Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 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 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.

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, . Manu/AP/1275/2021 RC,J 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.