P Harinadha Babu vs The State Of Ap on 10 May, 2024

[Cites 38, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

P Harinadha Babu vs The State Of Ap on 10 May, 2024

Bench: B. Krishna Mohan

                                        1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
           FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND
                         AND TWENTY FOUR

       WRIT PETITION Nos.22212, 14394, 14514, 19707, 19866,
                      22135, 22886 of 2020

W.P. No.22212 of 2020:-
Between:
Nathani Durga Rao, s/o. Kishanlal, aged 52 years,
occ -cultivation, R/o. d.no.6-6-3, srinivasarao street,
tailor peta. Vijayawada, Krishna District.
                                                            .... Petitioner
             versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its principal
secretary to government, revenue department,
secretariat, velagapudi, amaravati, guntur district
and 11 others.
                                                          .... Respondents
W.P. No.14394 of 2020:-
Between:
Chinnam Venkata Narayana Rao, S/o lakshmi
narasimha rao, aged 75 years, occ cultivation, r/o
reddigudem village and mandal, krishna district and
2 others.
                                                          ....    Petitioners
             versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its principal
secretary to government, revenue department,
secretariat, velagapudi, amaravati, guntur district
and 11 others.
                                                           ....respondents
W.P. No.14514 of 2020:-

Between:
P Harinadha Babu, S/o O.P.Rama Rao, aged 70
years, occ. business, r/o.d.no.20-55, main road,
kothapeta, nuzvid, krishna district.
                                                               ... Petitioner
                                        2


            versus
The State of AP, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue
Department, Secretariat, Velagapuri, Amaravathi,
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh and four others.
                                                             ... Respondents
W.P. No.19707 of 2020:-

Between:
Paidipati Durga Rao, S/o. Narayana Swamy, aged
54 years, occ cultivation, r/o d.no.9-42-21, peethani
appala swamy street, kothapeta, vijayawada,
krishna district.
                                                               .... Petitioner
            versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its principal
Secretary to Government, Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District
and 11 others.
                                                             ....Respondents
W.P. No.19866 of 2020:-

Between:
Illipilla Gopinadh, s/o. appa rao, aged 34 years,
occ. cultivation, r/o. d.no.6-11-8, neat anjaneya
swamy temple, kothapeta, vijayawada, krishna
district.
                                                        ....       petitioner
            versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal
Secretary to Government, Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District
and 11 others.
                                                              ....respondents
W.P. No.22135 of 2020:-

Between:
Somula Nagi Reddy, s/o.Koti Reddy, aged 57 years,
occ cultivation, d.no.41-27-63a, krishnalanka,
Vijayawada, Krishna District.
                                                         ....         petitioner
                                            3


               versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its principal
Secretary To Government, Revenue Department,
secretariat, velagapudi, amaravati, guntur district
and 15 others.
                                                                      ....respondents
W.P. No.22886 of 2020:-

between:
Mamidi Srinivas, S/o. M.Bhaskar Rao, aged 55
years, R/o. Bhavani Towers, Swathi Theatre Road,
Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District,
Andhra Pradesh and another.
                                                                 ....        petitioners
               versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal
Secretary Revenue Department, (ror), Secretariat
Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh and 27 others.
                                                                      ....Respondents

                                 COMMON ORDER

Since the subject matter in these writ petitions is one and the same, these matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

1. The facts of the cases are that the petitioners in these writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.22212, 19707, 19866 and 22135 of 2020 are the absolute owners, possessors and enjoyers of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.0-50 cents out of Ac.2-00 cents each covered by R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid village and Mandal in Krishna District, having purchased the same for valid considerations from their vendor Chinta Gopala Rao under registered sale deeds respectively. It is further submitted that the vendor of the petitioners Chinta Gopala Rao 4 purchased Ac.2-00 in Survey No.127/P for a valid consideration from his vendor Inuganti Narasimha Rao under a registered sale deed dated 28.03.1985 in Doc.No.744/1985.

The facts of the case in W.P.No.22886 of 2020 are that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the absolute owners and possessors of land to an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid each having purchased the same for a valid consideration from one Sri Dannapaneni Madhu, S/o.D.Mohana Rao under a registered sale deed bearing document Nos.732/2010 dated 20.02.2010 and document No.907/2009 dated 13.03.2009 respectively registered in the office of the sub registrar, Nuzvid. It is further submitted that the vendor of the petitioners purchased the property to an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid from one Sri Bhagavathula Lakshmi Mohan, S/o.B.Venakteswara Rao, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.614/2009 dated 19.12.2008 registered on 20.02.2009 in the office of the sub-registrar, Nuzvid. Sri Bhagavathula Lakshmi Mohan purchased an extent of Ac.2-00 in R.S.No.127/P from one Sri Inuganti Narasimha Rao under a registered sale deed bearing document No.725/1985 dated 28.03.1985.

The facts of the case in W.P.No.14514 of 2020 are that the petitioner is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2-00 cents covered by R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid village and Mandal in Krishna District, having purchased the same for a valid consideration from the vendor Inuganti Narasimha Rao under a registered sale deed dated 28.03.1985 in Doc.No.744/1985.

The facts of the case in W.P.No.14394 of 2020 are that the 1st petitioner is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.10-00 cents covered by R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid village and Mandal in Krishna District, having acquired the same under a registered sale deed dated 28.03.1985 in Doc.no.677/1985 to an extent of Ac.5-00 cents and through the another sale deed dated 28.03.1985 in Doc.No.789/1985 under which the father of the 1st petitioner namely Chinnam Lakshmi Narasimha Rao purchased Ac.5-00 cents for a valid consideration from his vendor Inuganti Narasimha Rao. 1st petitioner's father died intestate on 21.04.2009 leaving behind his only son i.e., the 1st petitioner who succeeded to his properties. The 2nd petitioner is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the agricultural landed property of Ac.1-00 cent in the same survey number having acquired the same under a registered sale deed dated 15.04.1985 in Doc.No.777/1985. Similarly, the 3rd petitioner is the also absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the agricultural landed property of Ac.1-00 cent in the same survey number, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 06.01.2005 in Doc.No.52/2005 for a valid consideration from his vendor Malempdi Krishnaiah.

While the matters stood thus, the main crux of the issue in all these writ petitions is that originally, Meka Rama Mohana Appa Rao has acquired property to an extent of Ac.27.00 in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Revenue Village & Mandal in Krishna District under Partition Deed Doc.No.4336 of 1957 dated.19-08-1957 executed between his father Raja Meka Venkata 6 Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadur and his brother Raja Meka Venkata Navaneetha Krishna Appa Rao. Meka Rama Mohana Appa Rao sold his property to an extent of Ac.27.00 in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Village to Inuganti Narasimha Rao and his brother Inuganti Rama Chandra Rao through an unregistered agreement of sale dated.31.12.1970. Inuganti Rama Chandra Rao died intestate and unmarried on 08.11.1975 leaving behind his brother as the sole legal heir. Accordingly, Inuganti Narasimha Rao became the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.27.00 in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Village. Inuganti Narasimha Rao sold the property to others in bits and pieces in the year 1985.

While so, the 10th respondent filed an appeal before the 4th respondent in ROR Appeal No.19/2017 against the petitioners and some others stating that she is the absolute owner of the land in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzivid Revenue village having acquired the same under a Will dated 20.01.2014 said to have been executed by Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao in her favour and prayed to cancel the pattadar passbooks and tile deeds executed in favour of the vendor of the petitioners and others. The 4th respondent without conducting enquiry, without examining the material evidence available on record passed order dated 30.04.2018 in ROR Appeal No.19/2017 thereby cancelled pattadar passbooks and title deeds granted in favour of the petitioners and also deleted the name of the petitioners in online record of rights. Questioning the same, the petitioners filed revision before the 3rd respondent and the same was also dismissed by an order dated 7 21.07.2020. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.5, 7 to 12 have been repeatedly bringing police constables and insisting the petitioners to vacate from the said lands or else threatened to implicate them in false criminal cases. The respondent No.7 to 12 have brought heavy excavators to their land and attempted to trespass into the lands to remove the plants and fence.

Questioning the action of the respondents 5, 7 to 12 and the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid in ROR Appeal No.19/2018 and the Joint Collector, Machilipatnam vide file No.REV DSECOROR (REV)/2018SA-(D2)-KCO, dated 21.07.2020, these writ petitions are filed.

2. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 5th respondent filed counters in all these writ petitions denying the averments made by the petitioners in the above said writ petitions and submitted that originally an extent of Ac.29-50 cents in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Village belongs to Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao derived from his father by a registered partition deed No.4336/1957 of Registrar of Changalpur. He was a bachelor. He executed an unregistered Will dated 20.01.2024 in favour of his sister Smt.Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi (10th respondent) and he died on 03.12.2014 and after the death of the testator, the Will has come into force and the 10th respondent acted upon and took possession of his entire properties. The Senior Civil Judge's Court, Nuzvid had declared that Smt.Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi is the legal heir and passed orders in a case in E.A.No.311 of 2015 in E.P.No.33 of 2011 in LAOP No.39 of 1990 dated 8 13.06.2016 directing the Special Deputy Collector, LAO, NSP, Nuzvid to pay the compensation. The 10th respondent filed an application before the RDO, Nuzvid for mutations in the revenue records in her name for the schedule land. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid has conducted detailed enquiry and passed orders in ROR Appeal No.19/2017 dated 30.04.2018 to record cancellation of mutations effected earlier in ROR Records, Village and Mandal Revenue Records including FLR basing the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued earlier to the writ petitioners in respect of Ac.25-00 cents in R.S.No.127 of Nuzvid Town. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner filed a revision petition before the Joint Collector, Krishna against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid and the Joint Collector, Krishna has dismissed the revision petition vide file No.REV DSECOROR (REV)/5/2018SA-(D2)-KCO, dated 21.07.2020.

It is further submitted that one Inuganti Narasimha Rao has sold an extent of AC.2-00 cents in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Village to Chinta Gopala Rao under a registered sale deed dated 28.03.1985 bearing Doc.No.744/1985. Thereafter the said Chitna Gopala Rao also sold away different extents of lands to different persons. In fact, Inuganti Narasimha Rao is no way concerned to the scheduled land. The land originally belongs to Meka Venakta Rama Mohana Appa Rao which derives to him from his father through partition deed. There is no relationship between Inuganti Narasimha Rao and Meka Venakta Rama Mohana Appa Rao. The petitioners in these petitions have purchased the lands from said Inuganti Narasimha Rao who is 9 not a real owner and title holder of the said land. There is no valid registered documentary evidence that Sri Inuganti Narasimha Rao purchased the land from the real owner of Sri Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao. As there is no title conferred over the land to Inuganti Narasimha Rao, the subsequent registrations are null and void. The petitioners have no title over the land. The then Tahsildar issued the pattadar passbooks and title deeds without verification of authentic and acceptable documentary evidence i.e., link documents which are essential before the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Thereby, the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners by the then Tahsildar have been cancelled. It is further submitted that the Station House Officer, Nuzvid has addressed a letter to the office stating that there was a dispute arose on 18.08.2020 at about 11:30 hours at Goduguvarigudem, Nuzvid Town and Mandal between two groups in respect of the agricultural lands situated in R.S.No.127/2A and 127/2C of Nuzvid Town and Mandal and also lodged a complaint vice versa and registered cases vide Cr.No.308/2019, 234/2020, 240/2020, 241/2020 and 242/2020 of Nuzvid Town P.S. that the main reason of the case is that there is a dispute on title and enjoyment of the land which can be settled by civil court, that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzivid Town has also reported that the both parties are at logger heads to prove their supremacy against each other and there is every likelihood of causing breach of peace and bloodshed. All the parties were called upon to give in a written statement of their respective claims as the fact of factual position at 11:00 AM on 10 20.08.2020 and heard the arguments of both parties and satisfied with the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid and upon other information of both parties that a dispute concerning land was likely to cause breach of peace in the area. As there is a necessity to promulgate orders under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in exercise of powers vested under Section 145 CrPC prohibiting entry of people to subject land i.e., R.S.No.127/2A and 127/2C of Nuzvid village and Town and also prohibiting the assembly of four or more persons within the radius of 100 meters from the premises and preventing both the parties not to enter into the subject land until further orders or orders from competent civil court to maintain law and Order and also smooth atmosphere till the dispute is settled by competent authority/court. The said order was issued by the 5th respondent by order dated 20.08.2020 vide office Mc.No.73/2020 until further orders. Hence, the 5th respondent prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.

3. The respondent No.10 also filed counter affidavit contending that she filed a petition before the Land Reforms Tribunal cum Revenue Divisional Officer on 08-09-2017 for surrender of land under Section 10 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceilings on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 in CC.No.2272/GNV/75 filed by Sri Raja Rama Mohana Appa Rao S/o. Sri Raja Venkata NArasimha Appa Rao. As per the petition, K. Sravanthi Devi surrendered to an extent of Ac.2.50 in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid and retained to an extent of Ac.27.00 land in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid. The Will executed by her brother Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao has been validated by 11 the Court of Law in E.A.No.311/2015 in E.P.No.33/2011 in L.A.O.P.No.39/1990 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid after examination and cross examination of witnesses and K. Sravanthi Devi has been recognized as the legal representative of the deceased Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao. So there is no need of validating the Will by the Joint Collector/RDO. After the Will has been probated by the Court of Law and completion of Land Ceiling Proceedings, she made an application before the Tahsildar under Section 4 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 19711 for mutation of her name in the revenue records and to issue pattadar passbook and title deeds in her favour. But the Tahsildar has not considered her application stating that mutation cannot be done, as the third persons names have already been existing and advised her to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid. So she filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5 of the Act on 03-04-2017 for cancellation of mutation proceedings and also for issuance of pattadar passbook. Hence the petitioners' stand that the appeal is time barred is absolutely baseless and unsustainable. In the Appeal she stated that she is the absolute owner of land admeasuring Ac.27.00 covered by R.S.No.127/P of 1 Section 4 (1) Any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, in heritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Mandal Revenue Officer within [thirty days] from the date of such acquisition, and the said Mandal Revenue Officer shall give or send a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation to the person making it:

Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other persons, having charge of his property shall intimate the fact of such acquisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer.

Nuzvid. She stated that she bequeathed the property under a Will executed by her brother Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao on 20-01-2014. The Will came into effect on the death of her brother i.e., on 03-12-2014 and thus she became the absolute owner of the properties of her brother including Ac.27.00 in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Village. She further submitted that she alone is and has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.

4. Considering the above said facts and circumstances and the respective contentions of the parties, it can be discussed as under:

 The disputed property belongs to the Meerjapuram Estate Holder. The last survivor of the Estate is Meka Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao. He had six children namely 1) Swarna Kumari 2) Geethanjali 3) Navaneetha Krishna Appa Rao 4) Rama Mohana Appa Rao 5) Sravanthi Devi 6) Rathi Devi.

 Meka Rama Mohana Appa Rao acquired property to an extent of Ac.27.00 in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Revenue Village & Mandal in Krishna District under a Partition Deed Doc.No.4336 of 1957 dated.19-08-1957 executed between his father Raja Meka Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadur and his brother Raja Meka Venkata Navaneetha Krishna Appa Rao.

 Meka Rama Mohana Appa Rao sold his property to an extent of Ac.27.00 in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Village to Inuganti Narasimha Rao and his brother Inuganti Rama Chandra Rao through an unregistered agreement of sale dated.31-12-1970. Inuganti Rama Chandra Rao died intestate and unmarried on 08-11-1975 leaving behind his brother as the sole legal heir.

Accordingly, Inuganti Narasimha Rao became the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.27.00 in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Village.

 Inuganti Narasimha Rao sold the property to others in bits and pieces in the year 1985. The details of the purchasers are mentioned below:

Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao Inuganti Narasimha Rao Inuganti Ramachandra Rao (Died intestate and unmarried) Sold To Property goes to his brother Chinta Gopala Rao vide Doc.No.744/1985 dated.28-03-1985 to an extent of Ac.2.00 Cents.

He further sold it to

1) The petitioner in WP.No.22212 of 2020 vide Registered Sale Deed dated.13-03-2006 in Doc.No.1168/2006 to an extent of Ac.0.50 Cents out of Ac.2.00 Cents in R.S.No.127/P.

2) The petitioner in WP.No.19707 of 2020 vide Registered Sale Deed dated.13-03-2006 in Doc.No.1167/2006 to an extent of Ac.0.50 Cents out of Ac.2.00 Cents in R.S.No.127/P.

3) The petitioner in WP.No.19866 of 2020 vide Registered Sale Deed dated.13-03-2006 in Doc.No.1166/2006 to an extent of Ac.0.50 Cents out of Ac.2.00 Cents in R.S.No.127/P.

4) The petitioner in WP.No.22135 of 2020 vide Registered Sale Deed dated.13-03-2006 in Doc.No.1169/2006 to an extent of Ac.0.50 Cents out of Ac.2.00 Cents in R.S.No.127/P.

1) Chinnam Venkata Narayana Rao vide Doc.No.677/1985 dated.28-03-1985 to an extent of Ac.5.00 Cents. He is the 1st petitioner in WP.No.14394 of 2020.

Chinnam Lakshmi Narasimha Rao vide Doc.No.789/1985 dated.28-03-1985 to an extent of Ac.5.00 Cents. After his death, property went to his son Chinnam Venkata Narayana Rao. 14 After the death of 1st petitioner his legal heirs came on record as Petitioner No.4 to 9.

2) Chinnam Venkata Rama Rao vide Doc.No.777/1985 dated. 15-04-1985 to an extent of Ac.1.00 Cents. He is the 2nd petitioner in WP.No.14394 of 2020.

3) Malempudi Krishnaiah S/o. Yadaiah. He further sold it to the 3rd petitioner in WP.No.14394 of 2020 vide Registered Sale Deed dated.06-01-2005 in Doc.No.52/2005 to an extent of Ac.1.00 Cents. Bhagavathula Lakshmi Mohan vide Doc.No.725/1985 dated.28- 03-1985 to an extent of Ac.2.00 Cents in R.S.No.127/P. He further sold it to Dannapaneni Madhu to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents vide Doc.No.614/2009 dated.19-12-2008 registered on 20-02-2009.

Dannapaneni Madhu further sold it to 1st petitioner & 2nd Petitioner in W.P.No.2286 of 2020 to an extent of Ac.0.50 Cents each in R.S.No127/P vide Doc.No.732/2010 dated.20-02-2010 & Doc.No.907/2009 dated.13-03-2009 P. Harinadha Babu vide registered sale deed dated.28-03-1985 to an extent of Ac.2.00 Cents in R.S.No.127/P. He is the petitioner in W.P.No.14514/2020.

 The Tahsildar, Nuzvid Mandal granted Pattadhar Passbooks and title deeds in favour of the vendees of Inuganti Narasimha Rao and others. Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi (Sister of Meka Rama Mohana Appa Rao) filed an ROR Appeal under Section 5B of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid in ROR Appeal No.19/2017 alleging that she is the absolute owner of the land in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Revenue Village having acquired the same under a Will dated.20-01-2014 executed by his brother Meka Rama Mohana Appa Rao in her favour. Hence prayed to cancel the pattadhar passbooks and title deeds executed in favour of the vendees of Inuganti 15 Narasimha Rao and others. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid passed an Order dated.30-04-2018 cancelling the Pattadhar Passbooks and Title Deeds granted in favour of the vendees of Inuganti Narasimha Rao and othersand also deleted their names in Online Record of Rights. Against the said Order, Revision was filed and the same was dismissed by Order dated.21-07-2020.

 Against the dismissal of Revision Petitions filed by the petitioners herein before the Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Krishna District, the present Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioners.

SUBMISSIONS         OF    THE     COUNSEL       FOR     THE      PETITIONERS    IN
W.P.NO.14394 OF 2020:

5. Meka Rama Mohana Appa Rao had filed a declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 stating that he sold the land to an extent of Ac.29.50 in R.S.No.127P of Nuzvid Village to Inuganti Ramachandra Rao through an unregistered agreement of sale dated.31-12-1970. In fact Meka Rama Mohanan Appa Rao was the attestor for the land sold in bits and pieces in 1985. So there exists an estoppel against him.

6. The Pattadar Passbooks were given in favour of the petitioners and their names were entered in the enjoyment adangals and electricity connection was given in the name of the petitioners.

7. In the year 2017, Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi approached the RDO for the first time in Appeal stating that a Will was executed by Meka Rama Mohana Appa Rao in her favour and the Will came into effect in the year 2014 and sought issuance of paatadar passbooks and title deeds in her favour. The RDO ordered in her favour thereby cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in the name of the petitioners.

8. According to the petitioners the Will is an unregistered one and it needs to be proved. K.Sravanthi Devi is depending on the Land Acquisition Proceedings where she was recognized as legatee for which, the petitioners were not the parties. Her case is a case of impersonation. Revenue Officials entered the names of the petitioners in the pattadar passbooks and title deeds and she did not answer what she was doing all these years. Now the same revenue officials says that she is an absentee landlord and there exists a Will in her favour and therefore the sale in favour of the petitioners is not valid.

9. It is submitted that the question of title and possession has to be decided by the Civil Court and Revenue Authorities have no power to do it.

10. The Counsel for the Petitioners referred to Kandasami Vs. Rangsami Nainar (Died) and Ors2, where the Hon'ble Madras High Court observed that:

"It is quite clear both from the exposition and from the words of Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act themselves that no actual verbal representation is necessary to give rise to estoppel. It is quite enough that the conduct of a 2 (1912) 23 MLJ 301 17 party leads another to act in the belief that he asserts no claim to the property.

A passage from the judgment of Lord Campbell in the case of Cairncross v. Larimer (1860) 3. Macq. 827, 829, 819 is cited by the Privy Council in the judgment "I am of opinion that generally speaking if a party having an interest to prevent an act being done has full notice of its having been done and acquiesces in it, so as to induce a reasonable belief that he consents to it and the position of others is altered by their giving credit to his sincerity he has no more right to challenge the act to their prejudice than he would have had if it had been done by his previous license."

11. It is submitted that from 1860, the law relating to estoppels is crystallized. The estoppels is not only against Meka Rama Mohana Appa Rao but also against anyone claiming under him. Even assuming that there is a protest in 1993 through paper publication, the limitation period shall start either from 1985 (i.e., from the date of attestation) or from 1993 (i.e., from the date of protest). In either case, the Appeal by K. Sravanthi Devi is barred by limitation.

12. The Will dated.20-01-2014 states that "the remaining land which comes to me after taken over by the Government vide proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid vide C.C.No.2272/G.N.V/75 as per the Land Reforms Act shall be taken by my third sister Sravanthi Devi after my demise." Before the Will coming into force, the petitioners' rights were recognized by the Government by granting pattadar passbooks and entering their names in the adangals. But now on the request of K. Sravanthi Devi, the RDO decided in her favour.

13. The impugned order of RDO vide ROR Appeal No.19/2017, does not talk about the proceedings under ULC Act. But when the petitioners sought patta in their favour, they mention about the land ceiling limit. The RDO observes in the impugned order that the case has 50 years of history and made certain observations. But his findings overlook the factum of attestation by Meka Rama Mohana Appa Rao. After 29 years (names were mutated and pattas were granted in 1988), the RDO now says that the procedure has not been followed.

14. Even assuming that the Will is valid, attestation was done in 1985 and there was a protest in 1993. They did not take any action later thereby they extinguished their right. The RDO or Collector has no right to decide the issue and it has to be decided by the Civil Court.

The Law of Limitation

15. K. Sravanthi Devi acquired rights by virtue of a Will in the year 2014. She claims that she has been in possession of the property since 2014. But the Government knows that the petitioners were in possession of the property. She filed the ROR Appeal in the year 2017. She did not file a condonation delay petition before the RDO for the period between the years 2014 to 2017. Without condonation delay petition, the RDO cannot entertain the proceedings?

16. The limitation period starts when the Cause of Action first arises. Some feeble attempt was made in the year 1993 through paper publication. 19 Later no action has been taken by the respondents. The attestation and sale was done in the year 1985, paper publication was in the year 1993, the Will is dated 20-01-2014, Meka Rama Mohana Appa Rao died on 03-12-2014, and she approached the RDO in the year 2017.

17. ROR Act provides for special period of limitation. But it has to be condoned. The petitioners were in possession of the property for 37 years and now it has been disturbed by the respondents. Even for the Government the limitation is 30 years.

18. There is an improper exercise of jurisdiction as she cannot directly approach the RDO through an Appeal.

19. The Counsel for the petitioner referred to Ratnamma Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Annathapur District and others3 wherein the erstwhile Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana observed that "From a bare reading of Section 5(5) of the Act, it can be held that against every order of recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal to the RDO, is provided within the time stipulated in the Section. Under the Act, making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make amendment in record of rights is a crucial stage and a substantive decision rendered by the recording authority. Therefore, right of appeal is provided against such decisions. Likewise, from the reading of Section 5(5) of the Act, it cannot be construed 3 2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB) 20 that Section 5(5) provides remedy of appeal against the orders under Section 6-A of the Act. Issuance of PPB/TD or making entries therein is always a step consequential to the record of rights prepared. Therefore the plain reading of Section 5(5) makes it clear that the appeal against the order under Section 6-A is not maintainable.

20. For the above view, the relevant para in M.B.Ratnam's case (supra) reads as follows:

"It is thus clear that Section 5-A of the R.O.R. Act is a special and composite provision, which provides for regularization of alienation or other transfers of land under unregistered instruments. Its area of operation is totally different from that of the area of operation of Section 5 of the R.O.R. Act, which essentially deals with amendment and updating of record of rights on the strength of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4 of the R.O.R. Act. Making of an entry in the pass book on the strength of the certificate issued under Section 5-A (4) cannot be equated to that of amendment and updating of Record of Rights as provided for under Section 5(1) of the R.O.R. Act. An appeal under Section 5 (5) is provided only as against making amendment or refusing to make amendment in the record of rights under Section 5(1) of the Act. Therefore, no appeal as against a consequential decision of the recording authority under Sub-section (5) of Section 5-A is provided for under Sub-section (5) of Section 5, which in turn provides for an appeal against the act of amending and updating of record of rights." (Emphasis Supplied).

21. The Hon'ble Court further observed that issuance of PPB/TD is a consequential act and the entries in PPB/TD are mere reflection of entries of 1-B register. Mere filing of appeal against the issuance of pattadar passbook 21 which is only a copy of 1-B Register is not an efficacious remedy under the scheme of the Act.

22. As could be seen from the narration by the RDO in the impugned Order, they manifest dispute as to title and possession.

SUBMISSIONS       OF    THE    COUNSEL       FOR    THE    PETITIONERS      IN

W.P.NO.22886 OF 2020

23. In the year 1985, Inuganti Narasimha Rao sold the subject property in bits and pieces to various persons. M.V. Rama Mohana Appa Rao is the attestor to the Registered Sale Deed dated.28-03-1985. Pattas were also issued in favour of the vendees.

24. It is submitted that on 20-01-2014, M.V. Ramamohana Apparao executed an unregistered Will conveying the above said property along with other properties in favour of his sister Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi. He died on 03-12-2014 without revoking the Will. Later she filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid under Section 5B of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, for mutation of revenue records in her name and thereby cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid has passed orders on 30-04-2018 in ROR Appeal No.19/2017 cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners and directed to cause mutations in favour of K.Sravanthi Devi W/o. 22 Surya Prakash Rao in respect of the land by duly following the procedure under related guidelines.

25. The appeal under Section 5B of the Act is not maintainable as it can be filed only against the Order of MRO/Tahsildar passed under Section 5-A (4) of the Act. M.V. Rama Mohana Appa Rao filed a declaration before the LRT, Gannavaram showing that he sold the land to an extent of Ac.27.00 in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid. The property was already alienated and Ramamohana Apparao is the attestor to the 1985 sale deed executed by I. Narasimha Rao in favour of others.

26. The apex court held that the rights of the vendee of a possessory agreement of sale to remain in possession of property as per the doctrine of Part Performance as contained in Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act. So, even though Inuganti Narasimha Rao did not acquire legal title, he acquired possessory title under an agreement of sale and the possessory title was conveyed to his vendees by executing the registered sale deeds in their favour.

27. But the RDO goes into the question of title and says that according to the Will, she is the owner. The Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Krishna District confirmed the same in the Revision Petition. Against that the Writ Petition is filed before this Hon'ble Court. According to Section 5B of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act,1971, appeal lies only against the Order of Tahsildar passed under Section 5A (4) 23 (i.e., regularization of unregistered sale deeds). So the appeal by K. Sravanthi Devi challenging the mutations before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid under Section 5 (5) of ROR Act is not maintainable. Section 5B 4 and 5(5)5 of the Act are entirely different. The complicated question of title cannot be decided in a summary procedure under ROR Act and the same has to be decided by a competent Civil Court.

28. According to Section 3 (1) of the Act, a record of rights shall be maintained by the recording authority and if any person affected by the entry in such record of rights, within one year from the date of the notification referred to in sub-section (2), apply, for rectification of the entry to such officer as may be prescribed6. The Record of Rights shall be prepared initially in Form-I and subsequently maintained in Form-1B for every separate Revenue Village. According to Section 4, any person acquiring any right over a land has to intimate in writing his acquisition of such right to the Mandal Revenue Officer within 30 days from the date of such acquisition and the said Mandal 4 5-B.Appeal:- (1) An appeal shall lie against and order passed by the Tahsildar under sub- section (4) of section 5-A, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, within thirty days of the date of communication of the order and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall, after due enquiry pass such order on the appeal as he deems fit.

(2) The Revenue Divisional Officer may suo motu call for record of a case or proceedings from the Recording Authority and inspect it in order to satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and make suitable order in that behalf:

Provided that no order or decision affecting the rights of the parties shall be made unless the concerned parties are given a notice and hearing and such order, shall, subject to revision under section 9, be final.

5 Section 5 (5) - Against every order of the recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to such authority as may be prescribed, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall, subject to the provisions of section 9, be final.

Section 3 (3) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act,1971 24 Revenue Officer shall give or sent a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such intimation to the person making it.

29. According to Section 5 (1) of the Act, on receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in section 4, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence thereof and shall carry out the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. Provided no order refusing to make an amendment in accordance with the intimation shall be passed unless the person making such intimation has been given an opportunity of making his representation in that behalf.

30. According to Section 5 (3) of the Act, the recording authority shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) issue a notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. A copy of the amendment and the notice aforesaid shall also be published in such manner as may be prescribed. The recording authority shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit. 25

31. According to Section 5 (5), against every order of the recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the RDO, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall, subject to the provisions of section 9 of the Act, be final.

Procedure to be followed by the Unofficial Respondent Application to the Tahsildar under Section 4 Section 5 Procedure Appeal under Section 5 (5)

32. According to the Rule 19 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, the notice referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act shall be in Form VIII generated electronically. A copy of the draft amendment to From I-B, generated electronically, as per the intimation received shall be enclosed to the notice. Such notice together with a copy of the amendment shall also be published in the manner specified in Clauses (a) to (e) of Rule 5 (2).

33. According to Rule 20 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, during the enquiry referred to in Section 5 (3) of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall take into account the representations or objections written or oral made in this behalf by the persons referred to therein to whom the notice has been given or by any other person interested in the matter and may, if he considers necessary-

(a) summon the attendance of any person for the purpose of examining him;

(b) require the production of any document; or

(c) enter upon, inspect and measure or cause to be measured any land. In taking a decision on the intimation of acquisition of right, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall be guided by the principles/procedures laid down in Rule 9 above.

34. According to Rule 9 (1) (a), after the completion of enquiry, referred to in Rule 6, the Recording Authority shall pass orders in respect of-

(i) all cases requiring change of Registry necessitated by the death of registered holder i.e., succession by heirship, if succession is not disputed. With regard to the entry of the names of the heirs, the names of all the heirs entitled to shares in the property should be registered;

(ii) all cases requiring change of registry necessitated by sale, gift, etc., through registered documents, if there is no dispute. In all cases of absolute transfer of title, the Registry of a holding should be altered to 27 correspond with the transfer of its ownership. Where the Registered holder is not a party to a registered transaction, the registered holder should be enquired. The parties involved in a transfer should be connected by a complete chain of registered documents. Unregistered documents are not admissible as evidence in this enquiry to prove the ownership or title of the property. Where the chain is not complete, no change of registry shall be done. Such cases shall be referred to the Mandal Revenue Officer, for disposal after confirmation of the Record of Rights for the villages; According to Rule 9 (1) (c) (ii), in respect of cases falling under Rule 9(1)(a)(i), the Mandal Revenue Officer shall hold a summary enquiry as to who has the right to succeed to the property of the deceased registered holder, according to the principles of the Law of Succession which govern the case and give notice to all persons known or believed to be interested to the effect that the registry will be made in the name of the person found to be entitled, unless a declaration if filed, within one month from the date of the notice, by any person objecting to the registry, stating that he has instituted a suit in a Civil Court to establish his superior title and the authenticated copy of the plaint in the suit is produced. If no declaration is filed, the registry should be made as stated in the notice, at the expiration of one month. If a declaration is filed, the result of the suit should be awaited before taking further action.

35. In the Order of RDO, Nuzvid under Section 5B of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadhar Passbooks Act, 1971, the appellant stated that her 28 brother M.V. Ramamohana Apparao argued before the LRT that he sold certain lands on unregistered agreement dated 31-12-1970 to Inuganti Ramachandra Rao to an extent of Ac.29.50 Cents in R.S.No.127P of Nuzvid. She further stated that the above unregistered agreements were not considered by LRT and LRAT in view of the Supreme Court decision in 1982 and concluded that the declarant is the surplus land holder and that the title of the above land has not been transferred to the vendees under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, that one Inuganti Narasimha Rao (brother of Inuganti Ramachandra Rao) who sold the land further to the others do not have any title and if he claimed title or right over the land in R.S.No.127 of Nuzvid, he ought to have made an application to the Tahsildar, Nuzvid to regularize it on or before 31-03-2008. But the same has not been done and thus he has no title over the land.

36. It is submitted that the lands were sold in the year 1985 and Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao is the attestor to the said sale deeds which were registered. He never questioned the sale deeds till his death except issuing a public notice and a notice to the Officials of Sub Registrar of Nuzvid in the year 1993. And now in 2014, K.Sravanthi Devi cannot claim the subject property. I.Narasimha Rao is an ostensible owner by virtue of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 18827.

41. Transfer by ostensible owner--Where, with the consent, express or implied, of the persons interested in immovable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for consideration, the transfer shall not be violable on the ground that the transferor was not authorised to make it:

37. The Appeal under Section 5 (5) arises only when there is an amendment in the record of rights which was done in 1985. She questioned the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners in the year 2017, it is barred by limitation as per Section 3 (3) and 5 (5) of the Act.

Maintainability of Appeal under Section 5

38. When pattas were issued to the petitioner, the respondent K.Sravanthi Devi has no right or interest over the property. In Kandasami Pillai vs. Rangasami Nainar (died) and ors8 the issue raised was as to whether the 1st defendant was estopped by his conduct from questioning plaintiffs title. The conduct referred to consisted in the 1st defendant allowing the 2nd defendant to remain in possession of the land for a period of about 3 years after the auction sale without taking any steps to assert his own title and in his attesting the sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant in plaintiff's favour Ex.C. The 1st defendant stated that he made the attestation without any knowledge of the contents of Ex. C. But his story had been disbelieved by both the courts.

39. The Hon'ble Madras High Court observed that "the appeal may be disposed of on the issue of estoppel. Ex. C. was executed on the 6th July 1936. Till then the 1st defendant did not take steps to obtain a sale deed though the auction took place in April 1904 and it was confirmed in June 1904. Provided that the transferee, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith. 8 (1912) 23 MLJ 301 30 His application, for a certificate was made in 1907 after he has attested Ex. C. Now Ex. C. recited that the land belonged to the 2nd defendant and was in his enjoyment. And this document was found by the lower Courts attested by the 1st defendant with full knowledge of its contents. The District Munsif found more against the 1st defendant. He was of the opinion that there were good reasons to believe that it was the 1st defendant who brought about the sale and it cannot therefore be doubted for a moment that his attestation and also that of his undivided son were obtained as security for the vendees in token of the 1st defendant having admitted that he was only a benamidar in respect of the land purchased in court auction and which was with his full knowledge and consent included in the sale deed.

40. The District Munsif does not say that it was the 1st defendant who brought about the sale deed. If he did so there could be no doubt 1st defendant would be estopped from asserting his own ownership, subject to an argument of Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar which I shall hereafter notice that the rule of estoppel is not applicable to such a case. There are no reasons to believe that the District Judge did not really agree with the District Munsif in his observation as to the part taken by the 1st defendant in the matter of the execution of the sale deed Ex. C. But it is not necessary to rest my judgment on the assumption that the District Judge intended to agree with the District Munsif. It would be quite enough if the 1st defendant with the knowledge of the recital that the land belonged to the 2nd defendant and was in his enjoyment as owner attested the sale deed executed by him to the plaintiffs. 31

41. It is quite clear both from the exposition and from the words of Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act themselves that no actual verbal representation is necessary to give rise to estoppel. It is quite enough that the conduct of a party leads another to act in the belief that he asserts no claim to the property. A passage from the judgment of Lord Campbell in the case of Cairncross v. Larimer9 is cited by the Privy Council in the judgment:

"I am of opinion that generally speaking if a party having an interest to prevent an act being done has full notice of its having been done and acquiesces in it, so as to induce a reasonable belief that he consents to it and the position of others is altered by their giving credit to his sincerity he has no more right to challenge the act to their prejudice than he would have had if it had been done by his previous license."

42. In Narayana Aiyar Vs. Rama Aiyar and Ors10, the Hon'ble Madras High Court observed that:

"On the whole, I see no sufficient reason to recede from the opinion I expressed in Kandasami Pillai Vs. Rungasami Nainar (1912) 23 MLJ 301 that a presumption is raised, when an adult man of full mental capacity attest a deed and when such a man has admittedly, a tangible interest in the property affected by the deed, that his attestation has been taken as a proof of his consent to and knowledge of the correctness of the recitals in the deed and it lies upon the person, who contends that such an attestor did not know all the recitals in the deed and did not consent to the alienation made by the deed, to prove the contrary."

43. In Thangamani Vs. Ganesan 11, the Hon'ble Madras High Court observed that: "Having seen the meaning of the word 'attestation' and who 9 (1860) 3. Macq. 827, 829, 819 10 20 Ind Cas 625, (1913) 25 MLJ 219 32 could be an attesting witness, then it would be necessary to look into the mode of proof of an attested document. Proof of an attested document must be in accordance with Sections 68 to 71 of the Indian Evidence Act. Mere attestation does not operate as estoppel for the attestation does not fix an attesting witness with the knowledge of the contents of the document. Attestation does not by itself implies consent, though there may be circumstances which show that the attesting witness had knowledge of the contents of the documents attested and consented to. It was held in the case of Alamelu Ammal and others Vs. Govindaswamy Naicker 2003 (2) MLJ 99 that where a person having a tangible interest in the property affected by a deed attest the deed, his attestation will tantamount to proof of consent. In the above judgment, the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court reported in 1977 TNLJ 174, Kanakavalli Ammal Vs. Ulaganatha Pillai, has been relied upon where under it has been held as follows:-

"It is an accepted principle of law that mere attestation of a document would not by itself impute knowledge of the contents or the recitals therein. But this principle cannot be taken to be axiomatically true, for there are attestation and attestations and they vary in accordance with the circumstances and facts of each case. If in a given case the attestation by a person interested in the property which is dealt with under the challenged document attests it under circumstances and events which would impute knowledge of the recitals therein, then the said attestor having approbated the document and the transaction by such an active participation and involvement, cannot reprobate later to suit her or his convenience."

2014 SCC Online Mad 153 33

44. Therefore, it is for this Court to find out as to whether the circumstances and events exist in this case which would impute knowledge of the recitals therein, to the defendant.

45. At this stage, it would be appropriate to quote the observation of the Madras High Court made in Jayarama Chandra Iyer vs. Thulasi Ammal and others, (1975) 2 MLJ 167, with regard to the effect of attestation by a person having existing interest in the property. It has been held that if an attestor has an existing interest in the property dealt with in the document, the attestation has been taken in order to bind him as to the correctness of the recitals therein.

46. While dealing with the question as to, whether the attestations of the next presumptive reversioners are sufficient proof, under the circumstances, of their consent to and ratification of the alienations of the respective properties, the Madras High Court considered the ordinary course of conduct of Indians, when they take attestation from a person having interest in the property. The decision reported in Kandasami Pillai v. Rangasami Nainar (1912) 23 M.L.J. 301, at p. 306 is relied upon, wherein, it is said that, "having regard to the ordinary course of conduct of Indians in this Presidency, attestation by a person who has or claims any interest in the property covered by the document must be treated prima facie as a representation by him, that the title and other facts relating to title, recited in the document, are true and will not be disputed by him as against the obligee under the document." 34

47. In the case of Vadrevu Ranganayakamma v. Vadrevu Bulliramayya (1879) 5 C.L.R. 439 at p. 447, the Privy Council said "But it frequently occurs in Indian documents that a man signs as a witness to show that he is acknowledging the instrument to be correct."

48. Hon'ble Justice Sadasiva Aiyar said: "I may respectfully add that, in my pretty long experience as a Judicial Officer, if the attestor of a document has an existing interest in the property dealt with in the document, it has been always the case that his attestation has been taken in order to bind him as to the correctness of the recitals therein."

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.14514 OF 2020:

49. The RDO in ROR Appeal No.19 of 2017 has made the following observations:

"The Advocates for the Respondents have argued that Sri Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao had sold away the entire extent of Ac.29.50 cents in R.S.No.127 of Nuzvid Village to Inuganti Ramamchandra Rao and his brother Inuganti Narasima Rao. After the demise of the Inuganti Ramachandra Rao, his brother Inuganti Narasimha Rao is the legal heir of the entire extent of Ac.29.50 cents, he sold away the same extent to Respondents under Registered sale deeds. Neither Inuganti Ramachandra Rao nor his brother Inuganti Narasimha Rao filed any registered documents or any linked registered documents as evidence in support of their claim over the land that they purchased the lands from Meka Venka Rama Mohana Appa Rao to establish their legal title as owner of the said land.

It is also observed that the land under reference is a ceiling land and Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao had filed a declaration 35 before the Land Reforms Tribunal stating that he disposed the land to Inuganti Ramchandra Rao on un-registered document and requested to reduce the extent from his holding but the Land Reforms Tribunal have not accepted the plea of the declarant and declared as surplus holder of 1.1222 Standard Holding and directed to be surrendered the land which is equivalent to 1.1222 Standard Holding in CC No.2272/GNV/75 to the Government."

50. So it is evident from the observations of the RDO that Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao admitted that he sold the land to Inuganti Ramachandra Rao under Un-registered Agreement of Sale.

51. It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Raj Kishan Pershad Vs. Joint Collector, R.R. District 12, observed that:

"Applying the principle in Digambar Adhar Case (supra) it be almost held that the Land Reforms Tribunal while determining the holding of Late Hari Krsihna Prasad relied on the factum of an extent of Acs.150-96 being in possession of the protected tenants and to that extent gave benefit to the declarant. A declarant who makes a statement and gets benefit out of such statement in getting excluded that land from his holding would not be permitted to turn abound at a later stage; in this case at the stage of issue of ownership certificate to the protected tenant to resile from the statement made before the Land Reforms Tribunal. The same would amount to fraud on public Administration."

52. So Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao having admitted before the Land Reform Tribunal that he sold the land, later on cannot retreat from his statement. He also attested the sale.

2001 (3) ALT 227 36

53. It is submitted that in Noor Mohammad & 2 others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao & 7 others 13, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) observed that:

"In the case of Vishwa Nath and another vs. Board of Revenue and Others; 2004 (4) AWC 3141, this Court was considering the preliminary objections with regard to entertaining a writ petition arising out of mutation proceedings. This Court considered Sections 34 and 35 and also Sections 40 and 40-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act along with the provisions of U.P. Revenue Court Manual. It observed that in a disputed case the Tahsildar shall only make a preliminary enquiry to determine the dispute, and its nature before referring to the case to the Collector for disposal under Section 35. The Collector shall then make a summary enquiry and shall take such further evidence as the parties were desirous to produce and as may be necessary in his opinion for completing the enquiry including evidence as recorded by Tahsildar or a qualified Naib Tahsildar. It is the court of the Collector which takes the evidence and has jurisdiction to decide the objection raised. The report of mutation can be given on the basis of transfer or succession on the basis of Will. The Collector may either accept or reject a Will, but the findings given in the mutation proceedings are only summary in nature subject to decision by the competent court. It is always open to the petitioners to establish their right on the basis of Will in a competent Court. The Court observed that findings in summary proceedings have no bearing on the adjudication of title by the competent court nor findings given in mutation proceedings could be treated to be findings establishing any title."

2020 Law Suit (All) 377 37 COUNTER OF RESPONDENT NO.10 (K.SRAVANTHI DEVI) IN W.P.No.14394 of 2020:

54. K. Sravanthi Devi, filed a petition before the Land Reforms Tribunal cum Revenue Divisional Officer on 08-09-2017 for surrender of land under Section 10 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceilings on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 in CC.No.2272/GNV/75 filed by Sri Raja Rama Mohana Appa Rao S/o. Sri Raja Venkata NArasimha Appa Rao. As per the petition, K. Sravanthi Devi surrendered to an extent of Ac.2.50 in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid and retained to an extent of Ac.27.00 land in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid.

55. The Will executed by her brother Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao has been validated by the Court of Law in E.A.No.311/2015 in E.P.No.33/2011 in L.A.O.P.No.39/1990 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid after examination and cross examination of witnesses and K. Sravanthi Devi has been recognized as the legal representative of the deceased Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao. So there is no need of validating the Will by the Joint Collector/RDO.

56. After the Will has been probated by the Court of Law and completion of Land Ceiling Proceedings, she made an application before the Tahsildar under Section 4 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 197114 for mutation of her name in the revenue records and to issue 14 Section 4 (1) Any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, in heritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Mandal Revenue 38 pattadar passbook and title deeds in her favour. But the Tahsildar has not considered her application stating that mutation cannot be done, as the third persons names have already been existing and advised her to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid. So she filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5 of the Act on 03-04-2017 for cancellation of mutation proceedings and also for issuance of pattadar passbook. Hence the petitioners' stand that the appeal is time barred is absolutely baseless and unsustainable.

57. In the Appeal she stated that she is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac.27.00 covered by R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid. She stated that she bequeathed the property under a Will executed by her brother Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao on 20-01-2014. The Will came into effect on the death of her brother i.e., on 03-12-2014 and thus she became the absolute owner of the properties of her brother including Ac.27.00 in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Village. She further submitted that she alone is and has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties.

58. The Ratnamma Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Annathapur District and others relied upon by the petitioners deals with Officer within [thirty days] from the date of such acquisition, and the said Mandal Revenue Officer shall give or send a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation to the person making it:

Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other persons, having charge of his property shall intimate the fact of such acquisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer.

application of Section 9 to Section 6-A. It has no relevance to the present case.

59. The document executed on 31-12-1970 is a self written promissory note and not an agreement of sale and there is no signature of Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao. The promissory note was written and signed by Ramachandra Rao. By virtue of this, the petitioners are trying to claim the title. Further the sale deed dated.28-03-1985 was executed by Inuganti Narasimha Rao (brother of Inuganti Ramachandra Rao). But the promissory note was written by Inuganti Ramachandra Rao. Inuganti Narashimha Rao states that they jointly executed the promissory note but his name is no where mentioned and also there is no signature of Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao. Even if it is claimed as title, suit for specific performance has to be filed.

60. There is no chain of link documents in favour of the petitioners and failed to prove as to how they got the property. Sale Deeds without the knowledge of owner is non est in the eye of law. Hence it has to be ignored.

61. In the Memorandum of Appeal it is stated that "the respondents 1 to 9 or the persons through whom they are claiming right (petitioners herein) over Ac.27.00 cents have no right over the said property. The 11th respondent did not make proper enquiry while issuing pattadar passbook and title deed books in the names of Respondent Nos.1 to 9. As such the pattadar passbooks and title deed books said to have been issued in the names of respondent Nos.1 to 9 are not binding on the appellant. 40

62. Further in the amended appeal, it is prayed to allow the Appeal petition and to issue necessary orders to the Tahsildar, Nuzvid to cancel the pattadar pass books, title deeds issued in favour of the respondents if any and mutations done if any in the revenue records and also to issue pattadar passbooks in favour of the appellant (K. Sravanthi Devi) for the land in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Village, in the interest of justice.

63. According to Section 5B (2), the Revenue Divisional Officer may Suo-moto call for the record of a case or proceedings from the Recording Authority and inspect it in order to satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and make suitable order in that behalf.

64. So the contentions of the petitioners that the respondent has no right of appeal is wrong.

65. The Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Krishna District, Machilipatnam observed in the Revision Petition that:

"The bone of contention between the rival parties is the alleged un-registered sale agreement and its validity. It is observed that the petitioners are claiming title through un-registered sale agreement and respondents were disregarding it as a mere promissory note. Even if it is considered as a sale agreement for argument sake, the validity of this document vis-a-vis to the provisions of ROR Act has to be examined. Rule 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadhar Passbook Rules, 1989 elucidates comprehensive procedures to be followed while recording a Pattadar. The Rule 9 (1) (a) (ii) of the above rule stipulates that all cases 41 requiring change of registry necessitated by sale, gift etc., through registered documents. It further emphasizes that the parties involved in a transfer should be connected by a complete chain of registered documents. Unregistered documents are not admissible as evidence in this enquiry to prove the ownership or title of the property. Where the chain is not complete, the rule specifies that no transfer of registry shall be done.

In the backdrop of above rule position that the parties involved in a transfer should be connected by a complete chain of registered documents, the arguments of the Revision Petitioners that their title is derived from an alleged un-registered sale agreement is not defendable and unconvincing.

It is settled law that the legal validity of the series of registered documents which were executed on the strength of the un- registered sale agreement hinges upon regularization of such deeds under a decree of a competent civil court or any provisions of a statute. For this purpose, a scheme of such regularization/facility was introduced in the Record of Rights by way of introducing section 5A in the year 1989 which facilitates for regularization of an alienation or transfer made otherwise than by registered document. As rightly observed by the appellant authority, though several chances were available, the petitioners or their vendors have failed to regularize the said sale agreement, therefore the subsequent registered deeds are not admissible evidence under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971.

The Tahsildar, Nuzvid while considering the mutation request of the petitioners under Section 5 (1) of the Act failed to appreciate the above statutory position thereby caused an error.

Therefore, I have not seen any reason to interfere with the order dated.30-04-2018 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid which annulled the mutations done by the Tahsildar, Nuzvid in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed."

66. The RDO observed in the Appeal that:

As per Section 5B of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadhar Passbook Act, 1971, the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned only confined to conduct enquiry and to pass orders regarding to make changes of mutations in Revenue Adangal Phani and 1-B Register (ROR) and issue Pattadhar Passbooks and Title Deeds.

It is also observed that either Inuganti Ramachandra Rao or his brother Inuganti Narasimha Rao has not filed any application before the competent authority i.e., Tahsildar, Nuzvid in Form X under Rule 22 of A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadhar Passbooks Act, 1971 on or before 31-03-2008 to regularize the claim over the land in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Village covered by unregistered possessory agreement.

In case of Possessory Agreement of Sale, an application has to be filed to regularize it before 2008.

Since the road was covered approximately in an extent of Ac.2.00 Cents in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid neither Inuganti Narasimha Rao nor the purchasers claimed for compensation for the acquisition of land.

The Appellant has surrendered an extent of Ac.2.50 Cents in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Village for the land which was already road formed.

67. The petitioners themselves admit that Ramachandra Rao should have executed the sale deed. But Section 17 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 is as follows:

"No person whose holding, and no member of a family unit, the holding of all the members of which in the aggregate, is in excess of the ceiling area as on the 24th January, 1971 or at any time thereafter, shall on or after the notified date, alienate his holding or any part thereof by way of sale, lease, gift, exchange, settlement, surrender, usufructuary mortgage or otherwise, or effect a partition thereof, or create a trust or convert an agricultural land into non-agricultural land, until he or the family unit, as the case may be, has furnished a declaration under section 8, and the extent of land, if any, to be surrendered in respect of his holding or that of his family unit has been determined by the Tribunal and an order has been passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under this Act taking possession of the land in excess of the ceiling area and a notification is published under section 16; and any alienation made or partition effected or trust created in contravention of this section shall be null and void and any conversion so made shall be disregarded."

68. The Civil Court has recognized K. Sravanthi Devi as the legal representative of Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao in the Execution Proceedings vide E.A.No.146/2014 in E.P.No.33/2011 in L.A.O.P.No.39/1990. By virtue of this recognition, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders in 44 favour of K.Sravanthi Devi in ROR Appeal No.19 of 2017. The RDO made observations regarding the disputed land and one of the observations states that:

"As could be seen from the alleged agreement of sale, it is only a promissory note written by one Inuganti Ramachandra Rao for Rs.40,000/- on payment of Rs.20,000/- in cash subject to the payment of balance Rs.20,000/- at the time of registration of the subject land which never materialized for registration. Further there is no mention of willingness of the land owner (Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao) for the sale agreement, no commitment of the above land owner, no mention of the conveying possession of the land and it is not sale agreement-cum-handing over possession of the possession of the land which cannot be acceptable under law.

The Tahsildar has not produced any related file relating to the issue of PPB/TD to the alleged defendant purchasers. Hence it can be construed that the issue of PPB/TD was not streamlined duly following procedural formalities under ROR Act, 1971.

It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Civil Court accepted the Will deed dated.20-01-2014 with regard to the payment of compensation in E.P.No.33/2011 in L.A.O.P.No: 39/1990 and recognized the petitioner as 2nd Class Legal Heir of the deceased Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao.

According to Rule 26(3) and 26 (6) of ROR rules PPB can be granted only to the persons who got both possession and title over the land. In this case, it is evident that the Respondents entered into unauthorized possession having no title. Hence they are to be treated as trespassers into the present subject lands."

69. In K.Pratap Reddy and others Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Redy District, Hyderabad15, the erstwhile Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed that:

"It is however to be noted that revenue authorities are not substitutes for the Courts of competent civil jurisdiction and it is for the party concerned to invoke such jurisdiction so as to bar the summary enquiry by the revenue authorities into issues of title in particular given circumstances. Needless to state revenue authorities, in such a 'summary enquiry', would not be capable of deciding complicated questions of title. The scope and circumstances of such enquiry by revenue authorities into issues of title is circumscribed by Section 5 of the Act of 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. Under Rule 9(1)(a)(i), the Mandal Revenue Officer is empowered to deal with change of Registry owing to the death of the registered holder. Under Rule 9(1)(a)(ii), the Mandal Revenue Officer is authorized to entertain a dispute where there is a break in the chain of registered documents, if the change of registry is based on a sale, gift etc., through registered documents. Under Rule 9(1)(a)(iii), disputes pertaining to grant of joint pattas of a joint Hindu family shall be referred to the Mandal Revenue Officer. Under Rule 9(1)(c)(iii), the Mandal Revenue Officer is entitled to resolve disputes involving a break in the chain of registered documents by relying on certain other evidence such as statements of other ryots and cist receipts. Under Rule 9(1)(c)(ii), the Mandal Revenue Officer is empowered to hold a summary enquiry as to who has the right to succeed to the property of a registered holder. These, then, are the only disputes that can be 15 2008 SCC Online AP 784 46 resolved by the Mandal Revenue Officer under the scheme of the Act of 1971 and the Rules of 1989"

70. In Shakeel Ahmed vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that:

"No title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882."

In the present case, the petitioners are claiming through an unregistered promissory note and registered sale deed executed by a person who is not even a party to the promissory note. Rule 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadhar Passbook Rules, 1989 elucidates comprehensive procedures to be followed while recording a Pattadar. The Rule 9 (1) (a) (ii) of the above rule stipulates that all cases requiring change of registry necessitated by sale, gift etc., through registered documents. It further emphasizes that the parties involved in a transfer should be connected by a complete chain of registered 16 2023 (6) ALD 194 (SC) 47 documents. Unregistered documents are not admissible as evidence in this enquiry to prove the ownership or title of the property. Where the chain is not complete, the rule specifies that no transfer of registry shall be done.

71. In Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

"What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; but it must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which is apparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In all these cases, the impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It may also be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such and the Court may need an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is an error of law and the said error must, on the whole, be of such a character as would satisfy the test that it is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to correction by a writ of certiorari."

1963 SCC Online SC 24 48

72. Hence Smt.K.Sravanthi Devi is the legal representative of Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao and there is no delay in filing the petition as there were surrender proceedings pending during such period with respect to the issue of possession is concerned.

REPLY OF THE PETITIONERS IN WP/14394/2020:

73. The dispute is with respect to the title and whether the revenue authorities are competent to decide the issue of title.

74. There is an estoppel by attestation by Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao. He did not question the transaction during his life time.

75. It is not appropriate for the revenue authorities to reopen a 1985 transaction at the behest of a third party.

 Shakeel Ahmed Vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain 18 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that "No title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on basis of an un- registered Agreement to Sale or on basis of an un-registered General Power of Attorney (GPA). The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e., the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that 18 2023 (6) ALD 194 (SC) 49 the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882." The case relates possession and mesne profits in contrast to the present case. There is an Estoppel by attestation. Prescriptive title is also a title recognized by law. The facts of the case and present case are totally different. So this case is not applicable to the present case.  Thummalachetty Builders and Developers (Pvt.) Ltd Vs. Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration and ors19 The case is with respect to Land Grabbing and on facts, this judgment is also distinguishable. Hence not relevant to the facts of the present case.  2015 (2) ALD 553 By attesting, Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao is estopped from. The same was supported by Judgments in Tnagamani Vs. Ganesan and 3 other Judgments.

 K. Pratap Reddy and ithers Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Redy District, Hyderabad20 The case is relating to joint pattas. This is in favour of the petitioners rather than the respondents.

19 2008 (6) ALD 227 DB 20 2009 (2) ALD 212 50

76. Revenue Authorities cannot embark upon the question of title. So the Writ Petitions are to be allowed.

REPLY OF THE PETITIONER IN WP.NO.22886 OF 2020:

77. In the sale deed dated 28-03-1985 it was mentioned that Inuganti Narasimha Rao and his brother Inuganti Ramachandra Rao bought the property from Meka Rama Mohana Appa Rao and Meka Rama Mohana Appa Rao through whom the unofficial respondents are claiming title now, is the attestor to the 1985 sale deed.

78. Even according to them, notice was issued in 1993. From 1993 to till his death, no steps were taken. Section 41 of the Transfer of property Act also applies to the present case. RDO/Tahsildar is not competent to decide the title, it is for the Civil Court and the petitioners can take limitation as a defense. In all Revenue Records, petitioners' names were recorded. Section 5B application does not arise as he is claiming with respect to the 1985 document. The Act does not empower the RDO to go into the question of title and cancel the pattas and title deeds. They cannot bypass the civil remedy. Both orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector have to be set aside.

79. In the light of the above said facts and circumstances, the rival submissions made, consideration of the material available on record, consideration of the above said decisions and as discussed above under different heads the various contentious issues, it is to be seen that there is a 51 rival claimancy over the subject land covered under these writ petitions with respect to the title and possession of the same amongst the petitioners and the unofficial respondents concerned. Smt.K.Sravanti Devi rightly approached the revenue authorities as stated supra soon after her rights are crystalised. Both the parties concerned contested the case before the revenue authorities concerned by way of an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid in ROR Appeal No.19/2017 and by way of revision before the Joint Collector by trying to establish prima facie their title and possession over the subject land for the purpose of mutation/correction of their names in the revenue records. Hence, both the authorities concerned dealt with the same by way of summary enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the A.P. Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder. Incidentally they have gone into the aspect of title and possession of the parties concerned over the subject land for the sake of determination of the rights of the parties in respect of mutation of their names by way of correction/deletion in the revenue records strictly within the ambit of the above said provisions as discussed under the A.P.Rights in land and pattadar passbooks Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, it can be safely held that there is no infirmity or impropriety of Jurisdiction exercised in the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the above said appeal and in the orders passed by the Joint Collector while dismissing the above said revision and as such they do not warrant any interference by this court. However, it is made clear that any observations made by the said authorities concerned with respect to the title 52 and possession over the subject land shall be understood that it was only for the purpose of consideration of the request of the parties concerned with regard to the above said mutation of their names in the revenue records. Since there is a dispute with regard to the title and possession over the subject land of these writ petitions the petitioners and the unofficial respondents/parties concerned are directed to approach the competent civil court in order to establish their superior title and possession over the subject property. Appropriate interim reliefs can also be sought in the comprehensive suit/suits that may be filed before the said court. Subject to outcome of the said ensuing suit/s, the parties concerned can still approach the above said revenue authorities concerned under the provisions of ROR Act seeking necessary corrections if any with respect to the mutation of their names in the revenue records if so warranted. But for the present the above said orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid in ROR Appeal No.19/2017 dated 30.04.2018 and the Joint Collector, Machilipatnam vide file No.REV DSECOROR (REV)/2018SA-(D2)-KCO, dated 21.07.2020 shall be implemented forthwith if not already implemented by now.

80. For the purpose of enabling the parties to approach the competent civil court, as indicated above, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the possession of the subject land covering these writ petitions for a period of two months from today. Any further interim reliefs or reliefs are required the same can be sought from the competent civil court in accordance with law thereafter as indicated above. 53

Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN May 10, 2024 LMV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati