THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.19281 of 2021
ORDER:
Challenging the endorsement No.B/421/2020 dated 04.03.2021 rejecting the application dated 01.02.2021 submitted by the petitioner seeking permission to convert the land from agricultural land to non-agriculture land in respect of the patta land to an extent of Ac.1-01 guntas out of the total extent of Ac.1-38 guntas in survey No.9/A situated at Kalwakurthy Mandal, Nagarkurnool District (in short 'subject land'), the present Writ Petition is filed.
2) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the owner and possessor of the subject land. When the respondent authorities were interfering with his possession, he filed W.P. No.5075 of 2020 before this Court wherein vide order dated 06.03.2020 directed the respondent authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property without following due process of law. Thereafter, petitioner made an application/representation dated 01.02.2021 before respondent No.4 seeking conversion of the subject land from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent No.4 in passing orders on his application, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P. No.4721 of 2021. After filing of the said writ petition, respondent No.4 passed the impugned endorsement dated 04.03.2021 rejecting the application of the petitioner, even without issuing any notice or giving an opportunity of hearing before 2 passing the impugned order of rejection. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader of Revenue for all the respondents.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Tahsildar concerned without appreciating the fact that the petitioner has applied for conversion of land in survey No.9/a for an extent of Ac.1-01 guntas out of total area of Ac.1-38 guntas belonging to him, has misconstrued the application made by the petitioner and has dealt with the matter as if the petitioner has applied for the entire area in survey No.9. Learned counsel has further stated that the total area of survey No.9 is approximately Acs.10-31 guntas and the said survey No.9 has already been divided into sub-divisions and the petitioner is only concerned with survey No.9/a admeasuring Ac.1-38 guntas only and that his application for conversion is only for Ac.1-01 guntas. Learned counsel has further stated that the official respondents have themselves issued pattadar pass books and title deeds and the name of the petitioner is entered in 1-B and the pahanies maintained by the revenue authorities themselves. Moreover, the name of the petitioner is also reflected in Dharani Portal, as on date. That the Tahsildar concerned without considering the fact that the petitioner has nothing to do with the other sub-divisions of survey No.9 and has considered the application as if the same pertains to survey No.9, but as a matter of fact, there is no survey No.9 as on date and it is only the sub-division numbers which are reflected in the revenue records. Learned counsel for the petitioner 3 has further stated that the reason for rejecting the application is on the ground that various cases pending before various Forums and that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are issued in respect of the subject land.
5) Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to show that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. have already been dropped and also the revenue record to show that the petitioner is not concerned with the other sub-divisions of survey No.9 and only concerned with survey No.9/a and therefore prayed to set aside the impugned endorsement.
6) Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, has stated that as against the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner for grant of conversion, an appeal provision is available under the law and without availing said remedy, the petitioner has straight away filed the present writ petition and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7) A perusal of the impugned endorsement dated 04.03.2021 shows that the Tahsildar concerned has dealt with the application of the petitioner as if the same is made for survey No.9 for an extent of Ac.1-01 guntas. A perusal of the revenue record shows that there is no survey No.9 existing as on date and there are almost 20 sub-divisions in survey No.9 i.e. 9/aa8/1, 9/aa9/1, 9/aa19/1, 9/aa18/1, 9/aa17/1, 9/aa, 9/aa16/1, 9/aa15/1, 9/aa14/1, 9/aa3/1, 9/aa11/1, 9/aa10/1, 9/aa4/1, 9/aa5/1, 9/aa6/1, 9/aa7/1, 9/aa13/1, 9/aa1/1, 9/aa2/1, 9/aa12/1. When such is the case, the Tahsildar concerned ought to have 4 considered the application solely for survey No.9/a for an extent of Ac.1-01 guntas as the application is made only for an extent of Ac.1-01 guntas out of the area of Ac.1-38 guntas claimed by the petitioner.
8) This Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, on number of occasions, have held that mere pendency of civil suits will not be a ground for the revenue authorities from abdicating their statutory duties which they are required to perform under the Act and not passing orders. The authorities cannot take a stand that they will not pass any orders on the application made by the authorities solely on the ground that some civil litigation is pending in respect of the subject survey No.9 when the application is made by the petitioner only in respect of survey No.9/a for an extent of Ac.1-01 guntas. The Tahsildar, for the reasons best known to him, has mechanically rejected the application on the ground that civil cases are pending and 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings are also pending. But, as stated supra, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are already closed by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned. Therefore, said ground is also not available.
9) A Division Bench of this Court in Singamaneni Pullamma vs. Joint Collector, Ongole1, has recorded its findings on revisional power under Section 9 of the Act as under:
"... Besides the mandate of this provision, the 1st respondent-Joint Collector had specifically been asked to dispose of the revision on merits by the High Court. In our view, the 1st respondent was not correct in keeping the order which was challenged before him in abeyance till the matter was decided by the civil Court. One could understand such a course taken by him if the civil Court was seized of the 1 2004 (7) ALR 963 5 matter, but there was nothing pending on the civil Court at that time. It is true that the entry made in the revenue records can be challenged in a civil suit, but that does not mean that the revenue records can be challenged in a civil suit, but that does not mean that the revenue authorities will not exercise any discretion which they are required to do under the Act. Pattadar pass books are governed by the act and in case of grievance about the entries in pattadar pass books or about the entries in pattadar pass books or about issuance or non-issuance of pattadar pass books the revenue authorities are supposed to do their job under the Act. Whether a revision had to be allowed or dismissed was a matter which had to be decided by the revisional authority. In case anybody or any party before it was aggrieved of that order, they could workout their remedies. Therefore what we feel that the 1st respondent has failed to exercise his jurisdiction although the High Court had clearly asked him to exercise it and even without a direction from the High Court, he was supposed to pass an order in terms of Section 9 of the Act."
10) The view expressed in above referred judgment has been reiterated by another Division Bench in Erukula Uma vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh2.
11) In view of the above proposition of law and also the fact that proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are not in subsistence anymore and that the application for conversion is in respect of survey No.9/a for an extent of Ac.1-01 guntas only and not for the entire survey No.9, the impugned endorsement dated 04.03.2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tahsildar, Kalwakurthy-respondent No.4, for passing orders afresh on the application made by the petitioner on 01.02.2021, strictly in accordance with law.
2 2014 (2) ALD 228 (DB) 6
12) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 23.11.2021 sur