Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sannareddy Yugandhar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 October, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.2203 OF 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the Endorsement Rc.B/225/2018 dated 08.01.2021 issued by the third respondent without implementing the orders in D.Dis.(B)655/2018 dated 27.01.2019, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and without any authority and consequently direct the third respondent to implement the orders in D.Dis.(B)655/2018 dated 27.01.2019 by restoring an extent of Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No.86/13 of Melupaka Village, Doravarisatram Mandal in the adangal, in the name of this petitioner.
The petitioner is represented by General Power of Attorney Holder, who is none other than his father.
The facts of the case in nutshell are that, petitioner's mother Smt. Sannareddy Annapurnamma purchased land admeasuring Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No.86/13 of Melupaka Village, Doravarisatram Mandal under registered sale deeds bearing Nos.836/1983, 698/1986, 825/1990 and through an unregistered sale letter dated 02.09.1990 which was subsequently regularized by the Tahsildar under Section 5-A of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. Since the date of purchase, mother of the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The name of the mother of this petitioner was mutated as pattdar and enjoyer in adangal and Form IB (ROR); issued pattadar passbook and title deeds in her favour.
MSM,J WP_2203_2021 2 It is contended that, the petitioner's mother executed two registered settlement deeds bearing Document Nos. 1006/2006 dated 11.05.2006 and 51/2007 dated 06.01.2007 in respect of the above land in favour of the writ petitioner - her son and delivered possession of the land in his favour. The third respondent -Tahsildar entered the name of the petitioner in adagnal, Form IB (ROR) as pattadar and enjoyer of Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No.86/13 and issued pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour, as such, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said land.
While so, during computerisation of manual land records, the third respondent has shown in the adangal an extent of Ac.3-91 cents in Sy.No.86/3 in favour of this petitioner. After noticing the same, the petitioner made an application to the third respondent for rectification of entries in the adangal. The third respondent issued notice to all the concerned and called reports from Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer, Melupaka village and directed the licensed surveyors to conduct survey as per enjoyment and submit report. Basing on the reports of Mandal Revenue Inspector, Village Revenue Officer and Surveyors, the third respondent issued order in D.Dis.(B)655/2018 dated 27.01.2019 for correction of the mistake in adaganl and enter the extent of land as Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No.86/13. The said order has not been challenged and became final. However, the third respondent has not implemented the order in revenue records. In view of the same, the petitioner made a representation to the third respondent to give effect to the order dated 27.01.2019. The third respondent instead of implementing the order dated 27.01.2019 and restoring the extent of land in the adangal, has issued an Endorsement in Rc.B/225/2018 dated MSM,J WP_2203_2021 3 08.01.2021 directing the petitioner to settle the issue in the Civil Court.
Further, till computerization of land records an extent of Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No. 86/13 was recorded in the name of the petitioner and his predecessors in title as pattadars and enjoyers in adangal and Form IB (ROR). In pattadar pass book and title deed issued by the 3rd respondent in favour of the petitioner, the extent owned by the petitioner was shown as Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No. 86/13. Only during computerization, an extent of Ac.3-91 cents in Sy.No.86/13 is recorded in the adangal. Before recording Ac.3-91 cents instead of Ac.4-20 cents in S.No. 86/13, the 3rd respondent had neither issued any notice nor afforded any opportunity to the petitioner. Since the 3rd respondent has not entered the actual extent in adangal, the petitioner made application to rectify the mistake. The 3rd respondent after conducting thorough enquiry and affording opportunity to all the concerned issued orders dated 27-1-2019 correcting the entries in adangal. The 3rd respondent has to implement the same and correct the extent in the adangal. So far the 3rd respondent has not given effect to the order dated 27-12019. The action of the 3rd respondent in not rectifying the entries in adangal as per the orders dated 27-1-2019 is illegal and arbitrary.
The 3rd respondent after due enquiry has passed the order on 27-01-2019 rectifying the extent in adangal. The said order has not been challenged and the same became final. The endorsement dated 8-1-2021 issued by the 3rd respondent is contrary to the order dated 27-1-2019. The 3rd respondent has no power/authority to issue such an endorsement. Having issued order on 27-1-2019, the 3rd MSM,J WP_2203_2021 4 respondent has to implement the same. The endorsement dated 8-1- 2021 issued by the 3rd respondent is without any authority.
The petitioner made an application to restore the entry in adangal that was existing prior to computerization of land revenue records. The 3rd respondent on consideration of material on record and after following the procedure has passed the order restoring the entry in adangal with regard to the extent of land owned by the petitioner in Sy.No.86/13. The petitioner has not raised any title issue and the title issue is not the subject matter. The action of the 3rd respondent in issuing an endorsement to settle the title disputes before Civil Court without implementing the order dated 27-1-2019 is not just and proper.
After receipt of the application of the petitioner filed for rectification of extent in the adangal has directed the surveyor to conduct survey. The surveyor after issuing notice to all the concerned conducted survey and submitted report and sketch. As per the report of surveyor, the petitioner is in possession of Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No. 86/13. The Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records Nellore in R.C.AS/332/2019 dated 7-8-2019 directed the 3rd respondent to measure as per the enjoyment and resolve the issue of the applicant. The 3rd respondent issued notice to the concerned and called for report from Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer. As per the documents and reports of Surveyor, Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No.86/13. Therefore, the action of the respondents in issuing Endorsement Rc.B/225/2018 dated 08.01.2021 issued by the third respondent without implementing the order in D.Dis.(B)655/2018 MSM,J WP_2203_2021 5 dated 27.01.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and set-aside the same, consequently direct the third respondent to implement the order in D.Dis.(B)655/2018 dated 27.01.2019 by restoring extent of land admeasuring Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No.86/13 of Melupaka Village, Doravarisatram Mandal.
The third respondent - The Tahsildar, Doravarisatram Mandal, filed counter affidavit denying material allegations, inter alia contending that the following extent of land was purchased by the mother of this petitioner as shown in the table below:
Village Sy.No Extent purchased Doc.No. & Date Name of the Seller Melupaka 86/13 1.00 836/1983 Buduru Pullaiah Buduru Out of Acs.3.00 Dt.28.09.1983 Venkateswarlu purchased vide Doc.No.1452/1967 Buduru Chandraiah Parangi Chinnamma Melupaka 86/13 1.94 698/1986 Buduru Challamma Parangi Venkatesu Ac.1.32 + 0.62 Dt.31.07.1986 Parangi Chinnamma Parangi Subramanyam Parangi Aadiseshaiah Melupaka 86/13 0.97 ½ 825/1990 Buduru Pullaiah Buduru Dt.05.10.1990 Venkateswarlu 3.91 ½ The mother of the petitioner has shown another purchase of Ac.0-28 ½ from Smt Parangi Chinnamma & another through an unregistered agreement of sale dated 02-09-1990. Subsequently Smt. Sannareddy Annapurnamma, mother of the petitioner has made a Gift Settlement deed in favour of her son Sri Sannareddy Yugandhar Reddy, the writ petitioner herein. He was issued Pattadar Passbook for the above total extent of Ac.4-20 cents basing on the Settlement deed. Though the Pattadar Passbook was issued for Ac.4-20 in Sy.No. 86/13 of Melupaka Village, an extent of Ac.3-91 was recorded in Webland records as under the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner approached the MSM,J WP_2203_2021 6 then Tahsildar, Doravarisatram requesting to correct the entries in respect of extent of land in the Webland records. The then Tahsildar, Doravarisatram has also issued order vide D.Dis(B)655/2018 dated:
27-01-2019 for correcting the entries in Webland records as requested by the applicant basing on the sale documents produced by the petitioner.
After conducting detailed enquiry and survey of the land, it was found that the vendors of the petitioner have sold the extent more than that was held by them and that there is variation in extent between the extent recorded in the revenue records and the extent available on ground in Sy.No. 86/13 of Melupaka Village. The vendors Buduru Ayyalu and his family members have purchased an extent of Ac.4-00 cents only vide Doc. No. 333/1962 and 1452/1967 from the earlier land owner Mulla China Hussain Pucha Saheb, but the same vendors have sold the following extent of land in excess of the extent purchased by them.
S.No. Doc.No Extent sold Name of the purchaser 1 836/1983 1-00 Sannareddy 2 698/1986 1-94 Annapurnamma 3 825/1990 0-97 ½ 4 Unregistered Sale deed 0-28 ½ Mother of the petitioner dated 02.09.1990 Total 4-20 5 0-74 Tumma Yellaiah TOTAL 4-94 The vendors of the petitioner i.e. Buduru Ayyalu and his family, though they acquired only Ac.4-00 cents through sale, have sold Ac.0-94 cents of excess extent of land to the petitioner's mother and others. Further, the total extent of land in Sy.No. 86/13 is shown as Ac.12-41 in Fair Adangal i.e., Resettlement Register, but on measurement of Sy.No.86/13, found only Ac. 11-41 cents of land physically available on ground in Sy.No.86/13. The Mandal Surveyor MSM,J WP_2203_2021 7 measured the land with ETS Machine and arrived that total extent in Sy.No.86/13 is only Ac.11-41 cents instead of Ac.12-41 cents as shown in Resettlement Register. Further, it was revealed from the revenue records that the original pattadars and other legal heirs of pattadars have affected the following sale of land in Sy.No.86/13 of Melupaka Village.
Doc.No Extent shown Name of the purchaser
Doc.No.1318/1959 Ac.11-00 Mulla China Hussain
Dt.18-12-1959 Pucha Saheb
Doc.No.1319/1959 Ac.1-00 Killeti Venkata Swamy
Dt.18-12-1959
Ac.12-00
The above transactions have taken place for more than the extents available on ground basing on the entries available on record and thereby, the discrepancy had taken place. In order to sort out the problem, the then Tahsildar verified the documents relating the land in Sy.No.86/13. It was revealed that the Pattadars of the land Sri Duvvuru Munuswamy Reddy and others have sold an extent of Ac. 11.00 to Sri Mulla China Hussain Pucha Saheb vide sale deed No. 1318/1959 Dated:18-12-1959 and Ac. 1.00 to Killeti Venkataswamy vide sale deed No. 1319/1959 Dated: 18-12-1959.
Totally the Pattadars have sold the land showing the extent of Ac. 12.00. Subsequently, Sri Mulla China Hussain Pucha Saheb has sold away the land of Ac.11.00 cents to the petitioner's predecessors and others. An extent of Ac.4.00 cents to the petitioner's predecessors and Ac.7.00 cents to one Chakrapani Naidu, who in turn sold the same to one Isanaka Sreevani, the present enjoyer. Sri Killeti Venkataswamy, who purchased Ac. 1.00 of land from the Pattadar, has also transferred the land and the present claimant is one Chinthagunta Srinivasa Babu.
MSM,J WP_2203_2021 8 While the sale transactions on record stood as explained above, the enjoyment of land on ground is existing as explained below after conduct of ETS Machine Survey of the land by the Mandal Surveyor.
Sl.No Name of the enjoyer Extent under
enjoyment
1 Sri Chinathagunta Sreeinivasa Babu 1.04
2 Smt. Isanaka Sreevani 4-99
3 Sri Sannareddy Yugandhar Reddy 3-10
4 Sri Papareddy Thakaram Reddy 0-74
5 Unoccupied land (dispute between Sl.2 & 3) 1-54
Total 11-41
Therefore, the land in possession of this petitioner is only Ac.3-10 cents and not even Ac.3-91 cents, thereby, he is not entitled to claim and demanding the third respondent to rectify the mistake in the revenue records by mutating Ac.4-20 cents does not arise, thereby, request of the petitioner cannot be entertained and consequently the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, finally prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
The petitioner filed rejoinder i.e. reply to the counter affidavit, reiterating the contentions urged in the petition and placed on record certain documents along with proforma in Form 1-B ROR to substantiate his contentions.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
Purchase of property by the petitioner's mother - Smt. Sannareddy Annapurnamma under registered sale deeds, settling agricultural land in an extent of Ac.4-20 cents in favour of this petitioner by registered document, issue of pattadar passbook and title deed, mutation of the name of this petitioner in revenue records, issue of Form 1-B ROR, conduct of survey, finding that the petitioner MSM,J WP_2203_2021 9 is in possession of Ac.3-91 cents by the surveyor and submitting a report dated 27.01.2019 directing to restore Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No.86/13 in the revenue records as per the report of the Tahsildar vide D.Dis.(B)655/2018 dated 27.01.2019 and issuing an Endorsement in Rc.B/255/2018 dated 08.01.2021 are not in dispute. Issue of Endorsement Rc.B/225/2018 dated 08.01.2021 reducing the total extent to Ac.3-10 cents from Ac.4-20 cents is also not in dispute.
The main grievance of this petitioner before this Court is that, when the total extent of land in Sy.No.86/13 is Ac.12-41 cents as per resettlement register and fair adangal, question of reducing the extent from Ac.12-41 cents to Ac.11-41 cents on record does not arise, thereby, noting an extent of Ac.3-91 cents or Ac.3-10 cents in the revenue records belonging to the petitioner is baseless and the Tahsildar is not supposed to issue contradictory reports from time to time, creating an uncertainty as to the rights of this petitioner leading to serious confusion about the right in particular extent of land.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that, total extent of land in Sy.No.86/13 is only Ac.21-40 cents o Melupaka Village, Doravarisatram Mandal, on ground, though it is mentioned as Ac.12-41 cents in resettlement register and that, the vendor of this petitioner sold excess land than they own and possessed and on account of such transaction discrepancy took place.
The petitioner obtained survey report under Right to Information Act from the revenue department - third respondent wherein the third respondent furnished the details to this petitioner MSM,J WP_2203_2021 10 certifying that total extent of dry land in Sy.No.86/13 is Ac.4-19 ½ cents vide L.Dis.No.275/07 dated 06.10.2007. Similarly, the third respondent also furnished copy of land record i.e. adangal of Doravarisatram Village submitting that total extent of land recorded in Sy.No.86/13 is Ac.11-6700 cents and against an extent of Ac.3-91 cents of land, the name of the pattadar and enjoyer is mentioned as Yugandhar Reddy in Column Nos.12 & 13 in the name of Yugandhar which was noted Asc.3-91 cents in Column No.14. The same is recorded in the pattadar passbook and title deeds, so also in Adangal for Fasli 1415 to 1416 and No.10(1) Adangal of Doravarisatram Village. Therefore, the total extent own and possessed by this petitioner in Sy.No.86/13 is Ac.3-91 ½ cents and Ac.0-28 ½ cents in Sy.No.86/13 P. Thus, total extent of land comes to Ac.4-20 cents. But, during computerization, the extent of land owned and possessed by this petitioner is noted as Ac.3-91 cents. Thereupon, the petitioner made an application for rectification of the entry in the extent of land owned and possessed by this petitioner and after following necessary procedure, issued proceedings in D.Dis.(B)655/2018 dated 27.01.2019 under Right to Information Act certifying that the petitioner own and possessed an extent of Ac.1-67 cents and Ac.2-53 cents in Sy.No.86/13 P, total comes to Ac.4-20 cents.
The material collected by the petitioner under Right to Information Act discloses that, Ac.3-91 cents in Sy.No.86/13 P was noted in different proceedings, including the proceedings in D.Dis.(B)655/2018 dated 05.09.2018. Thus, the proceedings were issued based on the on ground enquiry and survey conducted by the Tahsildar in the presence of Mandal Revenue inspector, as directed MSM,J WP_2203_2021 11 by the third respondent - Tahsildar, based on the representation of this petitioner. Thereupon, proceedings in D.Dis.(B)655/2018 dated 27.01.2019 were passed to rectify the error in the extent mentioned in the adangal directing to mutate Ac.4-20 cents in the place of Ac.3-91 cents. Instead of implementing the proceedings, the Tahsildar for reasons best known to him, avoided the same. Thereupon, the petitioner made a representation again and to the utter surprise of this petitioner, an extent is now reduced to Ac.3-10 cents and issued endorsement Rc.B/225/2018 dated 08.01.2021. A bare look at the contents of endorsement, on the application of this petitioner dated 16.11.2020, a direction was issued to the Mandal Surveyor to conduct survey and submit a report. Accordingly, he submitted mentioning the specific extent of the land as follows:
Sl.No. Name of the Ryoth Extent of
land
cultivated
in acres
1 Chintagunta Srinivas Babu 1.04
2 Papareddy Tukaramreddy 0.74
3 Sannareddy Yugandhar Reddy 3.10
4 Isanaka Srivani w/o 4.99
Harshavardhan Reddy
5 Land in dispute 1.54
Finally, concluded that the total extent of land owned and possessed by this petitioner is only Ac.3-10 cents and thereby there is a dispute with regard to extent and directed the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to redress his claim.
It is the contention of the petitioner that, the land on ground will not be reduced from time to time and initially, Ac.4-20 cents was noted in the revenue records and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in the name of this petitioner in Sy.No.86/13. But, while MSM,J WP_2203_2021 12 computerization, it was reduced to Ac.3-91 cents. However, on application of this petitioner, proceedings dated 27.01.2019 were issued to rectify the mistake while directing to note Ac.4-20 cents in the adangal for the Fasli 1415. But, for the reasons best known to the third respondent, he did not implement the order which is unexplainable in the order. Since the third respondent did not implement the order passed by the third respondent, the petitioner submitted another representation. To his misfortunate, again the land is reduced to Ac.3-10 cents on ground as per the surveyor report. Report of the surveyor is changing from time to time, as initially it was Ac.4-20 cents. On conducting survey, it was reduced to Ac.3-91 cents and on conducting survey based on the representation of this petitioner for implementation of the order, again reduced to Ac.3-10 cents. The land on ground will not get reduced by its own, since it is not a perishable thing and question of reducing the extent will not arise in normal course of events, except in case of alluvian and diluvian. Therefore, the report of Mandal Surveyor changing the extent from time to time might be due to irregularity committed by him and the question of reducing extent on ground from time to time does not arise. Hence, report of the Tahsildar is not based on any material.
Advising the petitioner to settle the dispute in civil court, as it is a title dispute by the third respondent issuing the impugned proceedings is failure to discharge public duty by the Tahsildar under Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Pattadar Passbook Act is limited being a recording authority. His duty is to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the Act and Rules 16 to 19 of the Rules framed under the Act and mutate the name of the owner MSM,J WP_2203_2021 13 and possessor of the land in the revenue record. If any person is aggrieved by such an entry, he may approach the civil court as per Section 8(2) of the Act. But, here, the third respondent instead of discharging his duty being the recording authority, exercised his advisory jurisdiction and advised the petitioner to approach the civil court, though there was no title dispute to redress his claim in the civil court. Such endorsement is beyond the jurisdiction conferred on the third respondent. Therefore, the Endorsement dated 08.01.2021 is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the power conferred on the third respondent. Therefore, the impugned endorsement is liable to be declared as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and liable to be set-aside.
The main request of this petitioner is to direct the respondents to implement the order D.Dis.(B)655/2018 dated 27.01.2019. When once the order passed by the third respondent has attained finality, it is for the third respondent to implement its own proceedings rectifying the extent in the revenue records pertaining to the petitioner's land in Sy.No.86/13. Failure to implement its own proceedings would amount to failure of the third respondent to discharge public duty being a public officer. Therefore, the third respondent is under legal obligation to implement its own proceedings, as such conducting survey again and again, and issuing the endorsement impugned in the writ petition is without jurisdiction. Hence, the third respondent is directed to implement the order D.Dis.(B)655/2018 dated 27.01.2019 within one month from today. Failure to implement the order will result in serious consequences.
MSM,J WP_2203_2021 14 In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the Endorsement in Rc.B/225/2018 dated 08.01.2021 issued by the third respondent as illegal and arbitrary, set-aside the same; while directing the third respondent to implement the order D.Dis.(B)655/2018 dated 27.01.2019 within one month from today. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:05.10.2021 SP