Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pagadala Subbarayudu @ Subbaiah vs Revenue Divisonal Officer on 12 December, 2024
RC,J
W.P.No.39323 of 2022
1
APHC010658932022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3332]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 39323/2022
Between:
Pagadala Subbarayudu @ Subbaiah ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA
The Court made the following:
ORDER
The challenge laid in this writ petition is to the orders passed by respondent no.3 vide proceeding proceedingss No.D.Dis.E2/APLS(ROR)/26/2018, No.D.Dis.E2/APLS(ROR)/26/2018 dated 22.11.2022, being illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires of the powers vested under RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 2 Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the property in an extent of Ac.1-40 cents in Survey No.555/1 and in an extent of Ac.1-40 cents in 555/2 of Mamillapalli village of C.K.Dinne Mandal is the absolute property of his grandfather Pagadala Subbaiah and consequent to his death, father of the petitioner Pagadala Nagaiah became absolute owner and after his death the petitioner and his brother being the sons came into possession of the subject property and have been cultivating the same. One Pothireddy Naga Munaiah and others filed a suit in O.S.No.162 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of an extent of Ac.0-49 cents in Survey No.555/1 against the petitioner, respondent no.6 and others. The said suit was dismissed by judgment dated 21.01.2013 holding that the plaintiffs therein have no right over the said property. In the said suit, respondent no.6 and her husband deposed that the land in survey No.555/1 originally belonged to Pagadala Nagaiah. The appeal preferred against the said judgment vide Appeal Suit No.24 of 2014 was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa. Similarly, Yekasi Gurrappa and others filed O.S.No.163 of 2006 for declaration of their right and recovery of possession in respect of an extent of Ac.3-18 RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 3 cents in Survey No.555 and the said suit was dismissed by judgment dated 21.01.2013 holding that the plaintiffs therein failed to prove their right over the plaint schedule property.
It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter he filed representation to respondent no.5-Tahsildar for mutation of his name in revenue records for the subject property, since he is son of the real owner of the property P.Nagaiah, stating that the observations made in the suit in O.S.No.162 of 2006, Pagadala Nagaiah is the owner of the subject property and he never sold the property, however, one Madam Rama Subbaiah and others, who have no right and no link documents showing title, have sold the subject lands to respondent no.6 under registered sale deed dated 22.06.1998 and in pursuance thereof respondent no.6 got her name mutated in revenue records and obtained pattadar and title deed passbooks for the subject lands in a fraudulent manner and hence to mutate his name in the revenue records and delete the entries made in relation to subject property in the pattadar passbooks issued to respondent no.6. Thereupon, respondent no.5-Tahsildar verified the village accounts, conducted enquiry by issuing notices to the parties as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and submitted a detailed report to respondent no.4-Revenue Divisional Officer, with a request to take necessary RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 4 action as per Act,1971. Pursuantly, respondent no.4-Revenue Divisional Officer, initiated proceedings under Section 5(5) of the Act vide Ref.No.H/920/ 2015, issued notices, conducted enquiry and having found that Pagadala Nagaiah, who was original owner of the subject land never sold it to anybody and there is no evidence available on record that the subject land was given by way of family arrangement to Dandu Subbarayudu, vendor of respondent no.6, and therefore the sale made by the said Subbarayudu in favour of respondent no.6 does not confer any right over the subject property and hence, the pattadar and passbooks issued in favour of respondent no.6 are liable to be cancelled; directed the respondent no.5-Tahsildar to make necessary changes in revenue records and further directed to conduct enquiry afresh with regard to ownership of the above lands and take action for issuance of pattadar passbook/title deeds to the rightful owners of the above land.
It is the further case of the petitioner that during pendency of the above appeal, the respondent nos. 6 and 7 filed suit in O.S.No.485 of 2018 and obtained interim relief restraining the petitioner from alienating the property vide orders passed in I.A.No.1124 of 2018 in O.S.No.485 of 2018. The respondent nos.6 and 7, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 28.06.2018, preferred revision under Section 9 of the RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 5 Act, 1977 before the Joint Collector and the respondent no.3-Joint Collector vide orders dated 22.11.2022 passed in Revision Proceedings No. D.Dis/E2/APLS(ROR)/26/2018, allowed the revision, setting aside the orders passed by respondent no.4 dated 28.06.2018. The orders passed by respondent no.3-Joint Collector is unsustainable and ultra vires, since the Joint Collector without any jurisdiction has assumed the jurisdiction of Civil Court in deciding title to the property, contrary to the observations made by the competent civil Court and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
3. The respondent no.3-Joint Collector, filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ affidavit further contended that, as per section 9 of the Act, the Joint Collector may either suo motu or on any application made to him, call for and examine the record of any recording authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3,5,5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality proceedings made in respect thereof and thus the Joint Collector has jurisdiction and accordingly considering the merits of the matter, the Joint Collector passed the orders impugned in this writ petition. There is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity and the revisional authority had never travelled beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 6 him by the Act,1977. There are no merits in the matter and the same deserves dismissal.
4. The respondent no.6 filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ affidavit further contended that she purchased Ac.1-78 cents of land situated in Survey No.555/1 from Madam Rama Subbamma and Madam Lakshmi Narasamma under registered sale deed dated 22.06.1998 for valid consideration and ever since she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and in recognition thereof, her name was mutated in revenue records and pattadar and title deed passbooks were issued in her favour. Similarly, respondent no.7 purchased an extent of Ac.1-40 cents. The P.Subbaiah referred to by husband of respondent no.6 in his statement in the suit is different from ancestor of the petitioner. However, the petitioner by wrong interpretation of the statement said to have been made in the suit, wants to lay a false claim over the property. The respondent no.6 and her husband never deposed that the subject property belonged to ancestor of the petitioner Pagadala Nagaiah and even otherwise, title cannot be created basing on an admission in the evidence. The petitioner did not even produce any document to substantiate his contention that the subject property belong to his ancestors. The respondent no.4-Revenue Divisional Officer, upon misinterpretation of the judgments of the competent civil Court allowed the RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 7 appeal preferred by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby they preferred revision. The provisions of Act, 1977 authorize the revisional authority-Joint Collector either suo motu or upon application to revise the orders passed under sections 3,5,5A or 5B of the Act and upon considering the merits of the matter in right perspective, allowed the revision filed by respondent no.6 setting aside the orders passed by respondent no.4. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal.
5. Heard Ms. M.Abhigna, learned counsel, representing Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for official respondents and Sri Abhay Sidhanth Mootha, learned counsel for respondent nos.6 & 7.
6. Ms.M.Abhigna, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the Revisional Authority-Joint Collector had travelled much beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and adjudicated upon matters of title involving civil disputes, upon which the civil Court alone has jurisdiction. The Revisional Authority passed the impugned orders in utter contravention of the observations made by civil Court in O.S.No.162 of 2006 and O.S.No.163 of 2006 wherein title to the subject lands RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 8 had already been decided in favour of the petitioner. Further, since the subject matter is pending adjudication before the competent civil Court in O.S.No.485 of 2018, the revisional authority has no jurisdiction to decide the issue involved in the present revision petition. Therefore, the orders impugned in the writ petition are liable to be set aside.
7. Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while in elaboration to the contents of the counter-affidavit, would submit that Section 9 of the Act, 1971 authorizes the Joint Collector, either suo motu or upon application, to examine the records of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer of Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3,5,5A or 5B in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness or legality of the proceedings and hence the contention raised by the petitioner regarding propriety of the Joint Collector to pass orders is untenable and the same is liable to be rejected. The Revenue Divisional Officer treated the report of the Tahsildar as an appeal and passed orders. The procedure adopted by the Revenue Divisional officer in treating the report as appeal is impermissible as per the provisions of Section 5(5) of the Act,1971 and also in violation of the law declared by Division Bench of this RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 9 Court in Ratnamma vs. Revenue Divisonal Officer, Dharmavaram1. The orders impugned in this writ petition have been passed by the Joint Collector by following due process of law and basing on the merits of the matter. There are no valid grounds either raised or urged before this Court warranting interference of this Court. The writ petition being meritless is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Sri Abhay Sidhanth Mootha, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit would contend that in a suit filed by third parties against the petitioner and respondent nos.6 & 7 was contested by respondent nos.6 & 7 and the petitioner did not even contest the suit and ultimately the said suit was dismissed and mere dismissal of suit filed by third parties does not create any title in favour of petitioner. The petitioner did not even file a piece of paper to show that the subject property belonged to Pagadala Subbaiah and his is progeny of the said Subbaiah, however the Revenue Divisional Officer, who has no manner of right to treat the report of the Tahsildar as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act,1971, in utter ignorance of law and the law declared by this Court in Ratnamma's case, entertained the same as an appeal and regardless of the fact that the petitioner did not file any documents to show that the property belongs to his 1 . 2015(6) ALD 609 (DB) RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 10 ancestors, passed orders, assuming jurisdiction of civil Court and decided title over the property, and ultimately ordered for cancellation of pattadar and title deed passbook issued in favour of respondent no.6. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.6 preferred revision under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 and the Joint Collector upon perusing the material available on record in a right perspective and upon exercising revisional Jurisdiction conferred upon him by the provisions of the Act,1971, allowed the said revision. There are no valid grounds raised or urged in this writ petition. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal.
9. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
10. The copies of the judgments filed in O.S.Nos.162 & 163 of 2006 filed along with writ affidavit would indicate that suits filed by third parties for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties against the petitioner and respondent nos.6 and 7 herein were dismissed. In both the suits, the respondent nos.6 and 7 took a specific defence that the subject property of this writ petition was purchased by respondent no.6 under registered sale deed dated 22.06.1998 from its lawful owner Madam Nagaiah and his family members. The court rejected the RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 11 contention of the plaintiff therein regarding their right and title over the suit schedule property holding that except revenue records they failed to produce any document in proof of their title over the suit schedule property. The petitioner herein, who is made a party as a defendant no.5 in both the suits, remained ex parte. He did not lay any claim adverse either to the plaintiffs therein or to the respondent nos.6 & 7 herein. He did not even refute the contention of the respondent nos.6 & 7 that they purchased the property from rightful owner of the subject property.
11. From the tenor of the contentions of the petitioner raised in this writ petition, the petitioner sought to lay much emphasis on the chief examination affidavit filed by defendants in the suit in O.S.No.162 of 2006 which is to the effect that the subject property originally belonged to Pagadala Nagaiah of Balijapalli. By relying on the above chief examination evidence of the defendants therein, the petitioner sought to contend that the respondent nos.6 & 7 herein themselves have admitted that the Pagadala Nagaiah, who is his father, is the original owner of the property and thus the purchases, if any, made by respondent nos.6 & 7, from Madam Nagaiah, who has nothing to do with the subject property, do not confer any right and title over the subject property. So contending, the petitioner made representation before the Tahsildar for mutation of subject lands in his name and cancel the RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 12 pattadar and title deed passbooks issued in the name of respondent no.6, in light of the judgments of the Courts in O.S.Nos.162 and 163 of 2006 to the effect that lands belong to Pagadala Nagaiah, father of the petitioner.
12. In pursuance thereof, the Tahsildar, verified village accounts, conducted enquiry , issued notice to both parties, conducted enquiry and submitted report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, for taking necessary action as per ROR Act and the Revenue Divisional Officer had treated the said report as appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, initiated proceedings, issued notices and passed orders dated 28.06.2018 holding that it is found that Pagadala Nagaiah never sold the land to anybody and appellant (petitioner herein) is the son of the original owner and hence the Pattadar and title deed passbooks issued in favour of respondent no.6 are liable to be cancelled and the Tahsildar shall take necessary action and incorporate the necessary changes in all the village accounts and 1B Register and also in online records.
13. In T.Rajeswari v. Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore District2, this Court held as follows:
"As per the scheme of the Act, it is only the order, which was passed under Section 5(3) of the Act is appealable under Section 5(5) of the Act. In the absence of any order having been passed in the present case, there could not have been any appeal. The Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the 2 . 2015(6) ALT 339 RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 13 appellate authority, while passing the order pursuant to the order of this Court, also did not verify as to what are the pending cases, and likewise the Joint Collector also did not make any efforts to set out the details. In other words, in the present case, there is no primary order and the appellate as well as the revisional orders are also bereft of any details. In such circumstances, both the orders i.e., appellate as well as revisional order cannot be sustained and required to be set aside and accordingly set aside."
14. As per the above observations it is evident that in the absence of any order having been passed under Section 5(3), there could not have been any appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act.
15. In the instant case, the Revenue Divisional Officer had taken up the report as an appeal, which is not permissible, since Rule-21 of the A.P.rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 specifies the method and manner in which an appeal has to be preferred by specifically mentioning therein that such an appeal shall be filed within sixty days.
16. Regarding maintainability of appeal or revision as against issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds is concerned, A division bench of this Court in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, held that the appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer is not maintainable against mere issuance of pattadar pass book and title deeds under Section 6-A of the Act. In paras 24 and 25,the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 14 "Sections 5-B and 6-A are introduced through Amendment Act 9 of 1994. Through the amendment, remedy of appeal against regularization order under Section 5-A of the Act and provision for issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act is enacted. Sub-section (3) of Section 6-A provides for correction of entries in the PPB/TD by the Mandal Revenue Officer either suo motu or on an application. As already noticed, the record-of-rights is prepared under Section 3 of the Act, updated/ maintained under Sections 4, 5 and also as a consequence of regularization under Section 5-A of the Act. Issuance of PPB is covered by Section 6-A of the Act. The PPB is nothing but a copy or reflection of entries in the record of rights prepared or maintained at one or the other stages under the Act as stated above. The PPB/TD is maintained and issued in Form No. 14- C of the Rules. PPB/TD contains the entries as borne out by 1-B Register. With the issue of pass book to any person whose name in the applicable column is recorded in record of rights, it cannot be said such issuance adversely affects any person. A person is certainly aggrieved by illegal preparation of record of rights and against such illegal preparation the remedy is provided under Section 3(3) of the Act. Likewise, against illegal or erroneous updation of record of rights under Sections 4 and 5 or regularization under Section 5-A of the Act, the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) or Section 5-B respectively is available to an aggrieved party. On the other hand, Section 6-A(3) provides for correction of erroneous entries in PPB/TD issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The reason for not providing any appeal against the issuance of PPB/TD is manifest from the Scheme of the Act viz., that the issuance of TD/PPB does not by itself adversely affect the substantive right of a person, who claims or has a right in the property for which PPB is issued. In other words, the issuance of PPB/TD is a consequential act and entries in PPB/TD are mere reflection of entries of 1-B Register. Mere filing of appeal against issuance of pattadar pass book which is only a copy of 1-B register is not an efficacious remedy under the scheme of the Act."
17. As per the above observations, Issuance of PPB is covered by Section 6-A of the Act. Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed contain the entries as borne out by 1-B Register. With the issuance of pass book to any person whose name in the applicable column is recorded in record of rights, it cannot be said such issuance adversely affects any person and hence no appeal is provided against mere issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds.
RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 15
18. This Court in Kuruva Hanumanthamma vs. State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department3 held at paras- 24, 25, 27 and 35 as follows:
"24. The scheme of the Act is considered by the Full Bench in Santosh Verma v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and keeping in view the opinion of Full Bench, this Court examines point No. 2. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act regulates the jurisdiction of Recording Authority or Mandal Revenue Officer in issuing PPP/TD, by stipulating that PPP/TD shall not be issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer unless the record of rights have been brought up to date (emphasis added). The words have been brought up to date, in sub- section (2) of Section 6-A, are related to or appreciated in the same way the words amendment and updating of record of rights used in Section 5 of the Act.
25. Therefore, If PPP/TD is issued in conformity with the requirement of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act, then there is no difficulty in holding that a person aggrieved by the updation and resulting in issuance of PPP, works out the remedy of appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act as decided by Ratnamma case. Sub-section (3) of Section 6-A authorizes the Mandal Revenue Officer to correct the entries in the PPP/TD, and scope of sub-section 3 is limited to correction of errors of entries and nothing more. Therefore by interpreting Section 6-A (2) of the Act, this Court holds that the recording authority in cases coming under Section 5 of the Act has jurisdiction to issue PPP/TD after the record is updated or amended. As in the present case, PPP/TD is issued, independent of or de hors the entries made in record of rights maintained under 1-B, then what is the remedy available to an aggrieved party is the moot point for consideration of this Court.
Section 9 reads as follows:
9. Revision:--The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly:
Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this Section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation.
******* 3 . 2018(1) ALD 290 RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 16 "27. The Collector is given power of entertaining revision either suo motu or on an application filed by an aggrieved party. The Collector in a pending revision is entitled to call for and examine the record of order under revision viz. from (a) recording authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B in respect of any record of right prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof. (b) The Collector has jurisdiction to modify, annul, reverse or remit for reconsideration of a decision, order or proceedings made in respect of record of rights. From plain construction of Section 9, this Court is of the view that the revisional jurisdiction of Collector embraces different situations warranting interference by him and thus ensures maintenance, preparation or continuation of record of rights on the touch stone of the entries being regular, correct, legal or propriety. I would refer to Ramanatha Aiyers Law Laxicon and Websters Dictionary for excerpting the meaning of the words viz. Regularity; correctness; legality and propriety.
***
35. Having regard to the scope of Section 9 of the Act, a person, if aggrieved against an entry made or maintained in record of rights or continued to be maintained by recording authority can file revision under Section 9 of the Act. Likewise on the same analogy the aggrieved person can file revision against the issuance of PPP/TD. The Collector is obliged by the revisional jurisdiction he enjoys to examine all the aspects namely regularity, correctness, legality or propriety in the issue of PPP/TD and pass orders on the entries in record of rights and also on the legality or otherwise of PPP/TD against which revision is made before him. This Court is of the view that by adopting the above interpretation to Section 9 and Section 6-A of the Act before a litigant is compelled to work out the remedies under Section 8 of the Act, can avail the remedy within the framework of the Act by filing revision and obtain orders in this behalf. The point is answered by holding that in cases where the PPP/TD is issued either in breach of sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act or otherwise particularly without an order or proceeding under Section 5 of the Act, an aggrieved party is not without remedy and legal wrong can be canvassed by fling revision under Section 9 of the Act. The remedy available under Section 8 of the Act is always independent and a party if advised, whether before filing the revision or after awaiting the outcome of revision, can work out the remedy of establishing title etc. before the competent civil Court. The other remedies referred in Ratnamma case are to be understood as held in this order."
19. In view of the observations made in the above decision, if a person is aggrieved by issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he can file a revision under Section 9 of the Act.
RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 17
20. The observations made in the above two decisions in unequivocal terms say that the Act did not provide for appeal against issuance of pattadar and title deed passbooks and one must necessarily file revision under Section 9 of the Act for questioning issuance of pattadar and title deed passbooks.
21. In view of the above, since there is no order under Section 5(3) of the Act, treating the representation of the petitioner as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is unsustainable, moreover, the power to cancel the pattadar and title deed passbooks, as per the Act, is vest with the Joint Collector-Revisional authority, but not with the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, the orders passed by Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings No.H/920/2015, dated 28.06.2018 are wholly untenable and ultra vires.
22. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the competence of the joint Collector in deciding title to the property is concerned; it is no doubt true that no administrative authority is empowered to decide title over the property of any individual and the power of such adjudication solely vests with civil Courts of having competent jurisdiction.
23. It is the complaint of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the joint collector, in contravention of the findings given by the civil Court in O.S.Nos.162 & 163 of 2006, had exceeded his jurisdiction and decided title to RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 18 the property in favour of respondent no.6. As rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent no.6, mere dismissal of suit filed by some third parties does not by itself confer any title to the property on the petitioner. Further, as held supra, respondent no.6 in both the suits had taken a specific plea that she purchased the subject property from its rightful owners. The petitioner did not refute the said contention of respondent no.6 filing written statement by setting up title in himself and he remained ex parte in both the suits. It appears that, subsequent to dismissal of the suit, the petitioner might have thought of taking advantage of the chief-examination evidence of defendants therein that the property originally belonged to one Pagadala Nagaiah. As rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent no.6, any amount of oral assertions or admissions do not confer title to the property in any individual, unless the same is supported by documentary evidence. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce any evidence in the suits filed against him by third parties and as stated supra he remained ex parte. The judgments of the civil Court would show that the suits filed by third parties were dismissed and nowhere the petitioner was declared as owner of the subject property. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the Joint Collector had never exceeded his jurisdiction to decide title to the property and the Joint Collector had only analyzed the observations made in the judgments by the RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 19 Civil Court and therefore the contentions raised contra are untenable and are rejected.
24. The other contention that pending suit in O.S.No.485 of 2018, the revision filed by respondent no.6 relating to the same property is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed is concerned; the said suit is filed for injunction simplicitor and hence Section 8(2) of the Act, 1971 is not applicable to the facts of the case, since the said provision would come into play only when a suit for declaration of right as enumerated under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is pending and in such eventuality the amendments to be made shall be in accordance with the result of the suit, as observed in V.Gowtham Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial, Karimnagar District4.
25. In the above view of the matter, since appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971 won't lie unless against the orders passed under Section 5(3) of the Act, 1971 and the Revenue Divisional Officer has no power or authority to treat report of the Tahsildar as appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act and as the Revenue Divisional Officer has no authority to cancel the Pattadar and title deed passbooks, the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer are unsustainable. Further, the Joint Collector had never exceeded his jurisdiction 4 . 2003(1)ALT 615 RC,J W.P.No.39323 of 2022 20 while passing the orders impugned as sought to be contended by the learned counsel and pendency of injunction suit is not a bar and would not prevent the authorities to effect modifications in revenue records. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition.
26. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of holding that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the orders impugned in Proceedings No.D.Dis.D2/APLS(ROR)/26/2018, dated 22.11.2022 passed by respondent no.3. However, the petitioner is not precluded from getting his grievance redressed by approaching competent civil Court, if he so desires. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR