Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Tummala Annayya Choudhary - Petitioner
Versus
Dist. Collector, Nellore District & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7988 of 2007
Decided On : 23-11-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Sections 9 (3) , 5A or 5B 6-B, and 12 - Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Sections 6 & 7 - Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. - Section 3 - Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattdar Pass Books Rules, 1989 - Rule 13(2) - Pattadar pass book - And title deed - Possession of the land - Illegal, arbitrary - Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India questioning proceedings D.Dis. issued by second respondent under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 deleting entries in pattadar pass book and title deed and further directing fourth respondent to take possession of land of petitioner as illegal arbitrary and without jurisdiction - Case as pleaded in writ petition are that petitioner purchased land under various registered sale deeds in Nellore District and he has been in possession of property - Third respondent issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of petitioner - At time of purchase of property petitioner verified records and after fully satisfied about authenticity of title of vendor and entries reflected in revenue records he purchased same– Whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial - Held, Apex Court in judgments order impugned in writ petition is cryptic without considering various contentions and not supported by sound reasoning to arrive at such conclusion by second respondent - Impugned order is liable to be set-aside, since it is not in consonance with law referred above, though order is passed by a quasi judicial authority in discharging his public duty being a public officer - order is liable to be set-aside - Respondents in counter affidavit. issue of notice by first respondent under Section 9 of Act is contrary to G.O.Ms. Revenue thereby, further proceedings taken up by Joint Collector is vitiated by irregularity - At same time direction issued by second respondent to fourth respondent to take possession is without any authority of law as provisions of Act does not authorize second respondent to issue such direction except to issue or cancel pattadar pass book and title deed under Section 3 and rectify mistakes under Section 6-B, so also making entries in revenue records issuing title deed on receipt of intimation under Section 4(1) of Act by conducting necessary enquiry under Section 5(3) of Act and entertain an appeal under those orders as such, the direction is liable to be set-aside, as discussed above - Similarly, order is cryptic - order impugned in writ petition deserves to be set-aside, as second respondent committed an irregularity in conducting enquiry based on notice issued by first respondent and issued a direction without any authority of law by passing the impugned cryptic order - writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the proceedings D.Dis.NO.4842/06 dated 22.02.2007 issued by the second respondent under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”), deleting the entries in the pattadar pass book and title deed and further, directing the fourth respondent to take possession of the land of this petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
2. The facts of the case as pleaded in the writ petition are that, the petitioner purchased land admeasuring an extent of Ac.12-73 cents under various registered sale deeds in Nekunampeta, Kondapuram Mandal, Nellore District and he has been in possession of the property. The third respondent issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner. At the time of purchase of the property, the petitioner verified the records and after fully satisfied about the authenticity of the title of the vendor and entries reflected in the revenue records, he purchased the same.
3. After lapse of more than eight years, on a complaint made by one Dama Chanchaiah, the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer sent a report vide RCF 1339/2005 dated 08.08.2006 stating that the lands which the petitioner has purchased is Government Lands and the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioner without following procedure, as the petitioner played fraud deliberately.
4. It is also averred in the report by the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer that the land in Nekunampeta Village was grabbed by affluent outsiders and therefore, the first and foremost step to be taken is to get the registered documents cancelled and requested to cancel the pattadar pass book as well as title deed issued in favour of the petitioner. The third respondent also stated that, on verification of original records and Diglot, it is evident that the lands are Government Lands/Assessed Waste Lands. Pursuant to the said report submitted by the third respondent on 08.08.2006, the first respondent/District Collector vide Enquiry Notice Rc.7/1148/06 dated 18.08.2006 informed the petitioner and other land owners that the third respondent in his letter dated 08.08.2006 informed that the petitioner purchased government land, obtained pattadar passbook and title deed, requested for cancellation of the same. It is also alleged that, the third respondent is vested with power under Section 9 of the Act to initiate suo motu action, therefore, called upon the petitioner to attend enquiry on 26.08.2006 before the Joint Collector, Nellore, the second respondent herein.
5. A notice dated 18.08.2006 was issued by the first respondent directing the petitioner to appear before the second respondent for enquiry. A perusal of the definition of “Collector” contained in Section 2(2) of the Act means, Collector of a District and includes a Joint Collector. Obviously, it shows that District Collector and Joint Collector are two different authorities. A perusal of Section 9 shows that the Collector either suo-motu or on application, call for record and enquire about any order passed by any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the order.
6. The petitioner further contended that, a conjoint reading of the definition Collector and Section 9 show that, either the District Collector or the Joint Collector can exercise suo-motu power independently, but the District Collector cannot invoke Section 9 and direct the parties to appear before the Joint Collector. In case, if the District Collector invokes Section 9, he himself has to conduct an enquiry or the Joint Collector for the purpose of conducting enquiry himself can invoke Section 9, but the District Collector cannot invoke
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
