Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Velagapudi Satyanarayana vs District Collector, Nalgonda And ... on 15 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(6)ALD153, 2000(6)ALT392, AIR 2001 (NOC) 96 (AP), 2001 A I H C 2829, (2000) 6 ANDHLD 153, (2000) 6 ANDH LT 392
Author: Elipe Dharma Rao
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to call for the records of the 1st respondent containing the impugned proceedings Case No.C3/District Collector / Rev/6/89 dated 13-8-1990 and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. It is stated by the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.6.25 guntas of land out of Survey Nos.43, 188, 189 and 190 of Malkapnram village, Rammamtapet Mandal of Nalgonda District and has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment as owner of the said lands and his name is also recorded in the village Records for the last over 20 years. In the year 1975-76, the Revenue Divisional Officer being the Jamabandi Officer, also approved the mutation of the said lands in his name.
3. It is further stated that some time in the year 1988 the respondents 2 to 7 herein tried to interfere with his possession of the said land without having any right, title and interest therein. Hence he filed a civil suit in OS No.846 of 1988 in the Court of the District Munsif, Ramannapet for perpetual injunction and pending the said suit, he also obtained interim injunction against the respondents from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the said land vide order dated 15-11-1988 made in IA No.477 of 1988 in OS No.846 of 1988 and the said injunction is still in tact. Thereafter the respondents 2 to 7 filed a suit against him OS No.7 of 1989 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nalgonda for a declaration of their title in respect of suit lands for perpetual injunction and both the suits are pending.
4. It is further stated that in the second suit i.e., in OS No.7 of 1989 filed by the respondents 2 to 7, the respondents 2 to 7 have specifically prayed for correction of the Jamabandi records showing the names of the respondents 2 to 7 as owners. Therefore, the said relief is the subject matter of the said suit. But contrary to the settled principles of law, the respondents 2 to 7 herein have filed a petition before the first respondent purporting to be a Revision under Section 166-B of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1317-Fasli to revise the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer in entry Nos.21 and 20 of 1975-76 mutating the lands in his name and the first respondent has now passed the impugned order purporting to exercise the jurisdiction under 166-B of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, Assailing the said order, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner contending that, when the respondents 2 to 7 have filed a suit in OS No.7 of 1989, they should not have approached the Revisional authority under Section 9 of the A.P. Record of Rights in Lands Act, 1971. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that mutation of the said land in the revenue records was done in the year 1975-76 in his name, and the respondents 2 to 7 have filed the revision in the year 1989 i.e., after a lapse of 15 years and therefore, the District Collector ought not to have entertained the revision petition. The reasons given by the respondents in the revision petition for condonation of delay are altogether unreasonable and liable to be rejected.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that there is no bar in entertaining the revision petition by the revisional authority, when a suit is pending in the civil Court. Therefore, he contended that the District collector has rightly entertained the revision petition and passed appropriate orders, which are in accordance with law.
6. The learned Government Pleader further contends that the respondents 2 to 7 have given their explanation for the delay in approaching the Revisional authority stating that at the time of mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue record in the year 1975-76, they were minors and they got the knowledge of this mutation in the year 1978 only. Therefore, accepting the explanation submitted by the respondents 2 to 7, the District Collector has rightly entertained the revision petition.
7. To appreciate the rival contentions of both sides, I have gone through the records. It is seen from the record that the petitioner has filed a suit in OS No.846 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramannapet for perpetual injunction and also obtained interim injunction against the respondents 2 to 7 vide order dated 15-11-1988 made in IA No.477 of 1988. In the year 1989, the respondents 2 to 7 also have filed a suit in OS No.7 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Nalgonda to record the names of the respondents 2 to 7 as owners of the said land in the revenue records by deleting the name of the petitioner. It is no doubt true that the respondents 2 to 7 have approached the competent civil Court under Section 8(2) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") for declaration of their rights by filing a suit.
8. At this stage, it is relevant to extract Section 8(2) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971, which reads as under:
Section 8: Bar of suits :--
(2) If any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration."
9. Therefore, a perusal of Section 8(2) of the Act shows that if a person is aggrieved of his right in a property, of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights, he can file a suit for declaration of his right against the person who denies his title to such right. But when once the respondents 2 to 7 have approached the civil Court under Section 8(2) of the Act, they should not have approached the revisional authority after a lapse of 15 years for correction of the entry in the revenue records. The respondents 2 to 7 have initiated parallel proceeding by way of filing a suit under Section 8(2) of the Act as well as by filing a revision petition before the District Collector tinder Section 166-B of the Act, which are not permissible under law and the explanation given by the respondents 2 to 7 for filing the revision petition before the District Collector after a gap of 15 years is that at the time of mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in 1975-76, they were minors and they came to know about the said fact in the year 1978 only. The said explanation cannot be accepted because as an ordinary prudent person, should have approached the revisional authority as soon as they came to know about the mutation of the petitioner's name in the revenue records i.e., in the year 1978 itself. But instead of doing so, the respondents 2 to 7 have approached the revisional authority in the year 1989 i.e., after 10 years they came to know about the mutation of the petitioner's name in the revenue records.
10. To substantiate the contention that the respondents 2 to 7 should have approached the revisional authority within a reasonable time from the date of their acquiring knowledge about the mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in STate of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and others, . That matter was under the Bombay Land Revenue Code (5 of 1879). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering Sections 65 and 211 of the said Code, as to whether the commissioner can revise an order made under Section 65 at any time, it was held that "it is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in a reasonable lime and the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being, revised".
11. Therefore in the above judgment the Supreme Court has prescribed a reasonable time for approaching the revisional authority for revising an order from the date of passing of the original order. But in the case on hand, the respondents 2 to 7 have approached the revisional authority after a lapse of 15 years from the date of passing of the original order.
12. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the District Collector should not have entertained the revision petition filed by the respondents 2 to 7 beyond the reasonable period of time. Moreover, the respondents 2 to 7 have approached the civil Court also by filing a suit in OS No.7 of 1989 praying for the same relief, which they prayed in the revision petition. The respondents 2 to 7 therefore, should not have initiated parallel proceedings simultaneously before the competent civil Court and before the revisional authority, which is not permissible under law. Therefore, on these two grounds viz., on the ground of limitation and also on the ground of initiating parallel proceedings, the order passed by the District Collector is liable to be set aside.
13. To sum up, the respondents have filed the revision petition under Section 166-B of A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli to review the order of Tahsildar mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in the Jamabandi 1975-76 after a lapse of 15 years, which they are not entitled according to law and they have rightly approached the competent civil Court under Section 8(2) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971, which is pending before the Court, for the same relief which was prayed in the revision petition before the District Collector under Section 166-B. The petitioner has filed a suit and obtained interim injunction restraining the respondent not to dispossess him from the suit land. When the petitioner has obtained interim injunction, against the respondents, they should not have approached the District Collector to review the orders passed by the Tahsildar to remove the name of the petitioner from the Revenue Records and include their names. The issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by Section 8(2) of the Act and the respondents have rightly approached the civil Court. Therefore, the District Collector has no power to entertain (he revision under Section 166-B of Revenue Act, after a lapse of 15 years to delete the name of the petitioners from the revenue records, which was mutated in Jamabandi in the year 1975-76. Therefore, the orders passed by the District Collector in Proceedings No.C3/ District Collector/Rev/6/89 dated 13-8-1990 is contrary to law,
14. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Collector, Nalgonda under Section 166-B of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act of 1317 Fasli dated 13-8-1990 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.