Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that, the appellants/writ petitioners filed a petition in the year 2005 before the Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to rectify the entries made in the year 1984 and the learned Tahsildar having considered the subject matter, was pleased to dismiss the petition vide proceedings No.A/17940/2005 dated 31.03.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioners preferred appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short "ROR Act, 1971") before the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Division, Ranga Reddy District. The learned Revenue Divisional Officer, allowed the appeal filed by the writ petitioners vide Proceedings No.A2/885/2011 dated 30.01.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 3, 4 and 5 herein filed revision petition under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 before the Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and the learned Joint Collector was pleased to allow the revision vide Proceedings No.D5/3896/2015 HCJ & Dr.SA,J dated 28.02.2018 by setting aside the order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the learned Revenue Divisional Officer. Challenging the same, the writ petitioners filed the impugned Writ Petition No.33171 of 2018 and the said writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 20.03.2019. Hence the present writ appeal by appellants/writ petitioners.

6. In view of submissions made by both sides, the point that arises for determination is:

"Whether the impugned order dated 20.03.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.33171 of 2018 by the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside?"

7. POINT: Admittedly, the mutation entries were made in the revenue records long back in the year 1984. Under Section 3(3) of the ROR Act, 1971, an application for rectification of entries is required to be filed within one year from the date of notification referred to in Section 3(2) of the ROR Act, before the concerned officer. After expiry of this period, the power of rectification vesting in the designated authority ceases to exist. Therefore, the remedy available for the appellants/writ petitioners was to prefer an appeal under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, 1971. However, such appeal is required to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the order of the recording authority making an amendment in the record of rights. But the appellants/writ petitioners filed a petition in the year 2005 before the Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, seeking to rectify the entries made in the year 1984 and the learned Tahsildar was pleased to dismiss the petition vide proceedings No.A/17940/2005 dated 31.03.2009 on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under the provisions of ROR Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/writ petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, 1971. No HCJ & Dr.SA,J explanation was given by the appellants for the delay caused. The learned Revenue Divisional Officer without going into the cause for the delay and without appreciating the facts of the case on hand, erroneously directed to change the entries in the revenue records vide Proceedings No.A2/885/2011 dated 30.01.2015. Having noticed the same, the learned Joint Collector was justified in setting aside the order passed by the learned Revenue Divisional Officer vide Proceedings No.D5/3896/2015 dated 28.02.2018. Throughout, the appellants have not complied the requirements under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay either by filing separate application or agitating in the grounds of the petition as well as in the appeal. When the impugned Writ Petition was filed, the learned single Judge had elaborately considered the subject issues and held that the rectification of entries sought in the year 2005 was misconceived and not at all maintainable before the Tahsildar. It is also evident from the record, complex factual aspects are required to be determined to ascertain the title and possession of the disputed land. This can be addressed before the competent Civil Court. Similar view was taken by the learned Joint Collector. The appellants/writ petitioners did not assign any justifiable cause in the application before the Tahsildar as well as in the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act. Without considering these factual aspects, the learned Revenue Divisional Officer erred in determining the lis. On the ground of delay and laches also, the case of the appellants is liable to be dismissed.