Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
N.V. RAMANA AND VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, JJ.
Erukala Uma
v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh and another
WP No.15370 of 2013
Decided on: Twenty Fourth Day of June, 2013
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The jurisdiction of revenue authorities under Section 9 of the relevant Act (the ROR Act) is not automatically barred by the pendency of a civil suit unless the suit specifically pertains to a declaration of rights under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, which would be binding on the authorities (!) (!) .
The exercise of revisional powers by the Collector under Section 9 is permissible whether suo motu or on application, to examine the correctness and legality of records and proceedings, provided that the affected parties are given an opportunity to make representations (!) (!) .
The existence of a civil suit does not preclude the authorities from proceeding with their statutory functions under the Act, unless the suit involves a declaration of rights under the specified chapter, which would then be binding (!) (!) .
When a show-cause notice is issued by the competent authority, the party concerned must respond and disclose all relevant facts, including pending civil litigation, before approaching the courts. The proper course is to reply to the notice and raise all contentions before the authority, rather than seeking extraordinary relief through a writ petition (!) (!) .
The Act provides a complete procedural framework for making entries and amendments in revenue records, emphasizing the importance of notices, replies, and the opportunity for interested parties to be heard (!) .
The mere pendency of a civil suit does not automatically bar the revenue authorities from exercising their jurisdiction; the authorities can proceed unless the suit specifically involves a declaration of rights under the relevant chapter of the law, which would be binding on the authorities (!) .
The appropriate legal remedy for contesting notices or proceedings under the Act is to respond within the statutory process, rather than directly approaching the courts, unless the authority's action is without jurisdiction or violates procedural safeguards (!) .
The specific facts of the case, including the nature of the relief sought in the civil suit, are relevant in determining whether the provisions of the Act or the principles discussed apply, and in this case, the relief sought does not fall under the category that would bar the revenue proceedings (!) .
The authority has the discretion to consider all pleas, including those related to pending civil suits, while passing orders on revision petitions, provided that the proceedings are conducted lawfully and fairly (!) .
The legal principles outlined clarify that the statutory mechanism under the Act aims for expeditious resolution of land record disputes, and parties are expected to utilize the prescribed procedures and remedies before approaching the courts (!) .
In summary, the document emphasizes that the pendency of civil suits does not automatically deprive revenue authorities of their jurisdiction under the Act, but parties should respond appropriately within the statutory framework and raise all relevant issues before the authorities rather than seeking judicial intervention prematurely.
N.V. RAMANA, J :- This writ petition is referred to the Division Bench on reference by a learned Single Judge by order dated 4.6.2013, as the learned Single Judge has expressed inability to concur with the opinion of another learned Single Judge in V. Goutham Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagital, Karim nagar, 2003 (1) ALD 681.
2. We have heard Sri P.V. Narayana Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the order of reference as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge in V. Goutham Rao's case (supra), referred to above.
3. The writ petitioner questions the notice issued by the Collector, Karimnagar in File No.D1/3994/2012, dated 8.11.2012. The said notice called upon the petitioner to respond to the Revision Petition filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'ROR Act' or 'the Act'), seeking correction of entries in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.12-21 guntas in Sy.No.515/1, of Kurikyal Village, Karimnagar District.
4. The writ petition was primarily filed questioning the jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 9 of the Act on the ground that a civil suit - OS No.71 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, was filed by one Ilineni Rajeshwar Rao against the 2nd respondent herein, is pending. According to the petitioner, a common written statement was filed by the 2nd respondent in the said suit admitting the possession and ownership of the petitioner herein. It is also stated that the petitioner figured as 5th defendant and the 2nd respondent as 2nd defendant in the said suit. It is also stated that in the said written statement 2nd respondent has admitted that the Revenue Records show the name of petitioner herein as duly recorded in the pahanies and while the said suit is pending, the 2nd respondent filed the aforesaid revision before the Collector seeking correction of entries in the pahanies from 1995-96 to 2011-12. Since the aforesaid suit is pending between the parties, entertaining the revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act, at the instance of the 2nd respondent, is therefore challenged on the ground that the revisional authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision, when the issue is seized of by the civil Court. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the decision of V. Goutham Rao's case (supra).
5. As stated above, the learned Single Judge did not agree with the proposition in V. Goutham Rao's case (supra), that mere pendency of a civil suit before the civil Court would exclude the jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 9 of the ROR Act.
6. At this stage, it is appropriate to note Sections 8 and 9 of the ROR Act, which are as under:
"Section 8. Bar of Suits:-(1) No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to any entry made in any record of rights or to have any such entry omitted or amended.
(2) If any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.
Section 9. Revision - The Collector may either suo motu or an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any
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
