Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
B.Karunakar, S/o. B.Mallanna – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No.5529 of 2018
Decided on : 01-08-2023
Joint Collector - Property Dispute - Andhra Pradesh (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Andhra Pradesh (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 9 - The court discussed the jurisdiction of revenue authorities in deciding title disputes, the limitations of mutation proceedings, and the exercise of suo moto powers by the Joint Collector. The court also referred to legal principles established in Mahila Bajrangi v. Badribai, Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, and Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of certain properties based on a registered settlement deed, while the 5th respondent claimed rights based on a sale deed. The Joint Collector ordered deletion of entries and directed a fresh enquiry, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Joint Collector exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on the disputed death date of the petitioner's grandfather and set aside the order. It emphasized the need for adherence to procedures mandated under the Act and the Rules.
Issues: The key issues were whether revenue authorities can decide title disputes, the exercise of suo moto powers by the Joint Collector, and the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar in updating record of rights and issuing Pattadar Pass Book.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that revenue authorities are not competent to decide complicated questions of title and emphasized the need for adherence to procedures mandated under the Act and the Rules. It also highlighted the limitations of mutation proceedings and the exercise of suo moto powers.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Joint Collector for a fresh enquiry, with a directive to consider the exercise of suo moto powers and adhere to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Both parties were instructed to cooperate during the enquiry.
ORDER :
The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
2. The averments, in brief, in the affidavit are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.0.77 cents in Sy.No.265-2; Ac.0.38 cents in Sy.No.260-6 and Ac.0.57 cents in Sy.No.260-7 totalling Ac.1.72 cents in Kunuthuru Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District. Petitioner acquired the property by way of registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 10.03.2006 executed by Grandfather Balagonda Nadipu Bodaiah. Petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The 4th respondent updated the Record of Right and issued pattadar pass book in favour of the petitioner.
(a) The 5th respondent, brother of the petitioner, filed O.S.No.193 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram against the petitioner and others seeking partition. The said suit was dismissed for default on 02.02.2017. The 5th respondent filed W.P.No.23375 of 2016 and the same was disposed of on 22.07.2016. After disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner made representation dated 18.08.2016 to the District Collector, Anantapuram District seeking cancellation of pattadar pass book and title deeds.
(b) The 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Anantapur by proceedings in D.Dis.No.6043/2016/D4, dated 19.01.2018 ordered deletion of entries of petitioner against the properties mentioned and further directed the Tahsildar, Dharmavaram to issue Title Deed cum Pattadar Pass Book to the rightful pattadar after due enquiry as per the procedure. Aggrieved by the said direction, the above writ petition is filed.
3. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit. It was contended in the counter-affidavit that the 2nd respondent conducted enquiry. The Tahsildar, Dharmavaram submitted report in Rc.No.C/237/2017, dated 09.11.2017 stating that Nadipi Bodaiah died on 20.08.2005. The sons of Nadipi Bodaiah i.e. Mallanna and Naganna are having equal rights in the property. Elder son Mallanna executed registered sale deed dated 31.01.2011 in favour of his son B.Ravindra in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0.77 cents in Sy.No.265-2, Ac.0.38 cents in Sy.No.260-6 and Ac.0.57 cents in Sy.No.260-7. After considering the same, the Authority directed for deletion of entries from the electronically maintained Record of Rights and further directed the Tahsildar, to conduct enquiry and issue Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed to the rightful pattadar. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Sri Sivaram, learned counsel representing Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri P.Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri Vijay Ashrit, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the order impugned in the writ petition. The 2nd respondent could not have decided the genuineness of registered Dana-settlement Deed dated 10.03.2006. He would also submit that the 5th respondent filed suit O.S.No.193 of 2012 and after dismissal of the suit, approached the Revenue authorities. He would also submit that the Joint Collector did not record any finding regarding non-adherence procedure mandated under the Andhra Pradesh (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act) and the Rules made thereunder.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent on the other hand would contend that the Grandfather Nadipi Bodaiah died on 20.08.2005. Hence, the execution o
The main legal point established in the judgment is that revenue authorities are not competent to decide complicated questions of title, and adherence to procedures mandated under the Act and the Rul....
The court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant records and providing reasons for decisions in adjudicating land disputes under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Boo....
A land title claim cannot be raised after a significant delay; jurisdiction lies with the Civil Court for disputed ownership.
Claims for land ownership after significant delays must be addressed by civil courts, as administrative bodies cannot adjudicate on disputed titles without violating established rights.
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A REPRESENTATION QUESTIONING THE MUTATION OF NAMES IN REVENUE RECORDS WITHOUT AN APPEAL BEING FILED UNDER SECTION 5(5) OF THE ROR ACT.
A Revisioning Authority under the ROR Act cannot unilaterally cancel a pattadar passbook without assigning reasons, especially when the holder of the passbook has material documents indicating their ....
The revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the ROR Act cannot be exercised after a long delay, and the settled rights of a person under the ROR Act cannot be unsettled after a lapse of more than ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the Revenue Divisional Officer's authority to treat an application as an appeal and the requirement for parties to follow the ....
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
