Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Boya Dealer Ayyyanna – Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Principal Secretary Revenue Department & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.2722 of 2021
Decided On : 26-11-2021
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 – Section 4 - Agricultural land - Registered sale deed - One filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India to declare action of respondent in not mutating name of petitioner in ROR and adangal in respect of agricultural land purchased by him under registered sale deed and also as per the final orders passed by this Court in W.P. as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct respondent to mutate name of the petitioner in ROR and adangals in respect of land by deleting names of respondent from the concerned records - Whether a direction be issued to respondent to mutate name of petitioner in revenue recordsfor land in an extent in circumstances pleaded by both parties.
Finding of the court:
In present facts of case, pleadings are insufficient and no details were disclosed as to manner of application made by the petitioner to enable this Court to issue a direction to respondent to mutate name of petitioner in Adangal (cultivation account) - Therefore, it is difficult to issue a direction as sought for by petitioner since pleadings are bereft of details - Regarding pattadar passbook and title deeds, petitioner himself admitted in writ affidavit about issue of pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner - Respondent also admitted in counter about the issue of Pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner - Therefore, this Court need not issue any direction for issue of pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of petitioner - As the petitioner failed to plead and prove that he made appropriate application in compliance of statutory requirements under the Rules, court find no ground to declare action of respondents as illegal and arbitrary to issue a direction as claimed by the petitioner.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Key Points: - The petitioner seeks to declare the action of not mutating his name in ROR and Adangal for Ac.1.30 cents in Sy.No.152, S. Lingamdinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal/arbitrary and to direct mutation (!) (!) - The Court considers whether a direction can be issued to mutate the petitioner’s name in Form-1B under the Act given lack of proper application and compliance with statutory requirements (!) - The court held that in the absence of a proper application through Mee-Seva with requisite fee, the Tahsildar is not obliged to act, and inaction cannot be deemed illegal/arbitrary; thus mandamus relief is denied (!) - The Court relied on statutory requirements under Section 4, Section 5(3) of the Act and Rule 19(1) of the Rules to determine maintainability of the petition (!) - Prior directions from W.P.No.23961 of 2014 regarding pattadar passbooks and title deeds were not implemented, impacting petitioner's relief (!) (!) - Respondents 5 and 6 contend petitioner lacks title and that sale deed vendor had no title; petitioner's relief denied due to lack of proof of title and non-compliance with procedures (!) (!) - The petition is dismissed with no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed (!) (!)
ORDER :
1. One Boya Dealer Ayyanna filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of respondent No.4 in not mutating the name of the petitioner in the ROR and adangal in respect of agricultural land purchased by him under registered sale deed bearing document No.45/2012 dated 04.01.2012 and also as per the final orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.23691 of 2014 dated 01.09.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct respondent No.4 to mutate the name of the petitioner in ROR and adangals in respect of land in an extent of Ac.01.30 cents in Sy.No.152 situated in S.Lingamdinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District by deleting the names of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 from the concerned records.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.30 cents in Sy.No.152 situated in S.Lingamdinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District from the original owner i.e. Sri Pinjari Akbar Basha, s/o Nadipi Dastagiri, after verifying the same from the sub-registrar’s office. But, respondent No.4 did not issue Pattadar passbook, title deed and did not make entry in ROR records and Adangals despite application filed by the petitioner and directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.23961 of 2014. In W.P.No.23961 of 2014, this Court issued the following direction:
3. Since, respondent No.4 has not implemented the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner filed C.C.(SR) No.520 of 2015 with a petition C.A.No.97 of 2015 to grant leave to implead G.Nagabhushan Reddy, Village Revenue Officer, and it is pending as on today.
4. In the meanwhile, both the Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer were transferred, new officers are posted as Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer. Though the contempt is pending against the Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer, they did not take any steps to mutate the name of the petitioner in ROR and adangals. On the other hand, names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 were already mutated as if they are in possession and enjoyment of the property, noted the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in column Nos.12 and 13 though they are not legally entitled.
5. Though the petitioner made several requests to respondent No.4 to pass appropriate order mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, he did not consider the request of the petitioner. Later, the petitioner approached respondent No.3, Revenue Divisional Officer, who immediately addressed a letter No.Rc.E.4139/2020 dated 06.11.2020 to respondent No.4, Tahsildar requesting him to conduct detailed enquiry into the matter and submit report for taking further action. But, no action is taken by respondent No.4 while continuing the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the revenue records.
6. The petitioner contended that the inaction of respondent No.4 amounts to violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition.
7. Respondent No.4 did not file any counter.
8. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed counter denying material allegations inter alia contending that the relief claimed by the petitioner is in negative form, thereby the writ petition is not maintainable.
9. It is contended that Sy.No.152 of S.Lingamdinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal is consisting of Ac.11.50 cents, out of which one Pedavenkatappa, S/o Arella Madhanna has purchased an extent of Ac.5.50 cents from Hanumanthu, Lingappa and Nagappa, sons of Peddapuram Nagappa in the year 1948 vide document No.84 of 1948 dated 05.02.1948. Sri Timmappa Lakshmana purchased an extent of Ac.3.00 cents fr
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
