The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Angalakurthi Ramulu
2021 Latest Caselaw 486 AP

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
                            AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

                   WRIT APPEAL No.1704 of 2018
                  (Taken up through video conferencing)

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)

        Order dated 27.09.2018 in W.P.No.32068 of 2018 allowing

the writ petition and imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- on the third

appellant is under challenge.

        Learned   Government     Pleader   submits     that    the   third

appellant-Tahsildar had acted pursuant to Section 5 of the Andhra

Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for

short, 'the Act') and had called upon the first respondent-writ

petitioner and his family members to place on record the

documents with regard to the land. Being satisfied that the

dispute was civil in nature, directed them to approach the Civil

Court. The third appellant had acted under a colour of right and

imposition of costs upon him was, therefore, unjustified.

Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-writ

petitioner submits that the first respondent was harassed by the

third appellant-Tahsildar and would have been coerced to

handover the land if he had not been approached this Court.

We have considered the materials on record. Action of the

third appellant in issuing notice upon the first respondent-writ

petitioner and his family members in a purely civil dispute cannot

be countenanced in law. Revenue authorities ought not to

interfere in or adjudicate the civil rights of parties which are

amenable to the jurisdiction of appropriate civil Courts. The

aforesaid provision of law relied upon by the learned Government

Pleader relates to correction of record of rights and does not

empower the third appellant-Tahsildar to issue the impugned

notice. Hence, quashment of the said notice by the First Court

does not call for interference. Learned Single Judge noted the

written instructions relied upon by the third appellant was

antedated and accordingly came to a conclusion of egregious

malice justifying imposition of costs. We, however, find from the

records that the writ petition had been instituted on 04.09.2018

and the First Court was not correct in recording that the

instructions dated 05.09.2018 had been prepared even before the

institution of the proceedings. This aspect on the matter, inter

alia, prompted the Court to come to a conclusion that the third

appellant had acted maliciously and had even sought to mislead

the Court by antedated instructions. As the factual foundation

with regard to such conclusion does not appear to be borne out

from the records, we are of the view although the action of the

third appellant was wholly unwarranted and does not fall within

the ambit of Section 5 of the Act as contended by learned

Government Pleader, imposition of costs upon the third appellant

may be waived.

With the aforesaid modification, the Writ Appeal is disposed

of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if

any, pending in this Writ Appeal shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI

__________________________ JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

Date: 01.02.2021 Ivd