Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, JJ.
K. Jaipal Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and Others – Respondents
Decided On : 13-10-2023
Joint Family - Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities - Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 5, 9 - The court examined the extent and scope of jurisdiction of Revenue authorities in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5 and 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The court held that the Revenue Authorities did not have the power or jurisdiction to decide complicated questions of title and possession. The orders passed by the Joint Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer were found to be devoid of jurisdiction and in excess of their powers conferred by the Act of 1971. The court allowed the writ petition and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over ancestral properties between the writ petitioners and the respondents. The writ petitioners claimed a 50% share in the ancestral lands, while the respondents contested this claim. The Revenue Authorities had passed orders in favor of the respondents, which the writ petitioners challenged before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Revenue Authorities did not have the jurisdiction to decide complicated questions of title and possession. The orders passed by the Revenue Authorities were deemed to be devoid of jurisdiction and in excess of their powers conferred by the Act of 1971. As a result, the court allowed the writ petition and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was the extent and scope of jurisdiction of Revenue authorities in deciding disputes over ancestral properties and the powers conferred under Section 5 and 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Revenue Authorities did not have the power or jurisdiction to decide complicated questions of title and possession. The orders passed by the Revenue Authorities were found to be devoid of jurisdiction and in excess of their powers conferred by the Act of 1971. The court emphasized that complex and serious disputes of title falling beyond the ambit of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1989 are not within the adjudicative authority of revenue authorities under the Act of 1971.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, finding the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities to be without jurisdiction and in excess of their powers conferred by the Act of 1971. The appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT:
(N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.)
Heard the learned counsel Mr. B.Venkateshwarlu appearing for the appellants, learned Government Pleader Mr. Allam Ramesh for the official respondents and the learned counsel Mr.V.Ramakrishna Reddy appearing for the unofficial respondents and perused the material made available on record.
2. The appellant herein is the 3rd respondent in the W.P. No.23945 of 2000. The respondents No.1 and 2 herein are the respondents No.1 and 2 in the W.P. No.23945 of 2000. The respondent No.3 herein is the respondent No.4 in the W.P. No.23945 of 2000. The respondents No.4 to 9 herein are the writ petitioners in the W.P. No.23945 of 2000. The respondents No.10 to 12 are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.5 as per Court order dated 01.02.2023 vide I.A. No.1 of 2022 in W.A. No.142 of 2009.
3. This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is the respondent No.3 in the writ petition, assailing the order dated 26.12.2008 passed in W.P. No.23945 of 2000 by the learned Single Judge.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred as they were arrayed in the writ petition.
5. The case of the writ petitioners, in nutshell, is that the writ petitioners and the respondents No.3 and 4 share a common lineage. According to them, Kommidi Kanna Reddy and his brothers Kommidi Venkat Reddy, Kommidi Laxma Reddy, Kommidi Tirumal Reddy and Kommidi Ramachandra Reddy had several ancestral properties. Kommidi Ramachandra Reddy had three sons, Narsimha Reddy, Jagga Reddy and Narayan Reddy. Jaipal Reddy, respondent 3, is the grandson of Sri Jagga Reddy through his son Ramachandra Reddy. The writ petitioners on the other hand are the descendents of the other brother Laxma Reddy. Laxma Reddy had one son Ram Reddy. Ram Reddy had two wives and the sons of one wife were Siddha Reddy and Gopal Reddy. Writ petitioners No.1 to 4 are the sons of Gopal Reddy, while the writ petitioners No.5 and 6 and respondent No.4 are the sons of Siddha Reddy.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONRS :
6. According to the writ petitioners, there was a partition in the family whereby the subject ancestral lands admeasuring Acs.23.07 guntas at Kondapur Village were retained by two sections of the family, namely Jagga Reddy who had 50% share and Siddha Reddy and Gopal Reddy, who jointly had 50% share. After the death of their predecessors-in-title, the writ petitioners lay a claim to 50% share with respondent No.4 in these lands and would submit that the remaining 50% fell to the share of respondent No.3, claiming through his grandfather Jagga Reddy.
7. The writ petitioners would submit that the names of Gopal Reddy, Siddha Reddy and Jagga Reddy were entered in the khasra pahani of 1954-55 under the ownership column and that the entries found under the column ‘pattadar’ in the revenue records continued to show the names of Gopal Reddy and Siddha Reddy also.
8. While so, it is stated that respondent No.3 approached the Revenue Authorities in 1988 as he intended to sell away Ac.7-22 guntas out of his half share in the land admeasuring Ac.15-04 guntas in Sy.No.244 in Kondapur Village which formed part of the larger extent of Ac.23-07 guntas. When the other half sharers, Gopal Reddy and Siddha Reddy, questioned the same, respondent No.3 challenged the correctness of the entries in the khasra pahani of 1954-55 by filing an appeal under Section 15(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulation of 1358 Fasli (for short, ‘Regulation of 1358-F’) before the District Revenue Officer, Ranga Reddy District. Thereupon, Gopal Reddy filed a partition suit, O.S.No.348 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy, against respondent No.3 and others seeking partition of the land at Kondapur admeasuring Acs.23-07 guntas. The said Gopal Reddy filed a counter bringing this aspect to the notice of the District Revenue Officer who dismissed the appeal filed by respondent N
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Revenue Authorities do not have the power or jurisdiction to decide complicated questions of title and possession, especially in cases involvi....
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.
A land title claim cannot be raised after a significant delay; jurisdiction lies with the Civil Court for disputed ownership.
The revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the ROR Act cannot be exercised after a long delay, and the settled rights of a person under the ROR Act cannot be unsettled after a lapse of more than ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that revenue authorities are not competent to decide complicated questions of title, and adherence to procedures mandated under the Act and the Rul....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the Revenue Divisional Officer's authority to treat an application as an appeal and the requirement for parties to follow the ....
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
