THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.97 of 2017
ORDER:
This revision is filed challenging the order dated 24.09.2016 in Case No.D1/1395/2014 passed by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the paternal grandfather of the petitioners, namely, Dannada @ Nandarapu Komaraiah was the original pattadar of the land admeasuring Ac.10.25 guntas in Sy.No.167/A, situated at Hameedullah Nagar village, Shamshabad village, Ranga Reddy District. The name of the paternal grandfather was reflected in the revenue records and pahani patrikas since 1950 onwards till 1994-95. The said Dannada had two sons viz. Satyanarayana and Mallesh, who is the father of the petitioners. Their paternal senior uncle, Satyanarayana, was literate, intelligent and had political and social influence. The father of the petitioners, Mallesh, is an illiterate and innocent person and worked as shepherd and used to work in agricultural fields. Without issuing any proceedings, the names of Dannada Chandraiah, S/o. Butchaiah, Dannada Chandramma, W/o. Chandraiah were incorporated as pattedars and possessors to an extent of Ac.1.31 guntas each and one Dannada Laxmaiah's, (S/o. Butchaiah) name was incorporated as pattedar and possessor to tan extent of Ac.5.12 guntas out of Ac.10.25 guntas in the aforesaid survey number. Thereby, the extent of land was reduced to only Ac.1.31 guntas. The said entries are made by the said persons in collusion with the revenue officials. They approached the revenue authorities for correction of revenue entries. It is further stated that a suit in O.S.No.468 of 2013 on the file 2 of the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, was filed for partition, separate possession and injunction. It is further stated that the petitioner came to know from the written statement of the defendant No.1 that several registered sale deeds have been executed in the names of the respondent Nos.8 and 9 and the petitioners are taking necessary legal steps for seeking relief of declaration to declare the alleged sale deeds as null and void.
3. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 before the Joint Collector stated that the petitioners are the children of the respondent No.7, who is real brother of the respondent No.6. The respondent No.6 is blessed with five sons. They admitted that Dannada @ Nandarapu Komaraiah is the original grandfather of the petitioners but denied that the said Komaraiah was the exclusive owner of the land admeasuring Ac.10.25 guntas in Sy.No.167/A. Several other grounds have also been raised by the unofficial respondents opposing the revision filed by the petitioners before the Joint Collector.
4. Taking into consideration the fact that a partition suit O.S.No.468 of 2013 and another suit in O.S.No.1064 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District are pending, the Joint Collector opined that it is not a healthy practice to allow the parties to initiate parallel summary proceedings that too before the revenue authorities having limited jurisdiction. It was observed that the petitioners sought correction of revenue entries in respect of the land in question after long lapse of 19 years. Thus, the revision is barred by sheer antiquity and obscurity of the transaction. Further, the revisions petitioners have not furnished proper explanation for extraordinary delay in filing the revision. 3
5. Mr. A Keshava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that the father of the petitioners is illiterate and he was a shepherd. Thus, he did not have knowledge of changes in the revenue record. There is no limitation for instituting the revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971.
6. Having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the revision was filed with an extraordinary delay of 19 years. The petitioners, as mentioned above, have already approached the civil Court by instituting a suit in O.S.No.468 of 2013. Though it is the case of the petitioners that they have share in the property, being the sons of Mallesh, who is the second son of D. Komaraiah, it is settled that entries in the revenue records do not confer any title. Further, issuance of pattedar passbooks and title deeds does not amount to recognizing the title of the unofficial respondents. The pattedar passbook and title deeds issued under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 have got limited value. In any case, if any further suit is initiated and title of the property is decided therein, the judgment and decree passed by the civil Court would prevail over the revenue proceedings and consequently, the pattedar passbooks and title deeds would be issued to the parties in whose favour the decree is passed.
7. In view of the above observations, this Court does not find any merit in the revision petition. However, any observation made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion. The Court below shall dispose of the suit in O.S.No.468 of 2013 without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 4
The civil revision petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J July 8, 2021 DSK