Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
Balaga Ramanamma - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 40738 Of 2022
Decided On : 20-02-2025
(A) Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 - Procedural irregularity in mutation of land records - The petitioner challenged the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector regarding land mutation without proper notice and inquiry - The court found that the Tahsildar failed to follow due process, leading to the endorsement being set aside. (Paras 10, 11)
(B) Jurisdiction of Civil Court - The Joint Collector advised the parties to approach the Civil Court for title disputes, but did not set aside the earlier order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was necessary for clarity. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of land through a gift settlement deed, while unofficial respondents sought to mutate their names in the land records. The Revenue Divisional Officer's order was passed without notice to the petitioner, leading to procedural challenges.
Findings of Court:
The endorsement by the Tahsildar allowing the unofficial respondents' application was set aside, and the matter was remanded for proper notice and inquiry.
Issues: The main issues included whether proper notice was given to the petitioner and the authority of the Joint Collector to advise parties to go to Civil Court without setting aside the previous order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of following due process in land mutation cases and the importance of setting aside previous orders to avoid confusion in jurisdiction.
Result: The endorsement dated 18.10.2021 issued by the Tahsildar is set aside, and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration.
Key Points: - The Tahsildar’s endorsement allowing mutation was set aside for lack of proper notice and inquiry, remanding for fresh proceedings with due process (!) . - The Court highlighted the necessity of following due process in land mutation cases, including notices to interested parties, and the need to set aside prior orders to avoid jurisdictional confusion (!) (!) . - The Joint Collector’s advisory to approach Civil Court for title disputes must accompany with setting aside earlier orders to clarify jurisdiction; subsequent orders transferring or altering jurisdiction were noted in the context of district bifurcation (!) (!) . - The matter was remanded to the Tahsildar to issue notices and pass a reasoned order after personal hearing, in light of the 10.10.2024 order and the prior order’s deficiencies (!) (!) . - There is a finding that the mutation applications were entertained without proper notice, making the 18.10.2021 endorsement unsustainable (!) . - The order dated 10.10.2024 by the Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam, setting aside prior orders and advising settlement in Civil Court is recognized as controlling the outcome for the subject land (!) (!) .
Order :
(RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.)
Impugning the orders of the Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Srikakulam, Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda vide proceedings in Rc.No.1979/2021/D8, dated 23.03.2022 & Rc.No.167/2020/A, dated 18.09.2021 respectively and endorsement of the Tahsildar, Palakonda vide Letter No.167/2021/B, dated 18.10.2021, the present Writ Petition is filed.
2. Heard Sri A.V.Pardha Saradhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for official respondents and Sri Vijay Kumar Naidana, leaned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.8 and 9.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the petitioner is the absolute owner of Ac.2.00 cents of land bearing survey No.84/2 situated at Nandivada village, N.K.Rajapuram, Palakonda Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District and the same was devolved upon her under Gift Settlement deed executed by her husband. Subsequently, the revenue authorities have mutated the name of the petitioner in revenue records and issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in her favour. He further submitted that the unofficial respondents made application dated 04.07.2020 through mee-seva for mutation of their names for an extent of Ac.1.72 cents in the said survey number. As the Tahsildar has rejected the said application, they made a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda to enquire into the matter and respondent No.6- Revenue Divisional Officer has taken the same on file as an ROR appeal. The Revenue Divisional Officer, without any notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, passed order dated 18.09.2021 directing the Tahsildar to mutate the names of the unofficial respondents for an extent of Ac.1.71 cents of land bearing survey No.84/2 of Nandivada. He further submitted that aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the Joint Collector, Srikakulam District. Since the said Revision though was heard and posted for orders, no order was passed till the end of August, 2022. In the meanwhile there was bifurcation of districts and when the petitioner approached respondent No.4, he was informed that her Revision Petition would be transmitted to the office of Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam District and on enquiry in the office of Joint Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam District, he was informed that the file was not received by their office. He further submitted that the petitioner filed W.P.No.28170 of 2022 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 05.09.2022 directed the Joint Collector, Srikakulam District to consider the revision petition filed by the petitioner. He further submitted that in the meanwhile, the Joint Collector, Srikakulam transmitted the copy of the order dated 23.03.2022 passed in Revision and as seen from the said order, it is found that the copy of the order was posted on 29.08.2022 i.e., five months after passing of the order. He further submitted that the Joint Collector, Srikakulam District without looking into the facts of the case, treating the issue as ‘Property dispute within the family’, directed/advised the petitioner and the unofficial respondents to file a suit before the competent Civil Court to decide the title over the property and accordingly dismissed the Revision vide order dated 23.03.2022. He further submitted that in the meanwhile basing on the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the application made by the unofficial respondents has been entertained by the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, has allowed the unofficial respondents’ application under proceedings dated 18.10.2021. He further submitted that though the Joint Collector has come to a conclusion that there is a title dispute and when particularly given an advice to the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents to approach the competent
The court ruled that procedural irregularities in land mutation must be rectified, emphasizing the need for proper notice and inquiry before altering land records.
The Revenue Divisional Officer lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate applications for land mutation, which must be filed before the Tahsildar according to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pa....
The main legal point established is the requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing orders under Sec.5(3) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passb....
The court emphasized that revenue authorities must respect the principles of natural justice and cannot alter records without notice, especially when a civil suit is pending.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a preliminary decree in a partition suit does not conclusively determine the shares of the parties, and the authority must act independently o....
Jurisdiction of revenue authorities is limited to statutory procedures; unauthorized actions based on invalid orders do not confer legal rights over property.
The court affirmed that a revision petition under the ROR Act can be filed without a time limit, emphasizing the need for a fresh enquiry into land ownership claims, especially in cases of alleged fr....
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
