Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
B.Pushpamma - Appellant
Versus
JOINT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY - Respondent
Decided On : 11-18-04
A. P. rights in land and Pattadar pass books act, 1971 - Section 5- A - Suit for title and possession on land - Case of petitioners that the property and other lands originally belonged to one balaiah, father of anjaiah and fourth respondent - After his death, according to petitioners, property was partitioned by an unregistered partition deed and land fell to share of anjaiah, that anjaiah made an application to third respondent for regularisation of partition deed under Section 5-a of act, 1971, that by order mandal revenue officer issued proceedings regularizing unregistered partition deed, and aggrieved by same, fourth respondent unsuccessfully filed appeal before second respondent, which was dismissed on 21-09-1996, where after at behest of fourth respondent while exercising power of revision under Section 9 of act, first respondent set aside orders of mandal revenue officer and revenue divisional officer relegating the parties to civil court, aggrieved by the said Order, the present writ petition is filed - Held, This court found that there was a serious dispute regarding agreement of sale - While dismissing the writ petition, this court made the following observations, which are relevant and read as under - It is to be noted that petitioner has been seeking a relief with regard to change of entries in revenue record only on basis of the agreement of sale and that itself indicates that there is any amount of dispute about the possession and title of petitioner particularly in view of matter being seriously disputed by fifth respondent - In other words maintaining this writ petition means indirectly seeking verdict on disputed question of title and possession, which has to be dissuaded by all means - Therefore this question of title and possession is purely in nature of question of fact which cannot be decided by an authority like third respondent and until and unless the title of such a disputed property is decided one way or other, necessary changes of entries in revenue record cannot be effected by revenue officials under the act - Writ petition dismissed.
Key Points: - The writ petition was dismissed citing that title and possession disputes are factual and cannot be decided by revenue authorities under the act, and such disputes should be resolved by civil court first. (!) - There is a recognized serious dispute regarding the subject property’s title and possession, especially relating to an agreement of sale and partition deeds. (!) - Section 8(2) of the act allows a suit for declaration if aggrieved by entries in revenue records, indicating civil court jurisdiction for title disputes. (!) - The act contemplates regularization of certain alienations or transfers made otherwise than by registered documents under Section 5-A, but partition among co-owners differs from an alienation; amendments to the record of rights may be needed under Section 4. (!) (!) - Previous orders favoring one party on regularization of unregistered partition deeds can be set aside if there is a misdirection or if the dispute requires civil adjudication. (!) (!) - The petitioners’ reliance on prior declarations before land reforms tribunals does not override the need for civil adjudication of title disputes. (!) - The appropriate remedy for resolving title disputes lies in civil court, after which revenue authorities may act for entry changes. (!)
( 1 ) THE first petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 are children of one anjaiah, who is none other than the brother of the fourth respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that the property in survey Nos. 304, 362 and 392 admeasuring ac. 26. 27 guntas in regadi doswada village in shahbad mandal of ranga reddy district and other lands originally belonged to one balaiah, the father of anjaiah and fourth respondent. After his death, according to the petitioners, the property was partitioned by an unregistered partition deed dated 9-5-1963 and the land (hereafter called, subject land) fell to the share of anjaiah, that anjaiah made an application to the third respondent for regularisation of the partition deed under Section 5-a of A. P. rights in land and pattadar pass books act, 1971 (the act, for brevity), that by order dated 08-02-1996, mandal revenue officer issued proceedings regularizing the unregistered partition deed, and aggrieved by the same, the fourth respondent unsuccessfully filed appeal before the second respondent, which was dismissed on 21-09-1996, whereafter at the behest of the fourth respondent while exercising power of revision under Section 9 of the act, the first respondent set aside the orders of the mandal revenue officer and revenue divisional officer relegating the parties to civil court, aggrieved by the said Order, the present writ petition is filed. Be it noted, when the matter was pending before the mandal revenue officer, anjaiah died and the petitioners herein pursued the matter as his legal representatives.
( 2 ) THIS court while admitting the writ petition on 22-6-2004 suspended the impugned order of the first respondent. Thereafter the fourth respondent filed an application being W. P. m. p. No. 20260 of 2004 praying this court to expedite hearing of the writ petition. Having regard to the fact that the fourth respondent is 86 years of age, this court directed the matter to be posted for final hearing on 25-10-2004 and ultimately the matter came up for hearing to-day.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, Ms. A. Jayanthi, submits that the impugned order of the joint collector is vitiated by error apparent on the face of record. In substantiation of the said submission, she contends that after partition, both the brothers filed declaration before the land reforms tribunal in c. c. No. 1087/ch/75, and c. c. No. 2438/ch/75 showing the entire subject land, and the land reforms tribunal after conducting enquiry rejected the claim of the fourth respondent and accepted the claim of anjaiah, and that thereafter he had filed an application before the third respondent. She would urge that the application was contested by the fourth respondent, and after considering the evidence, the third respondent ordered mutation in favour of anjaiah to the extent of his share and the order does not suffer from any infirmity. She also would contend that when the third respondent has acted on the partition deed and ordered regularisation under Section 5-a of the act, it was improper for the joint collector to come to a conclusion that there is a dispute regarding the title to the property.
( 4 ) LEARNED assistant government pleader for revenue (general) and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, Sri V. V. N. Narayana Rao opposed the writ petition. They would contend that the order of the mandal revenue officer as well as revenue divisional officer have merged in the order of the first respondent and therefore it is improper for the petitioner to rely on the two orders, which are set aside by the first respondent. They also submit that as there is a serious dispute with regard to the absolute right to the property between the petitioners on one hand and the fourth respondent on the other hand claiming exclusive rights, the joint collector correctly decided that the matter has to be adjudicated before the civil court and not by mandal revenue officer or any authority under the pr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
