Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Singam Venkateswara Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 January, 2024
RC,J
W.P.No.198 of 2024
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION No. 198 of 2024
ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, without issuing any notice to him or any other interested person as required under Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) of the A.P.Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbook Rules, has kept his land in an extent of Ac.1-74 cents in Survey No.1387-3 of P.Chintakunta Village, Allagadda Mandal, Nandyal District, in dispute register.
2. Heard Sri Sajid, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Dilip Naik, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration would submit that the names of the vendor's vendor and vendor of the petitioner found place in the revenue records and 1-B Registrar in respect of the subject property. Subsequent to purchase of the subject property under registered sale deed dated 25.11.2020, the petitioner when attempted to file an application in Form-6A through Mee-seva, the same was not accepted for the reason that the 3 rd respondent kept the subject property RC,J W.P.No.198 of 2024 2 in dispute register. Before keeping any property in dispute register, a notice under Rules 9(1)(c)(ii) of the ROR Rules should be issued to all the interested persons. However, without issuing any notice the 3 rd respondent has kept the property in the dispute register without following the mandatory Rules and also the procedure contemplated under law. The pendency of suits vide O.S.Nos.6 & 7 of 2021 for permanent injunction regarding the subject property is not a ground to keep the property in dispute register that too without issuing any notice. Therefore, the action of the authorities is illegal and arbitrary and the same has to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, Sri Dilip, learned Assistant Government Pleader, by placing on record the written instructions of the Tahsildar, Allagadda vide Rc.B.3/2024, dated 04.01.2024 submitted that a ROR case vide Rc.No.408/2023, dated 04.11.2023 is pending among the pattadars of Survey No.1387 and the petitioner purchased the subject property from one of the pattadars of the said Survey number. Since ROR case is pending, on the representation submitted by one of the pattadars, ROR notices were issued to the petitioners as well as others and the property is kept in dispute register so that the property cannot be alienated to avoid unnecessary complications and creation of any third party interest in the RC,J W.P.No.198 of 2024 3 property. There is neither procedural irregularity nor illegality in keeping the property in the dispute register and the same has been done only to avert illegal sales over protect the property till conclusion of the ROR case pending between the pattadars of the subject survey number. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. The action of the respondent authorities in placing the subject property in dispute register is questioned in this writ petition. The written instructions placed on record would indicate that, as per Revenue Records, the actual extent of the land in Survey No.1387 is Ac.12-80 cents. However, it is Ac.19-08 cents as per the entries online Adangal i.e. to stay the online adangal shows an excess of Ac.6-28 cents compared to revenue records. One Kristipati Pratap Reddy, who is the vendor's vendor of the petitioner, is one of the pattadars of the said Survey number. The representation submitted by Ms.K.Prabhanda, one of the pattadars of the said survey number, was registered as an ROR case vide Rc.No.408/2023, dated 04.11.2023 between the pattadars of the said survey number and notices were also issued to the petitioner and respondents in the said ROR case and final notice will also be issued to the petitioner and the RC,J W.P.No.198 of 2024 4 respondents therein including the petitioner in this writ petition. Since the ROR case is pending, in order to safeguard the interest of the pattadars and to avert any further complications if any one purchases property from the pattadar who is not having title over the property, the property was kept in dispute register till conclusion of ROR case, it is not desirable to delete the property from dispute register.
6. Rule-9(1)(c)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 is germane and the same reads as under:
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 three months 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 an 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 three months. If a declaration is filed, the result of the suit should be awaited before taking further action.
7. Rule-9(1)(c)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 mandates issuance of notice to all the persons found entitled before placing the property in dispute register or giving red colour to the online record in relation to the said property.
RC,J W.P.No.198 of 2024 5
8. In S.K.Rajesh vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 , a coordinate bench of this Court held thus:
"The rule of principles of natural justice is imbedded in Rule 9 of the Rules. In the entire counter, respondent No.2 or respondent No.3 did not state the procedure followed by respondent No.2 before blocking the revenue account of the subject property and they are silent. During hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue did not bring to the notice of this Court about the compliance of the procedure for keeping the subject property in the disputed properties register and blocking revenue account pertaining to the subject land. In the absence of compliance, the action of respondent No.2 is a serious illegality, in violation of Rule 9 of the Rule, and the principles of natural justice. Blocking revenue account directly disabled him to deal with the property though no interim order was passed either in the Original Suit or in the appeal pending before the Court restraining the petitioner from dealing with the property."
9. Copy of the sale deed filed along with the writ petition shows that the petitioner purchased the subject property on 25.11.2020. As per the written instructions, the property is kept in the dispute register owing to pendency of ROR case filed by one of the pattadars viz., Kristipati Prabhanda, which is of the year 2023 and therefore, it can be inferred that the property was put in dispute register in the year 2023, by which date the petitioner is a person interested in the property by virtue of purchase made in the year 2020. Except stating that notices were issued to the petitioner and respondents in the said ROR case, the written instructions nowhere state that any notice has been issued to the writ petitioner. Thus, 1 . Manu/AP/1275/2021 RC,J W.P.No.198 of 2024 6 there is utter violation of the mandate contained in Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) of the AP ROR Rules, 1989. As held in the decision referred to supra, in the absence of compliance of mandatory rule contained in Rule 9, the action of respondents in placing the property in dispute register is a serious illegality, in violation of the procedure prescribed in Section 5 (3) of the Act read with Rule 5 (2) (a) to (e), Rule 19 (1) of the Rules, besides being violatiive of the principles of natural justice. Consequently the same is liable to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, directing the authorities to delete the subject property i.e. Ac.1-74 cents in Survey No.1387-3 of P.Chintakunta Village, Allagadda Mandal, Nandyal District from dispute register. However, the revenue authorities are not precluded from proceeding against the subject property, if they so desire, strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand closed and interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
_________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 24th January, 2024 RR RC,J W.P.No.198 of 2024 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION No. 198 of 2024 24th January, 2024 RR