Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 205
In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.
Bommaku Narsinga Rao & Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of Telangana & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 30294 of 2014
Decided on : 10-04-2015
For the Petitioners: Jelli Kanakaiah
For the Respondents: R1 to R4, Government Pleader, R5 to R7, B. Sudhakar Reddy
Headnote:
A.P. Rights in Land and Passbooks Act, 1971 - Section 9 – Property dispute – Revenue Records – Proof of - Writ petition is filed questioning order passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Passbooks Act, 1971 setting aside order dated passed by the appellate authority confirming the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer passed under Section 5 of ROR Act petitioners as well as the respondents are lineal descendants of one had two sons by family had vast extents of lands, both lands, recorded in the revenue records in the names of has five sons – Respondent No.5 is the son of and respondents 6 and 7 are the legal heirs of who is the son of has three sons by and Through a Registered Partition Deed bearing dated family partitioned their agricultural lands, thereby severing the relationship of joint family. Pursuant to partition parties took possession of their respective shares and necessary entries in the revenue records were also got effected. So far as relevant to the dispute in present writ petition is concerned, an extent of in Survey came to the share – Held, Authority found fault with the in allowing amendment of entries in revenue records in of the petitioners by way of succession, the claim of the respondents 5, 6 and 7 is that there exists a dispute with respect to the property on account of unregistered Exchange Deed dated While dealing with this aspect, adverting to the claim of the petitioners that the document is sham, non-existent, fabricated and forged, the Authority had held that the burden of proof lies on the petitioners who alleges fabrication and forgery, and thus directed them to approach Civil Court to establish their claim. By making such a statement, the petitioners claim is sought to be While there can be no dispute that the law with respect to burden of proof, i.e., legal burden in cases of allegations of fabrication and forgery of document lies on the person who alleges so, the crucial aspect on this issue is also well settled that there lies an initial onus on the party who relies on the document to prove its truth, validity and binding nature. Only after discharge of such onus, the onus shifts to the other party who alleges fabrication and forgery to prove his stand. In the present case that initial burden of existence of a document and its true nature has not been discharged by respondents 5, 6 and 7 and the respondents 5, 6 and 7 had also failed to follow the procedure prescribed for asserting their right based on the unregistered Exchange Deed. The law is also well settled that he who asserts title must prove. In the impugned order, the burden is wrongly cast on the writ petitioners, whose father’s name admittedly finds place in the records as registered holder.
1. The writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 23.08.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the ROR Act’), setting aside the order dated 20.01.2012 passed by the appellate authority confirming the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer passed under Section 5(3) of the ROR Act.
2. The writ petition has both undisputed and disputed facts. For the purpose of clarity, it would be convenient to refer to the facts as recorded by the authorities as undisputed and disputed.
3. Undisputed facts:
Both the petitioners as well as the respondents 5 to 7 are lineal descendants of one Bommaku Lachaiah @ Laxmaiah. Bommaku Laxmaiah had two sons by name Balaiah and Narsaiah. Bommaku Laxmaiah’s family had vast extents of lands, both Inam and Patta lands, recorded in the revenue records in the names of Bommaku Laxmaiah, Balaiah and Narsaiah. Bommaku Balaiah has five sons, namely Yadaiah, Gangaiah, Rajaiah @ Rajalingam, B. Pochaiah and B. Chittari. Respondent No.5 is the son of Gangaiah and respondents 6 and 7 are the legal heirs of Bommaku Anjaiah who is the son of Rajalingam. Likewise, Narsaiah has three sons by name Ramaiah, Narsimha and Shankaraiah. Through a Registered Partition Deed bearing No.245/1960 dated 07.09.1960, Bommaku Laxmaiah’s family partitioned their agricultural lands, thereby severing the relationship of joint family. Pursuant to the partition, the parties took possession of their respective shares and necessary entries in the revenue records were also got effected. So far as relevant to the dispute in the present writ petition is concerned, an extent of Ac.14-17 guntas in Survey No.201 came to the share of the family of the sons of Narsaiah, namely, Bommaku Ramaiah, Narsimha and Shankaraiah. The petitioners are sons of Bommaku Shankaraiah. In the revenue records, the names of Ramaiah, Narsimha and Shankaraiah were recorded as pattadars in Survey No.201 in the entire extent of Ac.14-17 guntas from 1960 onwards. Though Ac.14-17 guntas fell to the shares of Ramaiah, Narsimha and Shankaraiah in entire of proceedings before the lower authorities, there is no claim made by Ramaiah and Narsimha or any of their legal heirs with respect to Ac.4-32 guntas in Survey No.201, which is the subject matter of the writ petition. Petitioners belong to the family tree of Narsaiah and the respondents belong to the family tree of Balaiah.
4. The entire controversy in the writ petition is in relation to the property in Survey No.201 of Boduppal village, Ghatkesar mandal, over an extent of Ac.4-32 guntas out of a total extent of Ac.14-17 guntas in the said survey number. The petitioners’ claim to record their names as successors of Late Shankaraiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioners’) which came to be accepted by the Tahsildar, thus paving way for issuance of pattadar passbooks in their names, rejecting objections raised by the respondent No.6 and father of respondent No.7 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the objectors’). The appeal filed by the objectors under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act was rejected by the appellate authority-Revenue Divisional Officer. In the revision filed by the objectors against the order in the appeal, the revisional authority set aside the order of the appellate authority, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to be recorded as successors of Late Shankaraiah in respect of Ac.4-32 guntas in question and directed them to approach Civil Court.
5. Before the Tahsildar, the objectors filed their objections on 08.04.2011 primarily contending that:
(i) Through an Exchange Deed dated 25.03.1979, Ac.14-17 guntas of land in Survey No.201 was exchanged with Ac.5-23 guntas in Survey No.140 and they are in possession of the land and their names are reflected in possession column.
(ii) Due to urbanisation, all the recorded name holders have executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one of the family members by name Bomm
