Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M Mani vs The State Of Ap on 4 January, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023
W.A.No.1132 of 2023
Between:
M.Mani, S/o.Late M. Govindaswamy Naidu,
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Cultivation,
R/o.Nagaripet, Nagari Mandal,
Chittoor District & 8 others.
...Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Guntur & 13 others.
...Respondents
Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the
Appellants.
Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents
1 to 5.
Sri Subba Rao Korrapai, learned Counsel, appearing for
respondent Nos.6 to 13.
Respondent No.14 (died)
W.A.No.1172 of 2023
Between:
M.J. Babu,
S/o.Late M. Janakiram Naidu,
Aged about 47 years,
2
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023
Occ: Cultivation,
R/o. Pandajupuram, Nagari Post,
Nagari Mandal,
Chittoor District and another.
...Appellants
Versus
M. Mani,
S/o.Late M. Govindaswamy Naidu,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Cultivation,
R/o.Nagari, Nagari Mandal,
Chittoor District & 22 others.
...Respondents
Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the Appellants.
Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents
1 to 14.
Sri Subba Rao Korrapai, learned Counsel, appearing for
respondent Nos.15 to 22.
JUDGMENT
Dt:04.01.2024 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents 1 to 5 in W.A.No.1132 of 2023 and respondents 1 to 14 in W.A.No.1172 of 2023, Sri Subba Rao Korrapati learned Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 13 in W.A.No.1132 of 2023 and respondents 15 to 22 in W.A.No.1172 of 2023.
3
HCJ&RRR,J W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023
2. The appellants 5 to 10 are said to have purchased Ac.10.81 cents of land in Sy.Nos.64 and 68 to 70 of Nagari Village and Mandal from the writ petitioners 2 to 4 and the father of writ petitioner No.1, by way of a deed of sale dated 04.06.2012, registered as document No.1363 of 2012. Subsequently, respondents 6 to 13 are said to have approached the 2nd respondent-District Collector, through the local representative of the people, contending that certain bogus pass books have been issued in relation to the Ac.10.81 cents of land and the sale deed mentioned above had been registered on the basis of the said bogus pass books and title deeds and the same need to be revoked. The said complaint is said to have been forwarded to the 5th respondent- Tahsildar, who submitted a report to the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, Chittoor and the said 3rd respondent endorsed the report to the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to take up the issue as an appeal and to initiate further action.
3. On this basis, the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer issued a notice, dated 01.10.2019, to the appellants and the 1st petitioner in the Writ Petition to appear before the 4th respondent on 11.10.2019. On that date, the appellants appeared before the 4th respondent and submitted their objections. Thereafter, the 4th respondent by his proceedings bearing 4 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023 ROC.No.G/2920/2019 dated 17.10.2019, without considering the objections of the appellants, had directed that the said land be kept in the dispute Register of the Tahsildar's login. Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.10.2019 and initiation of the proceedings by way of the notice dated 01.10.2019 in proceedings ROC.No.G/2920/2019, the appellants and the 1st petitioner, in the writ petition, had approached this court by way of W.P.No.18066 of 2019 to set aside the above order as well as the proceedings initiated against the appellants and the 1st Petitioner in the writ petition.
4. It was the case of the appellants that there were various litigations going on between the parties, including criminal cases in Crime No.129 of 2012 and 130 of 2012 before the Nagari Police Station, O.S.No.18 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur which was decreed, O.S.No.87 of 2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, O.S.No.88 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur and W.P.No.2003 of 2019 which is pending before this Court, and that the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer could not have initiated any proceedings under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971( for short "The R.O.R Act"). The Appellants contend that Section 8 of the R.O.R Act prohibits statutory 5 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023 authorities from entertaining any enquiry in relation to issues which are before the competent civil Court. The appellants would also contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who appears to have initiated these proceedings under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R Act does not have any jurisdiction to initiate suo-motu action on the question whether pattadar passbooks and title deeds are correct or not, under the said provision.
5. The respondents 6 to13, opposed the said Writ Petition. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition by his order dated 30.08.2023. The learned Single Judge took the view that the proceedings of the 4th respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R Act is without jurisdiction, as such an appeal cannot be initiated, suo- motu, and in the absence of any appeal filed by the aggrieved person. However, the learned Single Judge while setting aside the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 17.10.2019, in ROC.No.G/2920/2019, which included the property in the Dispute Register, directed that further enquiry was to be conducted by the 4th respondent in relation to the question of whether the passbooks produced by the vendor of sale deed dated 04.06.2012 registered as document No.1363/2012 are genuine or not.
6
HCJ&RRR,J W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioners 2 to 10 had moved W.A.No.1132 of 2023. Two other vendors of the deed of sale dated 04.06.2012, who were third parties to the writ petition have moved W.A.No.1172 of 2023 against the very same order on the basis of the same grounds raised in W.A.No.1132 of 2023. The contention of Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals, is that the learned Single Judge having held that the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer did not have jurisdiction to take up an appeal under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R Act, by way of a suo-motu appeal and in the absence of any appeal by the aggrieved party, could not have further directed the 4th respondent to undertake the exercise of verifying whether the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the vendors of the sale deed dated 04.06.2012 including the appellants herein are genuine or not. The learned counsel would also contend that all these issues are already pending before the Courts, in the form of various litigations mentioned above, and Section 8(2) of the R.O.R Act is a clear bar against any statutory authority entertaining any proceeding in relation to issues which are pending before the civil Court.
7. Sri K. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 13 would submit that pattadar passbooks and title 7 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023 deeds produced before the registering authority were fabricated documents. In the circumstances, he would submit that the question before the enquiry authority is not whether the pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in accordance with the rules or not. He would submit that the actual issue before the enquiring authority is whether these pattadar pass books are fake documents or not. In such circumstances, he would submit that, such an enquiry does not fall within the scope of the litigations pending before the civil Courts as the issues raised before the civil Courts are on the question of who is the owner of the land and whether the transactions are valid or not.
8. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer could not have entertained any appeal filed by the aggrieved party under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R Act. There is no provision under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R Act enabling the Revenue Divisional Officer to take up a suo-motu appeal. Further, Section 5(5) of the Act does not clothe the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer with any power of appeal under the said provision, merely on the ground that a higher authority has directed the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to take up the matter, by way of a suo-motu appeal. In such 8 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023 circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge to this extent.
9. However the question of whether an enquiry can be conducted in relation to the question of whether the pass books and title deeds concerned are genuine or not remains. As pointed out by Sri K. Subba Rao, the enquiry which had been directed by the learned Single Judge, was restricted to the question of whether the pattadar pass books and title deeds are genuine or whether they have been fabricated. To that extent, this Court is of the opinion that the said enquiry is not barred under the provisions of Section 8(2) of the R.O.R Act.
10. However, since the 1st respondent does not have any power under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R act to conduct any enquiry in the present case, the consequence would be that the Revenue Divisional Officer would not have power to go into the question of whether the pattdar pass books and title deeds are genuine or not.
11. However, the Joint Collector/Collector would have power under Section 9 of the R.O.R Act to take up a suo-motu revision to consider the question of whether the pattadar passbooks and title deeds produced by the vendors of sale deed dated 04.06.2012 is genuine or not and the Joint Collector, to whom the 9 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023 report had been submitted by the Tahsildar, ought to have undertaken the said exercise under Section 9 of the R.O.R Act instead of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to take up the matter under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R Act.
12. In this view of the matter, both the Writ Appeals are disposed of by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent of directing the Joint Collector, Chittoor to undertake the exercise of ascertaining whether the pattadar pass books and title deeds produced by the vendors of the sale deed dated 04.06.2012 are genuine or fake.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J RJS 10 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) Dt:04.01.2024 RJS