HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
W.P.No.22365 of 2018
ORDER:
The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the orders passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.D2/1431/2018, dated 12.06.2018, by modifying the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.3 in case No.5 of 2017 (B1/1510/2017), dated 09.02.2018, is contrary to the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is illegal and void and opposed to Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India, in connection with the land of the petitioner to an extent of Acs.3-11 guntas out of Survey Nos.102, 103 and 104/Vu, Acs.1-16 guntas out of Survey No.503/E/2 and land in Survey Nos.36, 83/E to an extent of Acs.2-23 guntas of Rayapatnam Revenue Village, Madhira Mandal, Khammam District, covered under Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.114 of 2007, dated 27.02.2018, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally and orders in I.A.No.29 of 2017 in O.S.No.8 of 2017, dated 02.02.2017, extended till 03.07.2018 and consequently, set aside the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2 JSR,J
W.P.No.22365 of 2014
2. Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development Child Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is owner and possessor of the subject land and acquired the same in the family partition and the petitioner name is mutated in the revenue records and he obtained the pattadar pass books and title deeds. He further submits that respondent No.6 executed sale deed on 12.07.2017 in favour of Divvela Tripura Venkata Surendra Nadh, in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.2.23 guntas in Survey No.36, 83/E though he is not having any right over the said property. At that stage, the petitioner and his father/respondent No.5 filed a suit in O.S.No.1114 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally, seeking cancellation of the sale deed and for grant of perpetual injunction and the same was decreed on 27.02.2018. When the respondent Nos.5 to 9 are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land, the petitioner filed another suit in O.S.No.8 of 2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madhira and the said 3 JSR,J W.P.No.22365 of 2014 Court granted temporary injunction in I.A.No.29 of 2017 on 02.02.2017 and the same is continuing and the said suit is pending.
4. He further submits that while things stood thus, respondent No.5 made an application before the respondent No.3 invoking the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter called as 'the Act' for brevity) and the respondent No.3, without considering the contentions of the petitioner and also injunction order passed by the Competent Civil Court, passed the impugned order in Case No.5 of 2017 (B/1510/2017), cancelling the revenue entries and also passbooks in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.3.00, in Survey Nos.102, 103, 104/Vu and 1.16 guntas in Survey No.503/E/2.
5. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal No.D2/1431/2018 before the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 also dismissed the appeal on 12.06.2018, without considering the grounds of appeal and directed the respondent No.4/Tahsildar to take necessary actions as per the powers vested in him to record the name of respondent No.5 in the 4 JSR,J W.P.No.22365 of 2014 revenue records and also handed over the subject property to the respondent No.5.
6. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not having authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders directing the Tahsildar to cancel the revenue entries and hand over the physical possession in favour of the respondent No.5, especially, when the Competent Civil Court granted decree recognizing the rights of the petitioner and also the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.8 of 2017 against the unofficial respondents, is pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madhira.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents submits that respondent No.3 after following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, passed the impugned order on 09.02.2018 and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the 5 JSR,J W.P.No.22365 of 2014 petitioner is claiming the rights over the subject property basing upon Family Partition between the petitioner and unofficial respondents and his name was mutated in the revenue records and revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The records further reveals that the petitioner and his father filed suit in O.S.No.114 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally, seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed executed by the respondent No.6 in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.2.23 guntas in survey No.36-83/E and the said suit was decreed on 27.02.2018 and the same has become final.
9. It also further reveals that the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.8 of 2017 for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the subject property against unofficial respondents on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Madhira and the said Court granted temporary injunction in I.A.No.29 of 2017 on 02.02.2017 and the said order is continuing. Respondent No.3 basing on the application filed by the respondent No.5, who is none other than the petitioner's father, invoking the provisions of the Act initiated proceedings vide case No.5 of 2017 (B1/1510/2017), dated 09.02.2018, passed the impugned order directing the Tahsildar to cancel the revenue 6 JSR,J W.P.No.22365 of 2014 entries made in favour of the petitioner and the said order was confirmed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.D2/1431/2018 on 12.06.2018 and directed the respondent No.4 to restore the possession of the property to respondent No.5. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 exceeded the jurisdiction and passed the impugned orders. As per the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, in the event the Senior Citizen executed any document by mentioning certain conditions, then he is entitle to seek cancellation of such documents.
10. In the instant case, the respondent No.5 has not executed any document in favour of the petitioner and petitioner has not violated any terms and conditions of such document. In such circumstances, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the respondent No.5 and to pass impugned order for cancellation of the revenue entries and cancellation of the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the petitioner and restore the land to respondent No.5.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.D2/1431/2018, dated 12.06.2018 and the order of respondent No.3 in case No.5 of 7 JSR,J W.P.No.22365 of 2014 2017 (B1/1510/2017), dated 09.02.2018 are liable to be declared as without jurisdiction. Accordingly, both the orders are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, the unofficial respondents are given liberty to workout their remedies as available under law. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J 21st day of April, 2023 PNS