THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.655 of 2010
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. G.Sundaresan, learned counsel representing
Mr. P.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants.
2. In this intra court appeal, the appellants have
assailed the validity of the order dated 02.07.2010 passed
by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition
preferred by the appellants, namely W.P.No.6356 of 2010,
has been dismissed.
3. Facts
giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the legal heirs of one Mr. Pothuganti Gopaiah, the original pattadar, sold the land measuring Ac.0.20 guntas (out of Acs.8.13 guntas) in Survey No.7 of Satamrai Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to one Smt. Shanthaben Patel and appellant No.1 vide registered 2 sale deed dated 29.08.1980. Thereafter, on 31.01.1983 a deed of rectification was executed by the legal representatives who are not parties to the sale deed. The legal heirs of Mr. Pothuganti Gopaiah, vide registered sale deed dated 18.11.1981, sold the land measuring Acs.4.00 to one Smt. Labhkunwar B. Lotia. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the aforesaid Mr. Pothuganti Gopaiah by another registered sale deed executed on 18.11.1981 sold the land measuring Acs.3.33 guntas to one Smt. Sheela N. Lotia. The aforesaid persons, namely Smt. Labhkunwar B. Lotia and Smt. Sheela N. Lotia, vide registered sale deeds dated 15.10.1982 sold land measuring Acs.7.33 guntas in favour of appellant No.1 and his mother. According to the appellants, they acquired title in respect of land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas in Survey No.7 situate in Satamrai Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Some time in the year 1983, the names of the appellants were also recorded in the revenue records.
3
4. Smt. Shanthaben Patel executed a will deed on 22.08.1991 bequeathing Acs.4.03 guntas in favour of appellant No.2. Thereafter, Smt. Shanthaben Patel expired on 29.11.1994. On 31.03.1995, the mutation was made in favour of appellant No.2 in respect of the land measuring Ac.4.03 guntas. The legal representatives of the deceased Pothuganti Gopaiah, namely respondents No.4 to 9, filed an application under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, before the Tahsildar in which the order of mutation dated 31.03.1995 was questioned. The Tahsildar by an order dated 21.12.2007 dismissed the petition filed by respondents No.4 to 9. Thereupon, respondents No.4 to 9 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was withdrawn by them. Thereafter, respondents No.4 to 9 filed a revision before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector by an order dated 15.12.2009 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 21.12.2007. The aforesaid order was inter alia passed on the ground that the record pertaining to 4 mutation in favour of the appellants was not traceable. It was further held that no notice was issued to respondents No.4 to 9 before passing the order dated 31.03.1995. The appellants thereupon challenged the validity of the order passed by the Joint Collector in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by the order dated 02.07.2010 has dismissed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the revision was filed before the Joint Collector after inordinate delay and ought not to have been entertained the same.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants.
5
7. The learned Single Judge inter alia held that the dispute between the parties requires adjudication by the civil Court. It is not in dispute that respondents No.4 to 9 have already filed a suit seeking cancellation of the sale deeds executed in favour of the appellants. It is trite law that entry made in the revenue records does not confer any title. The right, title or interest of either the appellants or respondents No.4 to 9 are subject to the outcome of the civil litigation, which is pending before the civil Court.
8. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference in this intra court appeal is made out. However, it is clarified that any observations made either by the learned Single Judge or by this Court shall not come in the way of either of the parties in prosecuting the remedy of civil suit.
9. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the writ appeal is dismissed.
6
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 12.10.2023 vs