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

2023 Supreme(AP) 408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
Nune Atchutha Ramayya – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No.10605 of 2020
Decided on : 16-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : T.V. JAGGI REDDY

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Madras Estate Abolition Act, 1948 - Action of the respondents, more particularly, the 4th respondent in mutating the names of the respondents 5 to 12 in revenue records -Held, Under Section 8(2) of the Act, if any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. Therefore, it is suffice to state that any amendment to the record of rights is subject to the decision of the Civil Court, where the suit is pending. It is settled law that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an equity jurisdiction and one must approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective and equally, the judicial process should never become an instrument of oppression or abuse, or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice and who seeks equity must do equity - Writ Petition dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) The petition challenges mutation of names in revenue records contrary to Civil Court decree in O.S.No.19/1988 (dt. 9-7-1991). - (!) Under Section 8(2) of the Act, an aggrieved person may seek a declaration of right in a civil suit, and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended accordingly. - (!) Any amendment to the record of rights is subject to the decision of the Civil Court where a related suit is pending. - (!) The petition was dismissed with the observation that amendments to the record of rights shall be subject to the decision in O.S.No.6 of 2021. - (!) Jurisdiction under Article 226 is equity-based and requires clean hands; misuse can deny relief (K.D. Sharma v. SAIL reference and State of Maharashtra v. Digambar cited). - (!) Appellate remedies exist under Section 5(5) and 5(6) of the Act; writs are not to override pending civil proceedings. - (!) There shall be no order as to costs; interlocutory applications to be closed. (!) (!)

How to challenge mutation of revenue records under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971?

What is the effect of Section 8(2) and the requirement to seek civil court declaration before amending the record of rights?

What are the consequences of approaching the High Court under Article 226 with equity considerations when a civil suit is pending?


ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

    "To issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 4th respondent herein in mutating the name of the respondents no.5 to 12 in revenue records (Adangal, etc.) pertaining to the lands to an extent of Ac.23.90 cts, Ac.17.42 cts, Ac.3.07 cts, 6.64 cts, Ac.25.46 cts, 51.04 cts in S.No.210, 211, 212/1, 212/2, 213, 222 of Purushothapatnam Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, contrary to the Civil Court decree in O.S.No.19/1988, dt.9-7-1991, is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Contrary to the Provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the rules made there under and Arts. 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to delete the entries made in revenue records pertaining to the Survey number and extent stated supra and pass such other orders."

2. The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents, more particularly, the 4th respondent in mutating the names of the respondents 5 to 12 in revenue records (Adangal, 1B, etc.) pertaining the lands to an extent of Acs.23.90 cents, Acs.17.42 cents, Acs.3.07 cents, Acs.6.64 cents, Acs.25.46 cents, Acs.51.04 cents in S.Nos.210, 211, 21s2/1, 212/2, 213, 222 of Purushothapatnam Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, contrary to the Civil Court decree in O.S.No.19/1988, dt.9-7-1991, is being illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter called, ‘the Act, 1971), and the rules made thereunder.

3. The petitioners and unofficial respondents herein belong to two branches, i.e., Smt. Nune Mangayamma and Chundru Rudraiah and both the parties are absolute owners and possessors of land to an extent of land and the said land has been purchased by Chundru Rudraiah in a Court auction dated 22.02.1960 and the petitioners belong to Smt. Nune Mangayamma family. It is asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the land of Acs.800.00 cents is a zeroity lanka land situated in the erstwhile Zamindari Village, Ramachandrapuram, H/o. Purushothapatnam. The said land was gradually dwindled down to 289 acres due to submersion of land into river Godavari. One China Venkanna was the ryotwari pattadar under the Pithapuram Zamindar, an extent of Acs.110.00 cents was brought to sell and the same was purchased by Kumara Rajah of Pithapuram in the auction and the remaining extent of Acs.175.00 cents was in possession and enjoyment of the wife and children of Chinna Venkanna, who is ryotwari pattadar and as their family fell in the arrears of the rent to the land holders, the land was auctioned and the same was purchased by Teernati Subbanna, he in turn, sold the land to Komireddi Sreemalu, vide registered sale deed dated 23.12.1940, and he in turn, sold the same to his brother Komireddi Venkata Ratnam, vide registered sale deed dated 22.02.1945 and he mortgaged the land to Vaderevu Jogayyamma Educational Trust and the same was purchased by Chundru Rudraiah. Admittedly, Chundru Rudraiah and Nune Mangayamma are the share holders and Nune Mangayamma has executed a Will dated 02.04.1969 bequeathing her undivided share in the land to her husband-Nune Veerraju.

4. After the Madras Estate Abolition Act, 1948, came into force, the estate village stood vested in the Government, but the ryotwari lands in the estate did not stand transferred to the Government in view of Section 3 of the Act. As such, the petitioners, who are in possession of the land from 01.07.1939, are entitled to ryotwari patta. Though the petitioners are entitled for ryotwari patta, the Tahsildar, Korukonda, opposed granting of ryotwari patta to the

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