Back
2021 Supreme(AP) 518
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
M. Venkata Ramana, J.
Bonthu Subrahmanyam - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5452 of 2020
Decided On : 05-05-2021
Thota Suneetha, Advocate, Kalyan C R, Advocate
The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Splitting up of Joint Pattas Act, 1965 and Rules made thereunder are not applicable to cases where the parties are not joint pattadars as defined under the Act.
Headnote:
ANDHRA PRADESH SPLITTING UP OF JOINT PATTAS ACT, 1965 - SECTIONS 3, 4 - RULES 3, 3-A, 4, 5, 7 TO 14 - SURVEY OF LAND - SUB-DIVISION OF JOINT PATTAS - TRANSFER OF PATTAS - GRANT OF PATTAS - NOTICE TO JOINT PATTADARS - INQUIRY - APPEAL - REVISION - PROCEDURE - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - DISPUTE BETWEEN PARTIES - SETTLEMENT THROUGH CIVIL COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Tahsildar for conducting a survey of land in Sy.No.308/1, claiming it to be illegal and contrary to Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Splitting up of Joint Pattas Rules, 1965. The petitioner claimed possession of Ac.3.00 out of Ac.4.94 cents in Sy.No.308/1, while the 6th respondent claimed Ac.1.00 out of the same. The dispute arose due to conflicting entries in revenue records, showing separate extents in the names of the petitioner and the 6th respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner and the 6th respondent were not joint pattadars as defined under the Andhra Pradesh Splitting up of Joint Pattas Act, 1965, since they had separate katha numbers and were paying land revenue separately. Therefore, the provisions of the Act and Rules relating to splitting up of joint pattas were not applicable in this case.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned notice issued by the Tahsildar for conducting a survey of land was illegal and contrary to Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Splitting up of Joint Pattas Rules, 1965? 2. Whether the petitioner and the 6th respondent were joint pattadars as defined under the Andhra Pradesh Splitting up of Joint Pattas Act, 1965?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned notice issued by the Tahsildar was not illegal or contrary to Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Splitting up of Joint Pattas Rules, 1965, as it was issued in obedience to the directions of the court in a previous writ petition filed by the 6th respondent. 2. The court held that the petitioner and the 6th respondent were not joint pattadars as defined under the Andhra Pradesh Splitting up of Joint Pattas Act, 1965, since they had separate katha numbers and were paying land revenue separately. Therefore, the provisions of the Act and Rules relating to splitting up of joint pattas were not applicable in this case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, subject to the rider that the parties should settle their dispute in a civil court. The petitioner was directed to institute a civil suit against the 6th respondent for declaration of his right, title, and interest for Ac.1.00 of land, which he claimed to have purchased from her.
JUDGMENT
M Venkata Ramana, J. - The petitioner is questioning a notice issued by the 4th respondent - the Tahsildar, Chodavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in Rc.No.36/2020/MS dated 18.02.2020 being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Splitting up of Joint Pattas Rules, 1965 and to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus there for.
2. Survey No.308/1 of Chodavaram village consists of Ac.4.94 cents. Ac.3.00 out of it was purchased as alleged, by Smt.S.Bhulakshmi, Smt.B.Naga Padmavathi and Smt.Pothala Sathyavathi together under sale deeds dated 19.12.1990 and 12.12.1990 from the President, Chodavaram Premasamajam of Ac.1.00 each. Total extent purchased by all the three of them is stated to be Ac.3.00 from the same vendors (two documents of afore stated dates alone are produced in this writ petition as a part of material papers). The petitioner purchased Ac.1.00 out of it under a registered sale deed dated 27.06.1994 from Smt.S.Bhulakshmi and another Ac.1.00 under another registered sale deed dated 20.05.1995 from Smt.B.Naga Padmavathi. In this sale deed dated 20.05.1995, there is a reference that Smt.Pothala Satyavathi, viz. the 6th respondent herein had also sold Ac.1.00 to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is claiming that he is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.308/1 of Chodavaram village.
3. Smt.Pothala Satyavathi, viz. the 6th respondent herein filed Writ Petition No.4728 of 2017 to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapalli and the Tahsildar, Chodavaram to survey this land in Sy.No.308/1, while also questioning the endorsement dated 17.01.2017 of the Tahsildar, Chodavaram Mandal rejecting his request. This writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 10.12.2019. The operative portion therein reads as under:
"In the above background, in order to have a quietus and finality for the issue, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, leaving it open for the petitioner herein to submit a proper application in accordance with the above said Rules and the Act by enclosing necessary documents and by complying with other requirements, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if any such application is filed, the same be considered in accordance with the provisions of the above said Rules and the Act, as expeditiously as possible."
4. Basing on the above directions, the 6th respondent filed an application dated 12.02.2020 requesting the 4th respondent Tahsildar, Chodavaram, to conduct survey of this land in Sy.No.308/1 and for its sub-division, with reference to her share of Ac.1.00 therein. Pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent issued a notice to the petitioner, the 6th respondent and others, who are stated to be neighbouring land owners or persons interested in the survey, to conduct survey of this land on 22.02.2020 at 11.00 a.m. and to fix up the boundaries, while calling all these persons to produce their title deeds and other documents in support of their respective claims.
5. The petitioner is questioning this notice in this writ petition.
6. The main contention of the petitioner is that there was no positive direction in Writ Petition No.4728 of 2017 directing to conduct survey of this land and to fix up boundaries in respect of the land claimed by the 6th respondent of Ac.1.00. Further contention of the petitioner is that there is infraction of Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Splitting up of Joint Patta Rules, 1965 in as much as a notice in Form No.I before conducting any enquiry or to survey this land was not issued and whereby, ten (10) days time is available for the affected parties to set out their claims. According to the petitioner, only four (04) days time is given while issuing the above notice.
7. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the 6th respondent suppressed the fact that she had already sold away her extent of Ac.1.00 and delivered possession of the same to the petitioner in W.P.No.4728 of 2017 an
