has discharged the loans. During the lifetime of the husband as well as the son of the 5 th respondent, they have not raised any objection to the petitioner of her possession of the subject land. In recognition of the possession, in the revenue records the necessary mutation was effected and pattadar passbooks were issued. 4. The 5 th respondent filed civil suit in O.S. No.118 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, seeking declaration of title and also for permanent injunction. Thereafter, filed a representation before the 3 rd respondent on 04.05.2015 for cancellation of entries in revenue records. The 3 rd respondent has entertained the application which is filed after a period of 22 years and the 3 rd respondent vide order dated 18.01.2019 ordered for cancellation of the pattadar passbooks. Aggrieved by the said order of the RDO, the writ petitioner filed Revision before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector confirmed order of the RDO. Hence the instant Writ Petition. 5. It is contended by the petitioner that the RDO has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal which is filed for cancellation of pattadar passbooks and after 22 years of delay, without there being any application for condonation of delay. He contends that entries made in revenue records shall be presumed to be true until contrary is proved. 5. It is contended by the petitioner that the RDO has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal which is filed for cancellation of pattadar passbooks and after 22 years of delay, without there being any application for condonation of delay. He contends that entries made in revenue records shall be presumed to be true until contrary is proved. He further referring to Sub Section (2) of Section 8 of 1971 Act contends that if any person aggrieved as to any rights, of which he is in possession by an entry made in record of right has to institute a civil suit against the person denying his title. He thus argues that the approach of the unofficial respondent, to the RDO is unsustainable. 6. The unofficial respondents filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions of the agreement of sale and did not discharge any debts. There was never any demand from the petitioner either to the 5 th respondent or to her husband for that matter, her son for execution of the sale deed. The physical possession of the property was never delivered to the petitioner. 7. It is further contended that she filed a suit in O.S. No.118 of 2015 for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In the written statement, the writ petitioner has agreed to the title of the 5 th respondent. However, the writ petitioner got mutated her name in the revenue records, claiming to have received the property through inheritance. Whereas, the case of the petitioner as made out in the Writ Petition is that she had entered into an agreement of sale with the unofficial respondent’s husband and son. It is contented by the 5 th respondent that after coming to know of the irregularities in mutating the name of the unofficial respondent, the suit in O.S.No.118 of 2015 was filed and filed representation on 04.05.2015 seeking correction in the revenue records. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Balalji Medamalli, contends that the 3 rd respondent should not have entertained the appeal filed after 22 years and without there being any delay condonation application. And since the civil suit between the parties is pending , the authorities should have waited till the disposal of the suit. 9. The learned counsel relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Veerappa Vs. And since the civil suit between the parties is pending , the authorities should have waited till the disposal of the suit. 9. The learned counsel relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Veerappa Vs. The R.D.O., Tirupathi & another, [2002 (2) A.P.L.J.420 (HC)], wherein this Court observed that under Section 7 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, the aggrieved party can file appeal within 60 days from the date of the order. And the statute does not confer any power on the RDO to condone the delay beyond the said period of 60 days. In the facts of the said case, the RDO has condoned delay of 2555 days without issuing notice to the writ petitioner therein. Thus the Court found fault with the order of the RDO in entertaining the appeal which was filed with huge delay. 10. The learned counsel for respondents contends that in terms of the provisions of 5(3) of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, contends that the authority shall issue notice to all the persons whose names are entered in the ROR, and who might be interested or affected by such proposed entry to show cause within such period as to why the mutation should not be effected in favor of the applicant and a copy of the such notice also should be published in such manner as prescribed. Thereafter, considering the objections, if any, filed, the authority shall pass appropriate orders. He further referring to the provision of Section 4 of the Act, contends that whoever acquires any right by succession, inheritance, partition patta, or decree of a Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land, and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his occupation to the Mandal Revenue Officer of acquisition of such right. Then following the procedure under the Act, the entries can be altered. The learned counsel contends that unless the person’s case, falls under Section 4 of the Act, passing of order under Section 5 of the Act, would not arise. Then following the procedure under the Act, the entries can be altered. The learned counsel contends that unless the person’s case, falls under Section 4 of the Act, passing of order under Section 5 of the Act, would not arise. And he contends that in the present facts of the case, the entries in the revenue records in the name of unofficial respondent’s were deleted without following the procedure under the Act. He argues that the writ petitioner has without manner of any right has got the entries mutated in her name fraudulently on the basis of an agreement of sale said to have been executed in 1977. He contends that fraud vitiates everything. Thus contends that without having any valid title in the subject property, the petitioner has fraudulently got the name mutated in her name. He further contends that if the agreement of sale was genuine, the writ petitioner could have filed suit for specific performance of the agreement, which she did not resort to. The learned counsel further argues that by virtue of any alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by a registered document, the party has to apply to the MRO under Section 5A of the Act, for a certificate that such a transfer is valid. Such an option has not been exercised by the petitioner 10. The learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention relies on the following decisions: I. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry and others Vs. Government of A.P. and others, [ (2007) 4 SCC 221 ], wherein it is observed as under: “Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing some unfair or undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of another. In fraud one gains at the loss of another. Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam. The principle of „finality of litigation? cannot be stretched to the extent of an absurdity that it can be utilized as an engine of oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants.” II. The decision of this Court in the case of Nathani Durga Rao Vs. The principle of „finality of litigation? cannot be stretched to the extent of an absurdity that it can be utilized as an engine of oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants.” II. The decision of this Court in the case of Nathani Durga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, [W.P. No.22212 of 2020 & Batch, APHC] III. The decision of this Court in the case of Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal & others, [2007 SCC Online AP 459], wherein it is observed as under: “The above analysis of the relevant statutory provisions shows that proviso to Section 5(1) and Section 5(3) represent statutory embodiment of the most important facet of the rules of natural justice i.e. audi alterem partem. These provisions contemplate issue of notice to the persons likely to be affected by the action/decision of the Mandal Revenue Officer to carry out or not to carry out amendment in the Record of Rights. Proviso to Section 5(1) lays down that if the Mandal Revenue Officer decides not to make an amendment in the Record of Rights, then he shall pass appropriate order only after giving an opportunity of making representation to the person, who gives intimation regarding acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4. Section 5(3) provides for issue of written notice to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment. Similarly, a notice is required to be issued to any other person whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. A copy of the amendment and the notice is also required to be published in the prescribed manner. The publication of notice in the prescribed manner is in addition to the notice, which is required to be given in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and also to any other person whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. To put it differently, the publication of a copy of the amendment and the notice is only supplemental and not the alternative mode of giving notice to the persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other person to whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. If the Legislature thought that publication of a general notice in Form-VIII will be sufficient compliance of the rules of natural justice, then there was no occasion to incorporate a specific requirement of issuing written notice to the persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and also to other person whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. In our considered view, the requirement of issuing written notice to the persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and also to any other person whom the recording authority thinks to be interested in or affected by the amendment clearly negates the argument that publication of notice in Form-VIII is sufficient” IV. The decision of this Court in the case of Singamaneni Pullamma and others Vs. Joint Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District and others, [ 2004 (7) ALT 963 (S.B.)], wherein it is observed as under: “It is true that the entry made in the revenue records can be challenged in a civil suit, but that does not mean that the revenue authorities will not exercise any discretion which they are required to do under the Act. Pattadar pass books are governed by the Act and in case of grievance about the entries in pattadar pass books or about issuance or non-issuance of pattadar pass books the revenue authorities are supposed to do their job under the Act. Whether a revision had to be allowed or dismissed was a matter which had to be decided by the revisional authority. In case anybody or any party before it was aggrieved of that order, they could workout their remedies. Whether a revision had to be allowed or dismissed was a matter which had to be decided by the revisional authority. In case anybody or any party before it was aggrieved of that order, they could workout their remedies. Therefore what we feel is that the 1st respondent has failed to exercise his jurisdiction although the High Court had clearly asked him to exercise it and even without a direction from the High Court, he was supposed to pass an order in terms of Section 9 of the Act.” V. The decision of this Court in the case of Gopathi Manikyam and others Vs. Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy and others, 2011 SCC Online AP 236. “I am of the opinion that the said application itself is mischievous and not maintainable, as the revenue authorities cannot either restore the possession of the land or declare the right and title of the parties. As admittedly the name of father of Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 was entered as pattadar in the pahanies from 1970-71 onwards and they are in continuous possession of the said land, as admitted by the unofficial respondents, and when Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 are denying the right and title of the unofficial respondents, the only course open for the unofficial respondents is to file civil suit under Sec.8(2) of the Act”. 11. Considered the rival submissions, perused the record and gone through the judgments relied upon by both the learned counsels. 12. The application filed by the petitioner before the RDO is for cancellation of entries made in the revenue records, consequently to cancel the pattadar pass books. The RDO while holding that validity or otherwise of the title of the respective parties cannot be gone into by the revenue authorities, gave a finding that there was procedural irregularity committed by the MRO while issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds, directed the MRO to pass appropriate orders. The procedural irregularity that was committed by the MRO in the case is not following the procedure under Section 5(3) of the Act and, entertaining the application on the basis of an agreement of sale. 13. On being informed to the MRO about acquisition of right referred to in Section 4 of the Act, the MRO would, after issuing notice to the parties referred to in Sub Section 3 of the Act, pass orders in connection thereto. 13. On being informed to the MRO about acquisition of right referred to in Section 4 of the Act, the MRO would, after issuing notice to the parties referred to in Sub Section 3 of the Act, pass orders in connection thereto. The acquisition of right under Section 4 is either by succession, survivorship inheritance, partition, patta decree or otherwise, any right as owner, pattadar, mortgage, tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method is entitled to intimate in writing his acquisition of such right. In other words unless the right acquired is not referable to any of the situations referred to Section 4 (1) of the Act, question of their name being mutated in the revenue record would not arise. 14. In the facts of the present case, admittedly the document relied upon by the petitioner is an agreement of sale executed in 1977. Altering the revenue records on the basis of the said document may not be referable to any of the modes of acquisition of the property referred to in Section 4(1) of the Act. Unless the acquisition is referable to any of the modes specified under Section 4 of the Act, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to make or alter the entries in the revenue record. Thus this Court does not find any perversity from the order of the appellate and revisionary authority. 15. In view of the foregoing, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.