Telangana High Court
Yerramada Chinna Ramaiah Ram Reddy vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 October, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION NOS.5077 of 2006 & 20149 of 2009
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.5077 of 2006 is filed questioning the orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in cancelling the pattadar pass book No.P.P.B.No.674149 issued in favour of the petitioner for the land in Survey No.70 to the extent of Acs.3.00 situated in Pittampalli Village, Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently prayed to set aside the same.
2. W.P.No.20149 of 2009 is filed praying this Court to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds for the land in Survey No.70 to the extent of Acs.3.00, Pittampalli Village, Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District, to respondent No.6 herein and consequently prayed for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take action in pursuance of proceedings No.G/1377/04 dated 24.06.2005 and 07.05.2005 on the file of respondent No.2/Revenue Divisional Officer and proceedings No.B/535/01 dated 29.06.2005 on the file of respondent No.3/Tahsildar by holding the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds to the extent of Acs.3.00 in Survey No.70 and Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.69 of Pittampalli Village 2 in favour of the petitioner as illegal and contrary to the proceedings dated 31.10.1993 on the file of respondent No.1/District Collector.
3. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.5077 of 2006 is respondent No.5 in W.P.No.20149 of 2009 and the writ petitioner in W.P.No.20149 of 2009 is respondent No.4 in W.P.No.5077 of 2006. Both these writ petitions are relating to the land in Survey No.70 to the extent of Acs.3.00. W.P.No.5077 of 2006 is filed questioning the cancellation of pattadar pass book in proceedings No.G/1377/04 dated 24.06.2005 and 07.05.2005, whereas W.P.No.20149 of 2009 is filed seeking implementation of the proceedings in respect of the very same subject land. Both these writ petitions were heard together as common issues are involved and the same are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.5077 of 2006.
4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the cases are stated as under:-
The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Survey No.70 to an extent of Acs.3.00 and when third parties tried to interfere with her possession, she filed O.S.No.35 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nakhrekal, against one Sri Erranmanda 3 Chinna Ramaiah @ Rami Reddy S/o. Veeraiah and Erramanda Achamma W/o. Chinna Ramaiah @ Rami Reddy for the relief of injunction and said suit was decreed in her favour. She also claims to have filed E.P.No.23 of 2005 for execution of the decree and the same is pending. It is her further case that originally the name of one Y. Narsaiah was recorded as pattadar for an extent of Acs.29.00 of land in Survey Nos.65, 69 and 70 of Pittampalli Village and after his death, Y. Ramachandraiah (petitioner's father), Y. Veeraiah and Y. Somaiah (paternal uncle) succeeded to an extent of Ac.9.29 guntas each. Further, it is her case that during the life time of her father he has given share to the petitioner and her sister at the time of marriage. Thereafter, her brother went to adoption to Y. Somaiah (younger paternal uncle), who also executed a Will Deed dated 01.01.1963 bequeathing the properties in favour of her brothers, namely Y. Ramaiah and Y. Lingaiah. The revenue authorities after conducting detailed enquiry granted pattadar passbook No.674149 to an extent of Acs.3.00 in favour of the petitioner and she has nothing to do with the disputes among other legal heirs, but the respondent authorities without following the due procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and without issuing any notice, issued proceedings 4 No.G/1377/2007 dated 29.06.2005 cancelling the pattadar passbook and the same is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
5. Respondent No.4 (petitioner in W.P.NO.20149 of 2009) filed a counter affidavit stating that originally the name of Y. Narsaiah was recorded in the revenue records from 1953-54 as pattadar for the land admeasuring Acs.29.00 of land situated in Survey Nos.65, 69 and 70 of Pittampally Village and after the death of Y. Narsaiah, his three sons, Y. Ramachandraiah, Y. Veeraiah (father of respondent No.4) and Y. Somaiah succeeded to the property equally to an extent of Ac.9.21 guntas each. After the death of elder son Y. Ramachandraiah, the younger son Y. Somaiah died issueless in the year 1978 and then the share of Y. Somaiah to an extent of Ac.9.29 guntas was again divided into two parts consisting of Ac.4.34 guntas each and one part devolved on Y. Ramaiah and Y. Lingaiah, who are the sons of Y. Ramachandraiah, and remaining extent of Ac.4.34 guntas was devolved on Y. Veeraiah (father of respondent No.4). Thus the father of respondent No.4 got an extent Ac.9.29 gunts plus Ac.4.34 guntas i.e., Ac.14.15 guntas. But Y. Ramaiah and Y. Lingaiah, who are brothers of petitioner, playing fraud and colluding with the revenue officers got mutated the total extent of Ac.9.29 guntas, instead of an extent of Ac.4.34 guntas, in their favour and disposed the said property in favour of the third parties. 5
6. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that after coming to know about the said fraud, respondent No.4 and his brother filed a petition on the file of the District Collector seeking rectification of the revenue entries. After conducting enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer found that the brothers of the petitioner Y. Ramaiah and Y. Lingaiah have got mutated the property by playing fraud and basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer the District Collector vide orders dated 17.04.1990 accorded the permission for rectification of errors in the revenue records. While so, O.S.No.293 of 1990 was instituted by the Y. Ramaiah and Y. Lingaiah wherein status quo orders were initially granted on 18.06.1990 and the said suit was withdrawn on 16.11.1990. Thereafter, Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders on 23.03.1991 directing respondent No.4 to approach the Civil Court. Questioning the said orders, respondent No.4 and another filed an appeal before the District Collector. The District Collector, vide order dated 31.10.1993, after examination of the entire records, found that Y. Ramaiah and Y. Lingaiah (brothers of writ petitioner) playing fraud obtained mutation of the land fell to the share of respondent No.4, and to resolve the issue directed respondent No.2 to determine the market value of the land and recover the same as compensation payable to respondent No.4 and his brother. Since the land was sold in favour of third parties, the Mandal 6 Revenue Officer directed the brothers of the writ petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.33,950/- as market value of the land for the extent of Ac.4.34 guntas.
7. Questioning the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, respondent No.4 filed W.P.No.1482 of 2001 on the file of this Court and this Court vide order dated 05.02.2001 directed respondent No.4 to file objections before the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer in turn was directed to consider the same. Thereafter, since the matter has not been settled among the co-sharers of the property, the Mandal Revenue Officer has cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner vide impugned proceedings. It is further case of respondent No.4 that the Mandal Revenue Officer having cancelled pattadar passbooks to the petitioner, ought to have entertained the claim of respondent No.4 in issuing pattadar pass books, as such the action was assailed in writ petition i.e., W.P.No.20149 of 2009.
8. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that she is the granddaughter of late Y. Narsaiah and her father Y. Ramachandraiah has succeeded an extent of Ac.9.29 guntas and out of the same an extent of Acs.3.00 was given to her at the time of marriage and as such she has become the absolute owner of the property.
7
8. Considered the submissions of respective counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. As per the revenue records, the name of Y. Narsaiah was recorded as pattadar to an extent of Acs.29.00 guntas in Survey Nos.65, 69 and 70 of Pittampalli Village, Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District. The said property was devolved upon his three sons, namely, Y. Ramachandraiah, Y. Veeraiah and Y. Somaiah to an extent of Ac.9.29 guntas each. After death of Y. Ramachandraiah his share was devolved upon his two sons Y. Ramaiah and Y. Lingaiah. The third son Y. Somaiah died issueless and thus his share of Ac.9.29 guntas has to be divided equally among the legal heirs of Y. Ramachandraiah and Y. Veeraiah. Since the entire extent of Ac.9.29 guntas of Y. Somaiah was got mutated in the names of the sons of Y. Ramachandraiah i.e., Ramaiah and Lingaiah, disputes arose among the legal heirs of late Y. Narsaiah.
10. Respondent No.4 herein i.e., Y. China Ramaiah (writ petitioner in W.P.No.20149 of 2009) has filed a representation on the file of the District Collector seeking rectification of entries. The District Collector treating the said representation as the one filed under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (briefly "the Land Revenue Act", hereinafter) in Case No.C3/DC/JB/3/91 and after elaborate examination of the entire land records has found that 8 the father of respondent No.4 is entitled to an extent of Ac.4.34 guntas out of the share of Y. Veeraiah, and Y. Ramaiah and Y. Lingaiah, sons of Y. Ramachandraiah, by playing fraud obtained mutation vide proceedings No.A1/1818/86 dated 24.09.2006 and basing on the said mutation, Ramaiah and Lingaiah, disposed the property in favour of the third parties and the names of the third parties are also entered in the revenue records and in view of multiple transactions over the subject property, the District Collector directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to direct Ramaiah and Lingaiah, to pay compensation of equivalent value of the land to respondent No.4 and his brother. In pursuance of the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued proceedings in Lr.No.G/1377/2004 dated 07.05.2005. Respondent No.4 and his brother have not agreed to receive the amount as compensation towards their share of Ac.4.34 guntas, as such respondent No.2 directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued irregularly for the land in Survey No.69 to an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas and land in Survey No.70 to the extent of Ac.3.00. In compliance with the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Mandal Revenue Officer vide proceedings No.B/535/01 dated 29.06.2005 has cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in respect of the subject land which is impugned in W.P.No.5077 of 2006.
9
12. The petitioner in W.P.No.5077 of 2006 is claiming the land to the extent of Acs.3.00 as absolute owner. She has not placed any record in support of her right over the property in Survey No.70. The contention of the petitioner is that the property succeeded by her father late Y. Ramachandraiah was given to her along with her sister at the time of marriage. To substantiate the said contention, she has not furnished any particulars about the remaining co-sharers or the date of marriage or any document in support of her claim that her father has given the property at the time of marriage. In the absence of any record, she got managed revenue authorities for issuance of pattadar passbook. Moreover, there is a serious dispute with regard to devolving properties of late Y. Narsaiah in favour of his three children Ramachandraiah, Veeraiah and Somaiah. Instead of resolving their dispute by approaching the competent Civil Court, they invited the revenue authorities to decide title and shares of the respective parties which is not permissible in law.
13. During pendency of lis, the petitioner relying on the passbook issued to her for the land to an extent of Acs.3.00 in Survey No.70 vide Pattadar Passbook No.674149 has meddle the property with third parties. The District Collector, even though not empowered to resolve the disputes, has acted as an arbitrator rather than a quasi-judicial authority and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to act as a 10 mediator in payment of compensation in lieu of Ac.4.34 guntas of land which was utilised by the brothers of the petitioner.
14. Respondents No.1 to 3, being the officers of the State, can only exercise the powers specifically conferred upon them by the Statute and in contrast Civil Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon all the matters involving civil disputes, except where the jurisdiction of the Court has been taken away. In this case, the District Collector exercising powers under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act has directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to act as a mediator in settlement of the disputes among the parties exceeding his jurisdiction.
15. Further, even though no notice was issued to the petitioner while cancelling the pattadar pass book, the same cannot be quashed, if it revives an illegality. Admittedly there is no record basing on which pattadar pass book has been issued to the petitioner. Further, respondent No.4 is also not entitled for issuance of pattadar pass books in the absence of any declaration to the effect that they are having half share in the property of late Y. Somaiah (the younger son of late Y. Narasaiah) who died issueless.
16. It is settled law that mutation entries of land in the revenue records do not create or extinguish the title over any land nor do they have any 11 presumptive value on the title of such land. Such an entry in the revenue records enables the person in whose favour the mutation is ordered to pay land revenue. Issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of either of the parties is not the conclusive proof of title and ownership. Once a dispute regarding right of succession is raised at the time of mutation, it is not open to the revenue authorities to adjudicate upon the right to succession and the matter should be referred to Civil Court or the parties should be directed to get their civil rights adjudicated through appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court. When the title of an occupant is disputed before the Collector or any Revenue Authorities, the appropriate course would be to refer the parties to competent Civil Court, instead of deciding title or entitlement of any of the occupants as was done in this case.
17. For the aforesaid said reasons, this Court is of the view that both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed relegating the parties to approach the competent Civil Court to adjudicate their rights and depending upon the outcome, they are entitled to make necessary applications in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 seeking mutation of their names for the respective extent of land. 12
18. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 20.10.2022 KNR 13 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS.5077 of 2006 & 20149 of 2009 20.10.2022 14 KNR