Respect for the Civil Court's decree and the obligation of the Revenue Authorities to implement the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/10869/04, dated 23.06.2006 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same.)

This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order dated 22.06.2006 passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/10869/04, by which the petitioner's name was deleted from the Patta.

Brief Facts:

2. The case of the petitioner was that he and the 4th respondent's father, namely, Santhanam were brothers and sons of A.G.Rajagopal Naidu and there were two daughters also. On 10.06.1965, the said Rajagopal Naidu executed a Will in favour of his sons and daughters, in which, the petitioner was allotted Schedule C property and the father of the 4th respondent was allotted the property of B Schedule;

2.1. Though the property in dispute in S.No.196/2 to an extent of 66 cents was originally allotted to the father of the 4th respondent, by way of deed of exchange, the properties were exchanged between them. Subsequently, the 4th respondent, in the capacity of Power of Attorney filed an application before the 3rd respondent to delete the entries made in favour of the petitioner in Patta No.910 with regard to the property in S.No.196/2 and to entire the name of the 4th respondent's father, suppressing the factum of exchange;

2.2. It was submitted that after enquiry, the 3rd respondent deleted the name of the petitioner from Patta No.910 on 09.08.2000 and issued a fresh patta in favour of the 4th respondent vide Patta No.415 for the said property, aggrieved by which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent with all relevant documents. The 2nd respondent, after hearing either side, set aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent and ordered inclusion of the name of the petitioner. Against the order of the 2nd respondent, a Revision Petition was filed by the 4th respondent on 24.02.2004 before the 1st respondent, which came to be allowed on 22.06.2006 and the said order is impugned herein.

2.3. It was further submitted that though there was a provision to file 2nd revision initially, it was subsequently withdrawn by the Land Administration Department with effect from 19.08.2008, with a direction to the aggrieved parties to approach the Competent Court of Law and having no other efficacious remedy, the petitioner is before this Court against the order dated 22.06.2006.

3. There is no counter filed by the Government and the 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been inter alia stated as follows:

i) The present petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner had approached this Court after a lapse of almost 10 years. Though there were disputes over the subject matter in respect of S.No.196/2, the 4th respondent obtained a favourable order in the suits, but however, the judgments and decrees passed in the suits were reversed in A.S.Nos.13/2013 and 1 of 2014, thereby the petitioner was declared as title holder of the disputed land in S.No.196/2. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Appellate Court, the 4th respondent has filed S.A.(MD) Nos.614 and 615 of 2015 before this Court and the same are pending;

ii) It was stated by the 4th respondent that in order to defeat the rights in the pending Second Appeals, the petitioner has come up with the present petition with an inordinate delay of 10 years. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that mere wrong entry of the name in the Patta in the UDR scheme will not confer any title to the petitioner over the disputed properties and the petitioner cannot claim any right over the properties, especially on the strength of a concocted unregistered deed of exchange and therefore, it was prayed that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vigorously submitted that the 1st respondent, without appraising the document