2020 Supreme(AP) 244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Pyla Venkata Swamy @ Babu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No.534 of 2020
Decided on : 19-03-2020

Point of Law: According to sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, where the Mandal Revenue Officer has reason to believe that an acquisition of any right of a description to which Section 4 applies has taken place and of which an intimation has not been made to him under that Section and where he considers that an amendment has to be effected in the record of rights, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall carry out the said amendment in the record of rights. But the sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act is silent as to the rules, but conferred power on the Mandal Revenue Officer to amend or effect such modification when no intimation is issued under Section 4 of the Act, is given to the Mandal Revenue Officer.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, Article 226 - Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971- Section 5 (3) – To declare the Form VIII issued under Rule 19 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules By respondent No.4 during pendency of the comprehensive suit in respect of the lands of an extent of Ac.29.78 cents situated at Bhogapuram, Dupputuru Village, Visakhapatnam District without conducting any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of the Act, consequently grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the publication – Held, when the petitioner made an application, a direction was given by the Revenue Divisional Office to approach the Civil Court, obtain a decree. The same was confirmed by the revisional authority – Joint Collector in R.P.No.7/05/D2. Though the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed, the deed of conveyance executed in favour of the petitioner is not yet set aside, it is the subject matter of Civil Suit O.S.No.357 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. It appears, respondent Nos.2 to 6 adopted different scales in considering the application of the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8. But the notice issued in Form VIII is only preliminary consideration of the intimation submitted under Section 4 of the Act to the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer. However, it is difficult to expect a favourable order to the respondent Nos.7 and 8 even after completion of enquiry by following the procedure under Section 5 of the Act read with Rule 19 and Rule 15 and 16 of the Rules, which mandates an enquiry. Hence, at this stage, this Court cannot scuttle the authorities to exercise their statutory power on account of pendency of the suit O.S.No.357 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Visakhapatnam on the ground that the application of the petitioner was rejected while directing him to approach competent Civil Court, the same was confirmed by the revisional authority. Hence, I find no merit in the contention of the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected - writ petition is dismissed

Facts of the Case:

Petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.29.78 cents in different survey numbers (referred above) from Kundrapu Kondadu vide registered sale deed dated 14.07.2004, since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the property without any interruption from anybody. Originally, the vendor of the petitioner Kundrapu Kondadu executed an agreement of sale in respect of the above said lands and other lands on 16.08.1992 for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-and received a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-as an advance on various dates. As the vendor of the petitioner Kundrapu Kondadu failed to execute registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioner, he filed O.S.No. 132 of 1995 on the file of the subordinate judge at Yalamanchili for specific performance of agreement of sale. The trial Court decreed the suit

Finding of the court:

when the petitioner made an application, a direction was given by the Revenue Divisional Office to approach the Civil Court, obtain a decree. The same was confirmed by the revisional authority – Joint Collector in R.P.No.7/05/D2. Though the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed, the deed of conveyance executed in favour of the petitioner is not yet set aside, it is the subject matter of Civil Suit O.S.No.357 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. It appears, respondent Nos.2 to 6 adopted different scales in considering the application of the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8. But the notice issued in Form VIII is only preliminary consideration of the intimation submitted under Section 4 of the Act to the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer. However, it is difficult to expect a favourable order to the respondent Nos.7 and 8 even after completion of enquiry by following the procedure under Section 5 of the Act read with Rule 19 and Rule 15 and 16 of the Rules, which mandates an enquiry. Hence, at this stage, this Court cannot scuttle the authorities to exercise their statutory power on account of pendency of the suit O.S.No.357 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Visakhapatnam on the ground that the application of the petitioner was rejected while directing him to approach competent Civil Court, the same was confirmed by the revisional authority. Hence, I find no merit in the contention of the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected.

Result: writ petition is dismissed