IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the issuance of pattadar passbooks is not conclusive proof of title, and title disputes must be resolved by a civil court.

JUDGMENT :

The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner’s father purchased the property to an extent of Ac.21.35 in Sy.No.58 in Budidapadu Village, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa District in the year 1979 from the 6th respondent and his mother under unregistered Agreement of Sale and after receiving the entire sale consideration the possession was also delivered to the petitioner’s father and ever since he was in possession of the property till his death. After the death of the petitioner’s farther, the petitioner and his brother succeeded the subject land and both are in continuous possession of the same. When the 6th respondent tried to interfere with the possession, the petitioner got filed a suit vide O.S.No.124/2009 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Mydukur for permanent injunction and wherein the same was decreed on 16.03.2016 as the 6th respondent remained exparte. Thereafter, the GPA holder of the 6th respondent herein filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC but no orders as on today obtained.

It is further case that the 6th respondent also filed a suit vide O.S.No.249/2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur for permanent injunction and the said suit was dismissed for default on 08.12.2010 and the 6th respondent either filed application of restoration of suit or any appeal, the said order has become final. During family partition between the petitioner and his brother the subject land fell to the share of the petitioner and wherein he approached the Revenue Divisional Officer-4th respondent herein for mutation of his name in the revenue records and cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds standing in the name of the 6th respondent. The 4th respondent after calling for report from the Tahsildar-5th respondent and considering all the relevant records including decree of civil court dated 04.03.2019 directed the 5th respondent to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds and mutate the petitioner’s name in all the revenue records. Accordingly, the Tahsildar-5th respondent mutated the petitioner’s name in all the revenue records and also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in his favor. As against the same, the 6th respondent preferred a revision before the 3rd respondent but did not obtain any stay orders on the 4th respondent’s order.

It is further case of the petitioner that on 23.08.2017 the petitioner gifted the subject property to his wife and his daughters under registered gift deeds and wherein the 5th respondent also again mutated the petitioner’s wife and children’s name in all revenue records and also issued pattadar passbooks and title deed to them. In the meantime, the 3rd respondent took up the revision for hearing and detailed counters have been filed along with written arguments and the revisional authority has relegated the parties to approach Civil Court as there is a serious dispute of title and possession and by setting aside the issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in favor of the petitioner. Impugning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sai Sanjay, learned counsel representing Sri S.Dilip Jaya Ram, learned counsel for the 6th respondent and Ms.Prasanthi Gude, learned Assistant Government Pleader.

3. Learned for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that when the revisional authority comes to a conclusion that there is a serious dispute with regard to title and possession of a property and while relegating the parties to go to Civil Court cannot stay issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in favor of the petitioner. The revisional authority vide order dated 20.03.2022 has granted stay on issuance of pattadar passbook contrary to the settled principles of law. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Smt.P.Ghousia Begum and others v. Basireddy Rukminamma and others, 2018 (5) ALT 148 (D.B.