Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
Meka Satyanarayana and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The Joint Collector, Additional District Magistrate and Ors. – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 17709 of 2016 and 18629 of 2017
Decided On : 13-03-2024
(A) A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 9 - Writ petitions challenging cancellation of Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds - The authority must not cancel documents without a civil court's determination on the genuineness of the documents - The court held that the orders to keep the documents in abeyance were unsustainable. (Paras 12, 14, 15)
(B) Appeal - Maintainability - The court ruled that appeals against the issuance of PPBs and TDs are not maintainable under Section 6-A of the Act, overruling previous decisions. (Paras 11, 12, 33)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed ownership of agricultural land through partition and settlement deeds, while respondents alleged the documents were fraudulent and sought cancellation. The authorities kept the documents in abeyance pending civil court resolution.
Findings of Court:
The court restored the PPBs and TDs, stating that the genuineness of the documents must be determined by a civil court, not by revenue authorities.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of PPBs and TDs was justified without a civil court's ruling on the documents' validity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that disputes regarding property ownership and document validity must be resolved by a civil court, and revenue authorities cannot unilaterally cancel registered documents. The orders to keep documents in abeyance were deemed illegal.
Result: Writ Petitions allowed.
ORDER :
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
1. The Court made the following common Order:
As the parties, as well as the subject matter and question of facts and law involved in both the writ petitions are identical, they are being disposed of by this common order
2. W.P. No.17709/2016
The 1st petitioner is the husband, the 2nd petitioner is his wife and petitioners 3 and 4 are their daughter and son respectively. Succinctly their case is thus:
(a) The 1st petitioner and 5th respondent are the sons of late Meka Krishna Murthy. The 4th respondent is the wife of Krishna Murthy and Mother of 1st petitioner and 5th respondent.
(b) Pending writ petition, respondent No. 4 died and 10th respondent is impleaded as her LR. So also 5th respondent died and respondents 7 to 9 are impleaded as his LRs.
(c) Petitioners' case is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.22.29 cents situated in R.S. No.368/1, 396/1B, 544/5, 377/1D, 378, 542/1 of Kadiyadda Village of Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. Petitioners 1, 3 and 4 got their respective shares in the above said property in a partition among them, whereas the 2nd petitioner got her share through a registered settlement deed vide document No. 3480 of 1985 executed by her father-in-law late Krishna Murthy. Thus all the petitioners are owners of Ac.22.29 cents of agricultural land. Pattadar Passbooks (PPBs) and Title Deeds (TDs) were also issued to the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 on 15.04.1998 and to the 2nd petitioner on 26.08.1995. While so, respondents 4 and 5 approached the 2nd respondent seeking cancellation of their PPBs and TDs on the ground that they were issued on the basis of fake and bogus documents. The 2nd respondent vide his order 11.02.2013, having rightly observed that title disputes and allegations relating to forgery and allegations relating to fake documents can be decided only by civil Court, however has passed orders keeping the PPBs and TDs of the petitioners to be kept in abeyance till the civil Court decides the matter.
(d) Aggrieved by the above order to the extent of keeping the PPBs and TDs in abeyance, the petitioners filed revision before 1st respondent U/s 9 of A.P Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short "The Act, 1971'). Respondents 4 and 5 also approached the 1st respondent contending that 2nd respondent ought to have cancelled the PPBs and TDs of the petitioners instead of keeping them in abeyance. In those revision petitions, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 28.04.2016 pronounced on 12.05.2016 canceling the PPBs and TDs of the petitioners, though holding that dispute of title and allegations relating to forgery and fraud cannot be decided by the revenue authorities except the civil Court. Having so held, the 1st respondent ought not to have cancelled the PBs and TDs of the petitioners which is unjust, illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence the writ petition.
3. The 3rd respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition as follows:
(a) The 4th respondent herein filed petition before RDO, Eluru / 2nd respondent stating that her elder son i.e., 5th respondent and younger son/1st petitioner and herself are the members of Joint Family. She stated that her father-in-law Meka Soma Raju @ Swami and his 6 sons executed registered partition deed vide document No. 5028, dated 19.12.1957 as per which the G- Schedule mentioned properties fell to the share of her husband. The G- schedule property was not partitioned between her and her sons after the expiry of her husband on 20.03.1999. Later she suggested her sons to partition the joint family properties. However, the 1st petitioner did not agree for proposed partition and obtained PPBs and TDs in the names of the petitioners. Hence the 4th respondent ultimately requested the authorities to cancel the PPBs and TDs which were obtained by the petitioners illegally. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioners and respondent
The court ruled that only civil courts can determine the validity of property documents, overruling previous decisions on appeal maintainability regarding PPBs and TDs.
The court affirmed that prior final decrees in partition suits are binding and that claims based on wills must be established in separate proceedings.
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.
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to resolve title disputes over land, which must be adjudicated in civil court.
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.
Revenue authorities may not adjudicate on civil title disputes under A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act; parties should approach civil court for resolution.
The court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention in land disputes, affirming that the right of appeal must be explicitly provided by law.
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
