THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No. 17899 OF 2021
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
1) Heard Sri. K. Rathangaphani Reddy, learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioners; Sri. C. Prakash Reddy, learned
Counsel appearing for unofficial Respondent No. 5 and Sri.
S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
2) The present Writ Petition came to be filed challenging the Award, dated 20.05.2019, passed in PLAC No. 385 of 2018 and the consequential reliefs granted therein, as illegal, improper and incorrect.
3) (i) The Petitioners herein claims to be an absolute owners and possessor of land in Sy. No. 790/2, admeasuring Ac.2.49 cents and Ac.3.90 cents of Indukur Village, V.N. Palli Mandal, Kadapa District, which is an ancestral property and which they have purchased by way of Sale Deed in the year 1948.
(ii) In the year 2012, the fifth Respondent herein got his name mutated in the revenue records to an extent of Ac.0.097 2 cents in Sy. No. 790/2, belonging to the Petitioners. On coming to know the same, an application came to be made by the Petitioners to identify and establish their long standing possession. The fourth Respondent, vide his report, dated 24.06.2013, held that, the Petitioners are rightful owners and possessors of the land in the aforesaid survey number and deleted the name of fifth Respondent from khata. But, a perusal of the revenue record show that in-stead of incorporating the name of the Petitioners, it was shown as unknown and, as such, the Petitioners have taken steps to get their names mutated in the aforesaid land.
(iii) While things stood thus, the fifth Respondent is said to have filed a case before the Permanent Lok-Adalat, seeking a direction to the Tahsildar to enter the name of the fifth Respondent in the revenue records, insofar as land in dispute is concerned. Strangely, without hearing the Petitioners, an Order came to be passed on 20.05.2019 in PLAC No. 385 of 2018 allowing the request of the fifth Respondent. The relevant portion of the orders is as under:
"Such deletion of name of the petitioner from the existing revenue record pertaining to his real estate agriculture land, even without giving any notice or opportunity to explanation his case is quite against the principles of natural justice. The action of the 2nd respondent in deleting the name of the petitioner in the revenue records pertaining to his real estate land without holding an enquiry and without passing an order and without furnishing a copy of such order to the petitioner is unknown to law and it amounts to 3 deficiency in the service of the 2nd respondent who is expected to maintain the entries in respect of agriculture lands with reference to the provisions of AP Land Rights Pattadar Passbook Act. Such action of the 2nd respondent without following procedure under the provisions of AP Land Rights Pattadar Passbook Act is nothing but deficiency in his service. Thus the petitioner established substantial grounds to pass an award with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to reenter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of land in Sy. no. 790/1 with the extent of 1.20 cents and Sy. No. 790/2 with an extent of 0.97 cents of Indukuru village of V.N. Palli Mandal, Kadapa District without prejudice to their right to make an enquiry basing on a 3rd party claim challenging the rights of the petitioner.
In the result, the petition shall be allowed award shall be passed in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to reenter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of lands in Sy. No. 790/1, with an extent of 1.20 cents and Sy. No. 790/2 with an extent of 0.97 cents of Indukuru village of V.N. Palli Mandal, Kadapa district without prejudice to their right to make an enquiry basing on a 3rd party claim challenging the rights of the petitioner over such land".
4) Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.
5) While disputing the procedure that is followed in passing the award, namely, that no order can be passed unless there is a settlement of compromise, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners would contend that, the Permanent Lok-Adalat has no authority to pass such an order and has usurped the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts and violated the provisions of A.P. Land Rights Pattadar Passbook Act, in allowing the claim of the Petitioners. It is further urged that, that when there is a dispute between the parties with 4 regard to title and when there are rival claims, the Civil Court would be the appropriate forum to get the disputes settled. It is further urged that against any order passed by revenue authorities, the remedy would be to file appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. Having regard to the above circumstances and as the order came to be passed behind the back of the Petitioners, pleads that the order under challenge has to be set-aside.
6) On the other hand, Sri. C. Prakash Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for unofficial Respondent, submits that, the action of the Revenue Authorities in deleting the name of the unofficial respondent, without notice is equally bad in law and after deleting it, they have shown it as unknown. Therefore, the action of the fifth Respondent in approaching the Permanent Lok-Adalat seeking incorporation of his name in revenue records cannot be found fault with, more particularly, with regard to issuing notice to the Writ Petitioners. He pleads that, issuing of notice to the Writ Petitioners would arise provided the name of the Writ Petitioners is reflected in the revenue records. In the absence of the same, it may not be necessary to issue notice to the Writ Petitioners.
5
(ii) Insofar as the plea taken that the issue involved is of public utility service, as contemplated under the Act, he would submit that, it is a real-estate land and it is in close proximity to the land development.
(iii) The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that, the question of issuance Writ of Mandamus would arise provided the Petitioners have a legal right. In other words, he would submit that the right alleged is not yet crystallized into his right and, as such, no mandamus can be issued.
7) Sri. S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1, would submit that, since the Writ Petitioners were not a party to the Award passed by the Lok-Adalat, the Writ cannot be maintained and the proper course for them is to approach the Civil Court and seek appropriate relief. He also relies upon the judgment of the Combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ratnamma W/o. B K Jayaramireddy V. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and Two Others1, in support of his plea.
8) In reply, Sri. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel would contend that, since the right of the Petitioners is 1 2015 (6) ALD 609 6 affected and that the entries are going to be made in the revenue records, without hearing the Petitioners and substantial damage is caused to the Petitioners, in view of the Order in PLAC, submits that a Writ of Mandamus would lie.
9) The point that arises for consideration is, whether the Permanent Lok-Adalat is having jurisdiction to deal with the matter of this nature and whether the Lok-Adalat was right in passing the award without hearing the Petitioners?
10) Insofar as the plea of Sri. C. Prakash Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for unofficial Respondent, that the name of the fifth Respondent was deleted without issuing notice to him, it is to be noted that the Writ Petitioners herein made an application requesting the authorities to find out the true facts of the case, as his name was not incorporated in the revenue records. The Tahsildar, after conducting an enquiry, deleted the name of the fifth Respondent from the revenue records. But, the fifth Respondent did not challenge the same by filing an independent Writ Petition or an Appeal against the Order of the Tahsildar. In the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners questioning the Award of the Lok-Adalat, the unofficial Respondent cannot support the Award on the ground that he was also not heard when his name was earlier deleted from the records.
7
11) One important fact, which requires to be noted here is the Writ Petitioners were not made a parties to the proceedings before PLAC. Only the District Collector and the Tahsildar were made parties to the proceedings. It is not as if that the fifth Respondent who was Petitioner in PLAC was not aware about the right of the Writ Petitioners over the said land. In O.S. No. 34 of 2019 filed by these two Writ Petitioners, seeking a declaration and title over the plaint schedule property and permanent injunction, the fifth Respondent herein was shown as a defendant. The relief claimed in the said suit was against the fifth Respondent herein. That being so, the fifth Respondent herein ought to have made the Petitioners as parties to the proceedings before the Lok-Adalat. Further, in the proceedings, dated 24.06.2013, itself, the Tahsildar in his letter to Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, observed that these two Writ Petitioners are having right over the land in Sy. No. 790/2 and their name have to be included in pattadar passbooks and title deeds. It is also held that, fifth Respondent who also claims to have land in Sy. No.790/2 has no right to the extent of Ac.0.97 cents claimed by him, as he failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of the same. Therefore, in the fitness of things, the fifth Respondent ought to have made the Writ Petitioners as a party to the proceedings. At-least the 8 Tahsildar, who is shown as party to the proceedings ought to have informed the Permanent Lok-Adalat the rival claims made in respect of the land in dispute. Even that was not done, thereby an order came to be passed behind the back of the Petitioners, which, according to us substantially effects the Writ Petitioners rights. Hence, the Writ Petition is not only maintainable but has to be allowed on the ground that order impugned came to be passed without making the Writ Petitioners as parties to the proceeding.
12) Further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners also thrusts upon the jurisdiction of the PLAC in deciding the dispute, ass the case on hand does not fall within the ambit of "public utility service". It may not be necessary for us to go into this aspect, for the reason that, this Writ Petition is liable to be allowed on the first ground itself, namely, that an order came to be passed without hearing the Petitioners and without making them party to the proceedings, more so, when the 5th Respondent is aware about the right of the Writ Petitioners.
13) Hence, the Order under challenge is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the PLAC, Kadapa, wherein, the Writ Petitioners herein are permitted to raise issues relating to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok-Adalat as well, in 9 which event, the same shall be decided as a preliminary issue.
14) With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
15) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ____________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 06.05.2022 S.M...
10THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.17899 OF 2021 DATE: 06.05.2022 S.M...