SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(AP) 125

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.
Chavali Anilaja and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
Collector, Ranga Reddy District and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 2649 of 2010 and 21088 of 2012
Decided On : 01-02-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : D. Vathsalendra, Counsel

Headnote:

Andhra Pradesh Rights in the Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 9 - AP Housing Board Act, 1956 - Section 21-A - Companies Act, 1956 - Writ Petition No. is filed questioning the order whereby the lands of the petitioners sought to be resumed. Writ Petition is filed assailing the order passed by the 4th respondent refusing to correct the entries in the revenue records and record the names of the petitioners as pattedars in respect of the subject lands in question - Inasmuch as the subject matter is connected in both the writ petitions and the parties are one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by way of this common order. It would suffice to advert to the facts in WP - Lands based on a registered document and he in turn sold to one who is father of three sons and after the his three sons among themselves executed GPA in favour of one of them to deal with the subject lands from whom the 1st petitioner purchased an extent of under a registered sale deed No. 82/96, dated 04-01-1996, 2nd petitioner purchased an extent of Ac. 2-00 under a registered sale deed and 3rd petitioner purchased an extent of Ac. 0-20 hectares under a registered sale deed - That since the date of purchase, petitioners are in possession of the respective lands without any interference - petitioners came to know about suspicious discrepancies in the revenue records and also the Government claiming right over the subject land from the year 2001 as Government land, they preferred revision petitions under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in the Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act - Respondent-Joint Collector Reddy District for correction of entries in revenue records for the years in respect of the subject lands. The said revision was dismissed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Case holding that pahanies from the years showed the classification of subject lands either as and thus subject lands are Government lands - Aggrieved by the same petitioners filed writ petition, being WP No. 2649 of 2010 questioning the orde as being illegal arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and for consequential direction for making entries of their names in revenue records and also for issuance of patta pass books in their favour – Held, Respondent-Joint Collector Reddy District in refusing enter the names of the petitioners in the revenue records in respect of the subject lands, which is impugned in WP No. 2649 of 2010 is concerned the said order is not sustainable in law for more than one reason. A perusal of the pahanies from the years entry in pattedar column, expect for the years the names of the assignees is shown and the entry in possessory column, the names of the petitioners vendor and his fathers are shown. When it comes to the years 2000-01 till 2006-07, the entry in pattedar column it is shown as government land and the entry in possessory column, the name of Hyderabad Metro Water pipe line is shown. It is not discernable how after more than years entry in pattedar column, it can be recorded Government land in respect of the subject lands. The record reflects continuously for a period names of the assignees are shown in pattedar column and the names of the petitioners vendor and his father is shown in the possessory column. The authorities in exercise of suo motu power cannot correct the revenue entries after a period of 37 years, which is not legally permissible. It is not the case of the respondents that the entries were made fraudulently and that act of fraud necessitated correction of entries suo motu. Altering the entries in pahanies at its own discretion, without issuing notice and conducting enquiry, is nothing short of taking away the property rights party whose name is recorded. (see Kallem Penta Reddy v. Mandal Revenue Officer both the writ petitions are allowed – petitions are disposed.

ORDER :

A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.

1. Writ Petition No. 21088 of 2012 is filed questioning the order dated 08-02-2002 whereby the lands of the petitioners in Sy. No. 176/2, 176/3 and 176/4 of Azeeznagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, are sought to be resumed. Writ Petition No. 2649 of 2010 is filed assailing the order dated 20-11-2009 passed by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Moinabad Mandal, refusing to correct the entries in the revenue records and record the names of the petitioners as pattedars in respect of the subject lands in question. Inasmuch as the subject matter is connected in both the writ petitions and the parties are one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by way of this common order. It would suffice to advert to the facts in WP No. 2649 of 2010.

2. Facts stated are:-Lands in Sy. No. 176/2, 3 and 4, situated at Aziznagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District belongs to Abdul Hussaini and Mohd. Khaja and their names have been recorded in the revenue records and reflected in pahanies till the year 1966. Thereafter, the said lands were sold to different persons by them through registered sale deeds. P. Ramachander Rao claimed title to the subject lands based on a registered document dated 25-02-1967 and he in turn sold to one B. Dharma Rao, who is father of three sons and after the demise of B. Dharma Rao, his three sons, among themselves executed GPA in favour of one of them to deal with the subject lands i.e. B. Krishna Sagar, from whom the 1st petitioner purchased an extent of Ac. 1-00 under a registered sale deed No. 82/96, dated 04-01-1996, 2nd petitioner purchased an extent of Ac. 2-00 under a registered sale deed No. 3815/97, dated 03-06-1997 and 3rd petitioner purchased an extent of Ac. 0-20 hectares under a registered sale deed No. 8408/97, dated 05-12-1997 respectively, which are part of Sy. No. 176/2, 3 and 4 situated at Aziznagar Village, Grampanchayat, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. That since the date of purchase, petitioners are in possession of the respective lands without any interference. Subsequently, the petitioners made several requests for entering their names in revenue records and also for issuance of patta pass books in their favour. That when the petitioners came to know about suspicious discrepancies in the revenue records and also the Government claiming right over the subject land from the year 2001 as Government land, they preferred revision petitions under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in the Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, to the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, for correction of entries in revenue records for the years 2001 to 2007 in respect of the subject lands. The said revision was dismissed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Case No. D 1/7791/2008, dated 20-11-2009 holding that pahanies from the years 1955-56 till 2006-07 showed the classification of subject lands either as Kharij Khata or Laoni Patta and thus subject lands are Government lands. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed writ petition, being WP No. 2649 of 2010 questioning the order dated 20-11-2009 as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and for consequential direction for making entries of their names in revenue records and also for issuance of patta pass books in their favour.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, it is their case that originally the land in Sy. No. 176 admeasuring Acs. 220-37 guntas situated at Azeeznagar Village of Moinabad Mandal is Government Land, classified as 'Gairan Sarkari' and as per the faisal patti for the year 1961-62, there were 53 landless poor persons, who were cultivating the land in the said Sy. No. 176 un-authorizedly, without any valid certification and authorization and under those circumstances, the then Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk, considering their possession over the lands, granted


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top