THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT APPEAL No.1704 of 2018
(Taken up through video conferencing)
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)
Order dated 27.09.2018 in W.P.No.32068 of 2018 allowing
the writ petition and imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- on the third
appellant is under challenge.
Learned Government Pleader submits that the third
appellant-Tahsildar had acted pursuant to Section 5 of the Andhra
Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for
short, 'the Act') and had called upon the first respondent-writ
petitioner and his family members to place on record the documents with regard to the land. Being satisfied that the dispute was civil in nature, directed them to approach the Civil Court. The third appellant had acted under a colour of right and imposition of costs upon him was, therefore, unjustified.
Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-writ petitioner submits that the first respondent was harassed by the third appellant-Tahsildar and would have been coerced to handover the land if he had not been approached this Court.
We have considered the materials on record. Action of the third appellant in issuing notice upon the first respondent-writ petitioner and his family members in a purely civil dispute cannot be countenanced in law. Revenue authorities ought not to interfere in or adjudicate the civil rights of parties which are amenable to the jurisdiction of appropriate civil Courts. The aforesaid provision of law relied upon by the learned Government 2 Pleader relates to correction of record of rights and does not empower the third appellant-Tahsildar to issue the impugned notice. Hence, quashment of the said notice by the First Court does not call for interference. Learned Single Judge noted the written instructions relied upon by the third appellant was antedated and accordingly came to a conclusion of egregious malice justifying imposition of costs. We, however, find from the records that the writ petition had been instituted on 04.09.2018 and the First Court was not correct in recording that the instructions dated 05.09.2018 had been prepared even before the institution of the proceedings. This aspect on the matter, inter alia, prompted the Court to come to a conclusion that the third appellant had acted maliciously and had even sought to mislead the Court by antedated instructions. As the factual foundation with regard to such conclusion does not appear to be borne out from the records, we are of the view although the action of the third appellant was wholly unwarranted and does not fall within the ambit of Section 5 of the Act as contended by learned Government Pleader, imposition of costs upon the third appellant may be waived.
With the aforesaid modification, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Appeal shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI __________________________ JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI Date: 01.02.2021 Ivd