Jurisdiction of revenue authorities to issue mutation orders upheld when confirmed ownership certificates exist, superseding prior claims based on disputed titles.

ORDER :

B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.

The order of the respondent No.2 – The Special Tribunal, Mechal-Malkajgiri District, dated 24.06.2021 in proceedings ST.No.87/2021/D1/108/2019 is questioned in this Writ of Certiorari, as being arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction.

2. The facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under:

(a) The respondent Nos.7 to 9 filed mutation application before the respondent No.6 – Tahsildar, Medchal Mandal, seeking incorporation of their names in ROR register in respect of the agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.15.02 guntas in Sy.Nos.363/1 and364 of Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajigiri District. The respondent Nos.7 to 9 claimed to be absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.3.29 guntas in Sy.No.363/1 and the land admeasuring Ac.11.13 guntas in Sy.No.364, Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’). One Thokala Ramaiah was the protected tenant of the subject land; he sold the same to the husband of the respondent No.7, B.P. Narsing Rao herein, who was in possession of the subject lands and after his death, the respondent Nos.7 to 9 are in possession of the subject lands. When the writ petitioners, one T.L. Bhadraiah i.e. father of respondent Nos.12 to 14 herein and T.L. Pentaiah tried to interfere with their possession, the respondents No.7 to 9 filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in OS.No.598 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.10.2012 holding them as absolute owners and possessors of the subject land. As such, they applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records.

(b) By opposing the application of the respondents No.7 to 9, the petitioners filed counter stating that the respondent No.6 - Tahsildar does not have jurisdiction to entertain the mutation application as per the provisions of section 3 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act, 1971). As per the said provision, the MRO has no jurisdiction to rectify or correct the entries existing for more than one year and the names of the petitioners and their predecessor-in-title, having been reflected in the revenue records, for the past more than 40 years. The petitioners filed an application in IA.No.2979 of 2014 to set aside the ex parte decree passed in OS.No.598 of 2010 and also IA.No.2978/2014 for condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside ex parte decree. The said applications were pending consideration at the time of filing the counter in the mutation application and the applications were allowed subsequently, as such, there is no decree as on the date of passing the order dated 01.07.2017 by the respondent No.6 against the petitioners.

(c) Subsequently, the respondent Nos.7 to 9 had withdrawn the suit. Therefore, there is no decree in their favour. The respondent Nos.7 to 9 do not have title to the subject land and neither the respondent Nos.7 to 9 nor B.P. Narsing Rao or Thokala Ramaiah were in possession of the subject lands. The revenue record clearly establishes the possession of the petitioners over the land in Sy.Nos.363/1 and 364. The petitioner No.1 purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0.27 guntas in Sy.No.363/1 and Ac.3.13 guntas in Sy.No.364 from one Smt. Y. Shamantha under registered sale deed bearing Document No.2290/1994 and the petitioner No.2 purchased the land admeasuring Ac.3.02 guntas in Sy.No.363/1 and Ac.1.20