Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Ansar Basha vs M Venkatesh on 12 July, 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
W.A.No. 203 OF 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)
Appellant-respondent No. 5 has assailed order dated
29-01-2021 passed by a learned single Judge, whereby his name
from the revenue records was struck off in favour of respondent No.
1-writ petitioner.
2. Gist of the case is to the effect that pursuant to order dated
23-11-2018 in W.P.No. 42264 of 2018 directing respondent No. 3-
Tahsildar, Pileru Mandal, Chittoor District, to consider the
application in Form VI-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar
Passbooks Act, 1971, filed by the appellant-respondent No. 5 in
accordance with law, the said Tahsildar mechanically entered the
name of the appellant in the web portal as pattadar without making
due enquiry in the records to find how the appellant came into
possession of the land in dispute. Accordingly, the writ petitioner,
whose mother's name, namely Smt. M.Radha Lakshmamma, wife
of Pandu Rangaiah, is appearing in the village account records and
other relevant records with regard to the land in question, moved
the present writ petition seeking to set aside the said entry.
In the course of the proceedings, the Tahsildar, Pileru
Mandal, Chittoor District, filed a counter stating as follows:
2
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent
i.e., The Tahsildar, Pileru Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P., to
dispose of the above referred application stated to have been
filed by the petitioner in Form-IV-A of the Act, in accordance
with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of the copy of this order and take action accordingly. No
order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed. As per the orders of the Hon'ble High
Court, the then Tahsildar has updated in the web-land portal
on 29-01-2019 and disposed the referenced application, the
Pattadar name is mentioned as Kolkar Ansar Basha. On
perusal of the record, there is no evidence showing as to how
the said Kolkar Ansar Basha has come in possession of the
land under dispute. There are no documentary evidences in
his name to mutate his name as pattedar. His name is
mutated in the revenue records as pattedar after this Hon'ble
Court disposed of the writ petition filed by him. Again on 31-
01-2019 the said writ petition Survey Number was revoked
and kept as dispute in the remarks column of the web land
portal.
I submit that the Writ Petitioner Sri M.Venkatesh, S/o
Pandurangaiah approached to the Tahsildar, Pileru to update
in the 1B and to issue 1B for the DKT patta land of his mother
Smt. M.Radhalakshmamma in Sy. No. 1975/7d extent of Acs.
1.39 cents and to issue PPB/TD for the said survey number.
On verification of village account records and other relevant
records, it is found that the entries are made that the
Darakasthu patta is in the name of Smt.
M.Radhalakshmamma w/o Pandurangaiah, mother of the writ
petitioner with A.M.No: 45-4-1398 dt: 01-08-1988 in Sy. No:
1975/7d with an extent Ac. 1.39 cents in Doddipalle Village,
Pileru Mandal, Chittoor District."
3
Relying on the said materials on record, the learned single
Judge directed that name of the mother of the writ petitioner be
restored in the revenue records in place of the appellant. Liberty
was also given for examining genuineness or otherwise of the D-
Form patta issued in favour of the appellant and for taking action
against the Tahsildar concerned, if so warranted, after due notice
and enquiry.
3. Mr. I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
submits that the entry in the revenue records was made on
29-01-2019 in favour of his client pursuant to the direction given by
this Court, as aforesaid. Hence, the learned Judge ought not to
have disturbed such entry without permitting his client to establish
his claim in respect of the land in question. In rebuttal, Mr.
R.Nagarjuna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-writ
petitioner, argues that the D-Form relied upon by the appellant in
the earlier writ proceedings is a forged document. He took us
through the contents of the document, wherein different village
names have been given and the second page does not appear to
be a continuation of the earlier page. On the strength of such
document, the appellant appears to have recorded his name in the
revenue records which was correctly deleted as per the impugned
order.
4. The name of the appellant appears to have been
mechanically entered by the Tahsildar, Pileru Mandal, in the
revenue records pursuant to the order passed by this Court in
W.P.No. 42264 of 2018. The said order does not make any
4
observation with regard to the correctness of the claim of the
appellant and had, in fact, directed the Tahsildar, Pileru Mandal, to
consider the representation of the appellant herein "in accordance
with law". The said expression had cast a duty upon the Tahsildar
concerned to look into the genuineness of the D-Form patta dated
25-01-2000 as well as the connected land records and thereafter
enter the name of the appellant in the revenue records. Instead of
doing so, the officer mechanically recorded the name of the
appellant in the revenue records on 29-01-2019 although there
was no evidence available as to how he had come into possession
of the land. Noticing such irregularity, the matter was rectified on
31-01-2019 and the plot was described as 'disputed land' in the
web land portal. Moreover, the counter affidavit of the Tahsildar
shows the village account and other relevant records disclose that
the plot in question stood in the name of the mother of respondent
No. 1-writ petitioner.
4. In this factual backdrop, we do not find any illegality in the
order passed by the learned single Judge directing deletion of the
name of the appellant and incorporation of the name of the mother
of respondent No. 1-writ petitioner in the revenue records. Nothing
has been placed on record before us to establish the claim of the
appellant to the land in question. On the other hand, the D-Form
patta relied by the appellant in the earlier writ proceedings does not
inspire confidence. Thus, we are of the opinion there is no merit in
the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
5
5. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
dismissed in consequence.
_____________________
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.
___________________
K.SURESH REDDY, J.
Date: 12-07-2021,
JSK
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
W.A.No. 203 OF 2021
(Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by
Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)
DATE: 12TH JULY, 2021
JSK
