Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, S.R.NAYAK
B.G.Laxman - Appellant
Versus
Joint Collector, R.R.Dist, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 10-08-02
Civil Law – Civil Matter - Writ Appeals - A. P. Record of Rights in land Rules, 1989 - Rule 19 - Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Appellate authority as well as revisional authority, main contention of writ appellants was that Mandal Revenue Officer did not adhere to mandatory provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Section 5 of Act inasmuch as he did not issue any individual notices to writ appellants and therefore, order passed by Mandal Revenue Officer directing mutation of entries in revenue records in names of respondents 4 to 7 is nullity in the eye of law - Contention was dealt with both by appellate authority and revisional authority and both authorities have opined that Mandal Revenue officer had complied with procedure substantively - Revisional authority further took notice of fact that writ appellants being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed in suit O. S. No have filed a suit being O. S. No on file of Court of Principal senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for declaration that decree passed in O. S. No by District Munsif at medchal is nullity in eye of law and also for recovery of possession of said land and said suit is pending - Contentions of learned counsel for parties, basic question that arises for decision is whether any substantive ground is made out to interfere with order of learned single judge affirming orders made by statutory authorities particularly in context of fact-situation of this case - It is trite that mutation entries would not decide title question - Title questions have to be decided by competent civil Courts - Decree on basis of which mutation was sought and ordered has been sought to be nullified by filing a suit, O. S. No by no other than writ appellants themselves - It is also admitted fact that writ appellants have lost possession of land by virtue of execution of decree passed in O. S - Nevertheless, pointed arguments by that sub-section (3) of section 5 of Act mandates that individual notices should be issued to all those persons whose names are entered in record of rights of land in question and since names of writ appellants are entered records of rights of land in question, they should have been served with individual notices and since there is nothing on record to show that such notices were issued to writ appellants, mutation order passed by Mandal revenue Officer should be condemned as a nullity in eye of law - In support of plea, learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of Supreme Court – Held , Court says that do not find any justification to interfere with order of learned single Judge - It is quite often said and reiterated by constitutional Courts that principles of natural justice are handmaids and they are required to be insisted and enforced only to see that justice is done and not to thwart justice - It is very pertinent to notice that in entire writ affidavit filed in support of writ petition, writ appellants have not specifically averred that they were not aware of general notice issued in form-VIII by Mandal Revenue Officer under Rule 19 of Rules - Consistent contention urged before all authorities and learned single Judge was that mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 5 was not complied with by mandal Revenue Officer - Third circumstance which weighed with us in not interfering with order of learned single Judge is that as already pointed out supra, writ appellants themselves have filed a suit for a substantive relief of declaration as well as for recovery of possession - Title claimed by writ appellants has to be decided in suit - It is also pertinent to note that this suit was instituted by writ appellants even before Mandal Revenue Officer directed impugned mutation by his order - Writ Appeals Dismissed.
( 1 ) BOTH the writ appeals are directed against the same judgment of the learned single judge dated 7-12-2000 in W. P. No. 15242 of 1999. Writ Appeal No. 121 of 2001 is by writ petitioners 1 to 6 whereas Writ Appeal no. 122 of 2001 is by writ petitioners 7 to 12.
( 2 ) THE dispute relates to a mutation ordered by the Mandal Revenue Officer by virtue of the power conferred on him under section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Record of rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (Act No. 26 of 1971) (for short the Act ). The mutation was ordered by the Mandal revenue Officer by his order dt. 10-12-1996. The said order of the Mandal Revenue officer has been confirmed both by the appellate authority and the revisional authority. The learned single Judge of this court has also dismissed the writ petition wherein the validity of those orders was called in question by the writ appellants.
( 3 ) THE background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly as under: Respondents 4 to 7 filed an application before the Mandal Revenue officer in form No. VI (A) under Section 4 (1) of the Act requesting the Mandal Revenue officer to direct mutation of entries in the revenue records in terms of the judgment dated 27-6-1996 passed in O. S. No. 28 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif at Medchal, ranga Reddy District. The Mandal Revenue officer on receipt of the said application caused a notice in form No. VIII prescribed under Rule 19 of the A. P. Record of Rights in land Rules, 1989 (for short the Rules ) and on consideration of the evidence and the material placed before him, directed the mutation of the entries in the names of respondents 4 to 7.
( 4 ) BEFORE the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, the main contention of the writ appellants was that the Mandal Revenue Officer did not adhere to the mandatory provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Section 5 of the Act inasmuch as he did not issue any individual notices to the writ appellants and therefore, the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer directing mutation of entries in the revenue records in the names of respondents 4 to 7 is nullity in the eye of law. This contention was dealt with both by the appellate authority and the revisional authority and both the authorities have opined that the Mandal Revenue officer had complied with the procedure substantively. The revisional authority further took notice of the fact that the writ appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the suit O. S. No. 28 of 1982 have filed a suit being O. S. No. 510 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Principal senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for declaration that the decree passed in O. S. No. 28 of 1982 by the District Munsif at medchal is nullity in the eye of law and also for recovery of possession of the said land and the said suit is pending.
( 5 ) IN the background of this factual matrix, M/s. G. Ramakrishnaiah and sri V. Venkataramana, learned counsel for the appellants contended mainly that the procedure prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act is mandatory in terms and since admittedly the Mandal Revenue officer did not issue individual notices to the writ appellants, his order could not have been sustained by the appellate and the revisional authorities as well as the learned single Judge of this Court. Sri Venkataramana contended that subsection (3) of Section 5 of the Act contemplates two kinds of notices, viz. , individual notices to those persons whose names are entered in the revenue records of the land in respect of which mutation is sought and also a general notice to others who may be having right or interest in such a land. Sri Venkataramana would maintain that issuance of notice in Form No. VIII prescribed under Rule 19 of the Rules could not be equated to the personal notice contemplated under sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act to those persons whose names are entered in the reve
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
