Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 21 (AP)

Lingareddy Seshamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2026-01-05

NINALA JAYASURYA

body2026
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the 3 rd respondent in suo motu proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (herein after referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. 2. Pursuant to the report of the 4 th respondent dated 12.12.2016 vide the said order, the 3 rd respondent held that one Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma, respondent in the said proceedings failed to produce documents and to establish clear flow of title/right over the land in an extent of Ac.0.68 cents in Sy.No.1663-2 of Allur Village, Kothapatnam Mandal. 3. Heard Sri V. Srinivasula Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for the 6 th respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that the subject matter property is the ancestral property of Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma, her name was mutated in the revenue records and Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds were also issued to her and that after her demise, the same is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. He submits that the said Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma gifted the subject land to the petitioners through a registered gift deed dated 19.02.2005, to an extent of Ac.0.66 cents in Sy.No.1663-2 and further an extent of Ac.0.46 cents in Sy.No.1663-5 of Allur Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, respectively. 5. He submits that the petitioners’ names were mutated in the revenue records in respect of the said lands, as is evident from the material filed along with the writ petition. While that being the situation, learned counsel submits that the 6 th respondent appears to have approached the revenue authorities/3 rd respondent and suo motu revision proceedings under Section 9 of the Act were initiated against the said Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma. He contends that during the pendency of the revision proceedings, Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma died on 14.09.2017 and the same was brought to the notice of the 3 rd respondent by way of a memo dated 16.12.2017. He contends that during the pendency of the revision proceedings, Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma died on 14.09.2017 and the same was brought to the notice of the 3 rd respondent by way of a memo dated 16.12.2017. He argues that despite the said aspect and submission that the legal representatives were required to be brought on record, the 3 rd respondent passed the impugned order and the same is not sustainable in law, apart from violative of principles of natural justice. 6. Learned counsel also sought to advance arguments with reference to civil litigation in respect of the subject matter property. However, the same is not germane for deciding the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. He contends that as is evident from the impugned order, the legal representatives were heard and therefore, the contentions to the contrary are not tenable. He also draws the attention of this Court to the relevant pages in the original record produced by him and submits that the legal representatives filed counter before the 3 rd respondent and therefore, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice and the impugned order is not liable to be set aside as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for the 6 th respondent, made submissions supporting the arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. He submits that the 3 rd respondent after thoroughly examining the material on record and considering the counter filed by the legal representatives of the said Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma, passed a reasoned order. He submits that paragraph No.7 of the impugned order makes it clear that the order under challenge was passed after hearing the legal representatives of the deceased-Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma, therefore the impugned order is in accordance with law and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the original record pertaining to the order dated 19.01.2018 impugned in the present writ petition. 10. At the outset, it may be appropriate to note that there is no dispute with regard to the death of Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma, who was arrayed as respondent in the proceedings initiated by the 3 rd respondent, during the pendency of the same. 10. At the outset, it may be appropriate to note that there is no dispute with regard to the death of Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma, who was arrayed as respondent in the proceedings initiated by the 3 rd respondent, during the pendency of the same. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, through a memo dated 16.12.2017 this aspect was brought to the notice of the 3 rd respondent and in fact, as seen from the original docket proceedings, the 3 rd respondent also recorded the submissions, which are extracted herein for ready reference: “Both counsel present. Counsel for respondent has stated that the respondent is dead and counsel for revision petitioner has not impleaded the respondents. Counsel for revision petitioner has stated that there is no necessity to implead the respondents, and that the report of Tahsildar/RDO are clear enough. Counsel for respondent has filed documents/civil suit copies and stated that the petition should be dismissed.” 11. The original docket proceedings clearly disclose that the matter was reserved for orders on 23.12.2017. Thereafter, no further hearings took place. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to refer to the submission made by the learned counsel for the 6 th respondent that arguments were advanced on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma. He also pointed out that the counter on behalf of the legal representatives was filed on 22.12.2017, just before reserving the matter for orders. 12. As seen from the original record, it is no doubt true that the counter was filed on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased-Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma, but it refers to as many as nine (09) documents including a registered settlement deed dated 19.02.2005 stated to have been executed by the said Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma. If that be the position, the observation made by the 3 rd respondent that “the respondent failed to produce the documents and to establish clear flow of title” is untenable. There is no discussion with regard to the documents stated to have been filed along with the counter of the legal representatives. Be that as it may. 13. If that be the position, the observation made by the 3 rd respondent that “the respondent failed to produce the documents and to establish clear flow of title” is untenable. There is no discussion with regard to the documents stated to have been filed along with the counter of the legal representatives. Be that as it may. 13. Further, from the original docket proceedings it is discernible that except referring to the submissions made with regard to impleading of the legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Kalahastireddy Rukminamma, nothing is recorded as to whether submissions were heard, much less advanced, on behalf of the legal representatives. Even assuming that the arguments were heard, the impugned proceedings/order clearly indicates that the same was passed against a dead person and the legal representatives were not brought on record. 14. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to hold that the order passed against a dead person is not sustainable in law and that the same is vitiated by non-application of mind. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 3 rd respondent for passing orders afresh, after hearing the petitioners herein and the 6 th respondent, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 6 th respondent that the order has already been implemented and taking into account that the interim orders dated 28.02.2018 are in force, status quo with regard to the entries in the revenue records in respect of the above said extent of Ac.0.66 cents shall be maintained till appropriate orders are passed by the 3 rd respondent as directed above. The original record is returned to Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader. 16. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.