THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos. 9246, 9752, 10004 of 2016 & 34463 of 2018
COMMON ORDER:
The issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the
same and therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of
by this common order.
In all these writ petitions, the petitioners seek directions to
the respondents to delete the names which were alleged to have
been entered wrongfully and deliberately in the possession column of pahani of revenue records without the knowledge of the petitioners or in the absence of any sale deed executed by the owner/pattadar in respect of various extents of land, specifically pleaded in the writ petitions, situated in Sy. No. 1018/O, OO, AU, and seeks a consequential direction to the revenue authorities to issue pahanies in favour of the petitioners by making certain corrections in surname etc. Per contra, the unofficial respondents claim that their predecessors-in-interest and their forefathers were in possession of the subject lands since 1955 and now they are in possession and cultivating the subject lands as on the date.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/party-in- person and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material available on record.
This Court is not inclined to deal with the factual aspects of the matter, as the only question involved in all these writ petitions is whether the prayer sought by the petitioners for correction of the entries made in the possession column can be ordered to be 2 changed by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Adverting to the relief sought for in all these writ petitions, it is appropriate to refer the relevant provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act'), which deals with the manner, method of preparation of Record of Rights. As per Section 3 of the Act, the records shall be prepared and brought upto date from time to time by the recording authority. The Tahsildar is the recording authority under the provisions of the Act. Any person who is aggrieved by the entries made in the records has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 5-B of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer, or a revision under Section 9 of the Act before the Joint Collector, as the case may be. Under Section 3(3) of the Act, any person affected by an entry in the record of rights, may, within a period of one year from the date of notification, referred to in Section 3(2) of the Act, can apply for rectification of the records. A person aggrieved by the entries in the revenue records has an option of filing a civil suit before a competent civil court under Section 8(2) of the Act. Section 8(2) of the Act reads as under:-
8. Bar of Suits:--
(1) xxx (2) If any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.
Thus, under the provisions of the Act, if a person is aggrieved of an entry in the revenue records, in respect of the land in which he is claiming interest/title, has the remedy of 3 approaching the civil Court to file a suit for declaration of his title and also for correction of entries. If the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff, necessary changes will be carried out in the revenue records. The decree of the Civil Court is not only binding on the parties to the litigation, but also on the revenue authorities. Even though the petitioners state that their names were entered in the pattadar column in the year 1991, the first representation they have made to the revenue authorities to correct the entries insofar as the possession column concerned is only in the year 2012.
As seen from the record, the petitioners have approached this Court, with abnormal delay, seeking rectification of the entries made in the possession column. There is no reasonable explanation by the petitioners for the laches on their part. The entries in the possession column are made duly taking into consideration the actual physical possession of the person, who is cultivating the land in question. The recording authority, after due verification, makes the entries in the revenue records, unlike the entries in the pattadar column, where a person claiming the land has to prove his title, either through succession or through acquisition. The person in possession, who is cultivating the land and is in physical possession of the land, need not necessarily have any title or ownership of the land in question. The only requirement of law is that as on the date of making the entries, he should be in physical possession and cultivating the lands. This Court has consistently held that if a person is aggrieved by any entry made in the possession column, the remedy available to that person is to file a civil suit for rectification of the entries after the period of limitation prescribed under the Act for filing an appeal or 4 revision is over. A learned Single Judge of this Court in an unreported judgment, delivered in W.P. No. 1883 of 2009, dated 27.02.2009, categorically held as under:-
"Be that as it may, the petitioners have already filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of the land held by them. Not only it is settled principle of law, but also Section 8(2) of the Act itself recognizes that the entries in the revenue records are always subject to any adjudication by a civil Court. The petitioners have already chosen the remedy of declaratory relief."
This Court adjudicating under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into the disputed questions of fact as to who was in possession; whether the entries made in the possession column are proper or not, at this length of time. If the entries are not properly/correctly made, it is for the petitioner to prove the same before the civil Court by leading evidence to substantiate his claim that the entries are wrongly made by the authorities.
For the reasons recorded above, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, and they are accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the civil Court seeking correction of the entries in the revenue records. It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, preclude the unofficial respondents from availing all the legally available defences under the law, if any suit is filed against them by the petitioners herein.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 17.03.2021 tsr 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 9246, 9752, 10004 of 2016 & 34463 of 2018 DATED: 17-03-2021 6 The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J
Date : .03.2021
tsr