IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
Ownership disputes regarding agricultural land must be adjudicated in Civil Court, as revenue officials lack authority to determine property rights.

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice J. Sreenivas Rao)

This intra-court appeal is filed by the appellants aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge, by which a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.10280 of 2002 has been dismissed.

2. Heard Sri B. Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri P.Chandra Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2. No representation on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5.

3. On 16.12.2023, learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to file necessary application for substitution of legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1. However, during the course of hearing, he submitted that respondent No.1 is not having any other legal heirs and no petition seeking to bring the legal representatives on record is required to be filed.

Brief facts of the case:

4. The claim of appellant No.1 is that he is owner and possessor of the agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.12.24 gts. in Sy.No.65 and Ac.14.01 gts. in Sy.No.274/1 and 2, situated at Azampur Village of P.A.Pally Mandal, Nalgonda District, (for short, ‘the subject property’) having succeeded the estate of his father, viz., Panuganti Ayyanna, and his name was mutated in the revenue records in the year 1964-65. It is further averred that he being owner and exclusive possessor of the subject property, settled Ac.14.01 gts. in Sy.No.274/1 and 2 in favour of his three daughters through registered gift settlement deed vide document bearing No.530 of 1995 dated 02.03.1995 and they sold out the said property through registered sale deeds vide document bearing Nos.5718 of 1997 and 5817 of 1997 dated 21.11.1997 and 24.11.1997 respectively and the remaining landed property to an extent of Ac.12.24 gts. in Sy.No.65 is in his possession. It is further averred that his brother, viz., Panuganti Venkaiah, who is the husband of respondent No.1, died prior to 1950, as such, respondent No.1 has not succeeded the estate, in view of the law prevailing to the widows prior to 1956 and for the first time right to the property to women is made applicable after commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is averred that his father P.Ayyanna died in the year 1960-61 leaving behind appellant No.1, respondent No.1 and Panuganti Lachamma, who is the wife of P.Ayyanna, as his survival legal heirs and thereafter on the death of P.Lachamma, who is the mother of appellant No.1, he succeeded the entire estate of his deceased father P. Ayyanna.

4.1. While things stood thus, respondent No.1 with an ulterior motive to claim the share in the property approached respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 has taken suo motu revision exercising the powers conferred under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh/Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the RoR Act’) passed order on 24.04.2002 in Case No.C3/27988/2000 allotting land in favour of appellant No.1, respondent No.1 and Panuganti Lachamma, who is the wife of P.Ayyanna, though he is not having right and jurisdiction to pass the said order. Aggrieved by the same, appellant No.1 filed W.P.No.10280 of 2002. Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the said writ petition, held that if the appellants are so aggrieved by such rectification, their remedy is to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction seeking declaration of such right. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred this writ appeal.

Submissions of learned counsel for the appellants:

5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that respondent No.2 is not having authority or jurisdiction to initiate suo motu revision under Section 9 of the RoR Act and pass order for mutation of the name of respondent No.1 in the revenue records by allotting share in her favour. Admittedly, respondent No.1 has to approach the competent Civil Court to establish her rights in respect of the subject property. He fur