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

2022 Supreme(AP) 432

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D. RAMESH, J.
Apthiri Jayalakshmamma - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8744 and 3043 of 2021
Decided On : 03-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : T. Balaji.
For the Respondent: P. Vivek.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 – Section 5(5), 4(1) – ROR Act – Section 6 – Writ petitions are filed assailing order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer in Proceedings and to set aside same and consequently, direct respondent to mutate names of petitioners in revenue records – Held, Matter has to be decided based on record – Already petitioners have preferred a revision before competent authority i.e., Joint Collector/2nd respondent herein and same is pending – Court ought not to have entertained writ petition and same may be rejected on ground of availing alternative relief by petitioners – Considering submissions made by both counsel and on perusal of material on record, though petitioners contended that orders passed by 4th respondent-Tahsildar is under Section 6A, on perusal of application made by unofficial respondent along with counter, it clearly discloses that they have made an application to 4th respondent-Tahsildar in Form 6A which is under Section 4(1) of ROR Act – Writ Petitions dismissed.

ORDER :

Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, these two writ petitions disposed of together with a common order.

2. Both the writ petitions are filed assailing the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in Proceedings R.Dis.H/2377/2015 dated 02.12.2020 and to set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondent to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records.

3. The case of the petitioners in W.P.No.8744 of 2021 is that the petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of the lands, admeasuring Ac.0.29 cents in Sy.No.141/7 and Ac.1.03 cents in Sy.No.141/1A. Their grand fathers, one late Srinivasulu Reddy, Apthiri Siva Reddy and father of the petitioners purchased the aforesaid lands from its lawful owner one Sri Konappacharyulu through a registered Sale Deeds vide Doc.Nos.1117 of 1936 and 2654 of 1963 respectively. Since then, father of the petitioners was in possession and enjoyment and also got issued Pattadhar Pass Books and title deeds in his favour vide Khata No.723 and his name was also mutated in revenue records. After his demise the petitioners succeeded the property and continuing the possession.

4. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.3043 of 2021 is that the petitioner has purchased the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-17 cents in S.No.141/1, Ac.0-33 cents in S.No.141/2 Ac.0-03 cents in S.No.141/3, Ac.0-13 cents in S.No. 141/4, Ac.0-30 cents in S.No. 141/5 and Ac.0-34 cents in S.No.141/6 of Durgasamudram village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal from one M. Srinivasulu Chetti under registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 2129/2006 dt.13-9-2006. The Tahsildar has entered the name of the petitioner in adangal and issued pattadar pass book and title deed with Khata No.714 in favour of the petitioner. Since then the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the above said land. While so, the unofficial respondent filed an application before the Tahsildar for issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed for the lands to an extent of Ac.1-07, 0-17, 0-17, 0-16, 0-34 and 0-29 in S.Nos.141/1A, 141/1B, 141/2A, 141/2B, 141/6 and 141/7 respectively of Durgasamudram village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal. The Tahsildar except to an extent of Ac.0-29 cents in S.No.141/7 has rejected the claim of unofficial respondent for issue of pattadar pass book and title deed vide endorsement Roc.7 (R)162/2015 dt. 21-7-2015 on the ground that the flow of title and the documents do not tally; pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to the petitioner herein and to one A. Siva Reddy in respect of the above lands.

5. Admittedly that the unofficial respondent has filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 in R.Dis.No.H/2377/2015 before the Revenue Divisional Officer questioning the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar denying his claim against father of writ petitioners and another writ petitioner for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds and to cancel the existing records in favour of petitioners for an extent of Ac.1.91 cents in Sy.No.141/A, 1B, 2A, 2B and 6 of Durgasamudram village. But the Revenue Divisional Officer, without considering the submissions made by the petitioners in the appeal erroneously passed an order dt.02-12-2020 directing the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds standing in the name of the father of the petitioners and one Smt. P. Nirmala another writ petitioner and directed to issue pattadar pass books in the name of unofficial respondent.

6. The unofficial respondent claimed title in respect of the subject land and other lands through one Sri S.V.K.S. Srinivas and he purchased the lands from the said person under Doc.No.1823/2005. But neither the name of the unofficial respondent nor his vendor’s name, are shown in the revenue records till date and he has not made any application till 2015.

7. Sri P. Gangi Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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