Point of Law :
In exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it being discretionary and equitable remedy, Writ Court may decline to grant the relief to a petitioner, in the given facts of a case, even if legal flaw in the decision of competent authority is made out.Even when there are serious illegalities in taking a decision by statutory authority affecting the petitioner adversely, Court need not grant the relief prayed for, if setting aside the decision assailed would result in restoring another illegal decision.

ORDER :

Heard, Mr. Palle Sriharinath learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

2. The material averments and documents placed on record would disclose that petitioners 1, 2, husband of petitioner No.5 and late Vallakati Laxmaiah are the sons of late Pentaiah, and petitioners 3 and 4 are the daughters-in-law of late Laxmaiah. Petitioners claim that late Pentaiah purchased the land to an extent of Ac.1.05 guntas in Sy.No.1567/A of Ramayampet village and mandal, Medak district, by way of unregistered sale deed dated 28.01.1964 from the then pattadar Sri Alladi Bhoomaiah. In acknowledgment of payment of full sale consideration, the then pattadar also issued receipt, attested by his sons and late Pentaiah was inducted into physical possession of the subject land and ever since the family has been in possession and enjoyment of the said extent of land. The name of late Pentaiah was recorded in the revenue records against possession column. He was also issued Rythu Passbook. Late Pentaiah applied to validate unregistered sale deed. During the pendency of proceedings, he died. Thereafter, successors-in-interest to late Pentaiah prosecuted the matter.

3. According to petitioners, unregistered sale deed was validated by the Tahsildar and 13-B Certificate was issued on 03.09.1997. Consequently, pattadar passbooks and title deeds in patta Nos.1788 to 1792 were also issued. These proceedings were not challenged by the respondents 5 to 12. Further, though 13-B certificate was issued, names of petitioners were not mentioned in the revenue records. According to the petitioners, after issuing notices to the respondents 5 to 12 and on consideration of their objections, the Tahsildar passed orders on 04.05.2007 directing the Village Revenue Officer, Ramayampet to mutate the names of petitioners by deleting the names of unofficial respondents. However, mutation proceedings were confined to Ac.0.19 guntas only. Aggrieved against mutation, respondents 5 and 6 filed appeal under Section 5 (5) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, ‘Act, 1971’) praying to set aside the orders of Tahsildar dated 04.05.2007. Stand of unofficial respondents appears to be that the copies of 13-B certificate and unregistered sale deeds were not supplied by petitioners in spite of specific request made, implying thereby they were in dark about said documents. On 17.08.2012, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders setting aside the 13-B Certificate and matter was remanded to Tahsildar. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners preferred revision to the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. Said revision was rejected by the order dated 20.04.2019, impugned in this Writ Petition.

4. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the order of the Joint Collector is ex facie illegal and is in violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and competence. The Joint Collector failed to appreciate that the Revenue Divisional Officer erred in setting aside the 13-B Certificate after long lapse of granting the certificate. Further, though there was no challenge to 13-B certificate, it was erroneously set aside by the appellate authority. Having held that the files are not traceable, the Joint Collector has no basis to uphold the decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer. It also appears that both the Joint Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer have failed to verify the relevant revenue records. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the sale transaction, which was validly executed followed by possession and validated by the competent authority, cannot be nullified after long lapse of time. Learned counsel submitted that the Joint Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the petitioners to avail civil law remedy. The Joint Collector was only concerned as to whether the decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer was validly made and in due complia