Kasu Rayapa Reddy, vs The State Of A.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 2389 AP

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY


                 WRIT PETITION NO.42973 OF 2018

ORDER:

One Kasu Rayapa Reddy filed this writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming writ of Certiorari or

any other appropriate Writ calling for the records pertaining to the

proceedings Revision Petition R.C.No.637 of 2018 D-5 dated

31.10.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as

illegal improper unjust and contrary to law and violation of principles

of natural justice and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to

change the entries in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.3-00

cents in Sy.No.412/94 of Chamarru Village, Atchampet Mandal,

Guntur District, pending disposal of the suit in O.S No.418 of 2014

on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenpalli, Guntur District.

Petitioner is the absolute owner of agricultural land in extent

of Ac.3-00 cents in Sy.No.412/94 of Chamarru Village, Atchampet

Mandal, Guntur District. He purchased land of an extent of Ac.2-50

cents in Sy.No.412/94 through registered sale deed dated

20.10.2014 vide Document No.11930/2014 and land of an extent of

Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No.412/94 through registered sale deed dated

24.10.2014 from Gaddam Kotiratnamma w/o late Venkateswarlu.

Originally, the said land belong to Gaddam Venkateswarlu and after

the said Venkateswarlu, his wife Kotiratnamma succeeded the

property. The name of the original owner Gaddam Kotiratnamma was

mutated in the revenue records and she also obtained Pattadar

Passbooks and Title Deeds under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the MSM,J WP_42973_2018

Act') and continuously she was in possession and enjoyment of the

property till sale of the property.

In the recent times, there is a hike in valuation of the property.

Hence, with a view to grab the property, Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 who

are adjoining owners of the property of the petitioner, hatched a plan

to grab the said property with a malafide intention and having no

right over the property in question, they filed ROR Appeal on

05.11.2015 before the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer

for cancellation of Khata No.1930 and Pattadar Passbook

No.G317384 said to have been issued in the name of the vendor of

this petitioner, Gaddam Kotiratnamma, wherein the petitioner was

also arrayed as second respondent. The vendor of the petitioner and

her children were also impleaded as party respondents in the said

appeal. ROR Appeal was contested by the petitioner and his vendor.

The appeal ought not to have entertained on the sole ground that the

same was filed beyond the limitation period, without accompanying

any application of condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 5

of Limitation Act.

It is contended that, as per Section 5(5) of the Act, an appeal

shall be filed within sixty days from the date of mutation in the

revenue records, whereas, in the instant case, appeal is filed by the

unofficial respondents beyond the limitation period. Hence, on the

sole ground, the order in ROR Appeal is liable to be set-aside.

The third respondent/Appellate Authority-cum-Revenue

Divisional Officer, after hearing both parties, passed an order in ROR

Case D.Dis.No.3697/2016-A dated 09.10.2017, dismissing the MSM,J WP_42973_2018

appeal, on coming to conclusion that there is no need to meddle with

the entries in the revenue records, as the suit is pending before the

Civil Court, accordingly, dismissed the appeal, advising the parties to

settle their Title Dispute in appropriate forum.

Aggrieved by the order of, the third respondent in

D.Dis.No.3697/2016-A dated 09.10.2017, the unofficial respondents

i.e. Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 filed revision before the second

respondent/Revision Authority & Joint Collector & Additional

District Magistrate, Guntur, wherein the Revisional Authority

allowed the Revision vide order in Revision Petition Rc.No.637/2018-

D-5 dated 31.10.2018, in one line order, without assigning any

reasons, directing the fourth respondent/Tahsildar to cancel the

entries in revenue records of Gaddam Kotiratnamma to an extent of

Ac.1-00 cents in Sy.No.412/94 and Ac.2-24 cents in Sy.No.412/95-1

cents of Chamarru Village, Atchampet Mandal.

It is contended that, the second respondent/Joint Collector by

extracting the pleadings in the order dated 31.10.2018, simply

recorded a finding and allowed the revision on the sole ground; as

such the order of the second respondent is liable to be set-aside,

since it is cryptic.

It is further contended that, the respondents are making hectic

efforts to dispossess this petitioner from the above land based on the

order of the second respondent. The unofficial respondent i.e.

Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 are powerful persons in the village with

political support and anti social elements. Therefore, the petitioner

was constrained to file O.S.No.418 of 2014 before the Senior Civil MSM,J WP_42973_2018

Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur, for grant of permanent injunction and

the same is pending before the Senior Civil Judge's Court.

It is contended that, though the name of the petitioner's

vendor is reflected in the revenue records, inspite of the knowledge

that the suit is pending for adjudication before the competent civil

Court, passing such an order is a serious illegality by the seconed

respondent and on the sole ground, the order of the second

respondent in Revision Petition Rc.No.637 of 2018-R5 dated

31.10.2018 is liable to be set-aside.

Finally, it is contended that, since the one line finding of the

second respondent is not supported by any reason to reverse the

order of the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer in ROR

Case D.Dis.No.3697/2016-A dated 09.10.2017 and failed to consider

the pendency of civil suit in O.S.No.418 of 2014 before the Senior

Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur, passed such an order, even

without any material, thereby, order of the second respondent dated

31.10.2018 is liable to be set-aside.

The second respondent/Joint Collector, the Revisional

Authority, filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, inter

alia, contending that the petitioner purchased land in an extent of

Ac.2-50 cents and Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No.412/94 of Chamarru

Village, Atchampet Mandal, through two registered sale deeds from

Gaddam Kotiratnamma. She acquired the property under a gift deed

executed by her husband Gaddam Venkateswarlu. There is no

evidence to establish the title of Gaddam Venkateswarlu who

executed gift deed in favour of his wife Gaddam Kotiratnamma. The MSM,J WP_42973_2018

vendor of this petitioner purchased the same from the original land

owner Rayala Appaiah under an agreement of sale. But, the same

was not placed before the authorities concerned. In the absence of

any document evidencing purchase of the property by the husband

of petitioner's vendor, the petitioner will not get any right in the

property.

It is further submitted that, Rayala Appaiah executed Gift

Deed No.1409/1967 dated 23.12.1967 in favour of the sixth

respondent herein, donating the property in dispute. Basing on the

said registered gift deed, the sixth respondent obtained Pattadar

Passbooks to the subject land in dispute. It is also noticed that the

second respondent herein basing on the documents filed at the time

of hearing of the Revision Case, that Vankayalapati Kotaiah, the

grandfather of the fifth respondent has purchased the subject land to

an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in D.No.412/94 and an extent of Ac.2-24

cents in D.No.412/95-1 totaling an extent of Ac.3-24 cents of

Chamarru Village by means of registered sale deed Document

No.1543/2013 dated 14.06.2013. In view of the documentary

evidence, the authorities accepted the contention of Respondent Nos.

5 & 6 and issued the order impugned in the writ petition

It is further submitted by the second respondent that, the

Primary Authority and Appellate Authority did not consider the

documentary evidence and ordered for issue of pattadar passbooks

and title deed in favour of this petitioner, mutating the name of this

petitioner in concerned revenue records without considering the

material on record.

MSM,J WP_42973_2018

It is also contended that the limitation under Section 5(5) of

the Act is not applicable to the issue, as the then revenue authorities

have not followed the procedure under the Act, more particularly, the

procedure laid down under Section 5(1) to 5(4) of the Act, while

ordering mutation of the names of the applicant. Therefore, when the

order was passed in deviation of the provisions of the Act, the second

respondent/Revisional Authority while exercising power under Rule

9(1)(a)(ii) of the Act and Rules framed under the Act, interfered with

the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority i.e. third

respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer.

It is also contended that, when the second respondent has

passed an order directing to approach the competent Civil Court, the

petitioner filed O.S.No.418 of 2014 before the Senior Civil Judge,

Sattenapalli, Guntur, for grant of permanent injunction restraining

Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 herein, from interfering with the peaceful

possession, but not for declaration of title. Therefore, the petitioner is

not entitled to claim any relief in the writ petition, since the order of

the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer is totally in

consonance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules

framed therein and based on the documentary evidence produced by

Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and finally requested to dismiss the writ

petition.

The fourth respondent/Tahsildar, also filed separate counter

affidavit, reiterating the contentions regarding title to the property of

this petitioner and his vendor and disposal of the property by Smt.

Rayala Venkatramma in favour of Vankalayapati Kotaiah under

registered sale deed bearing No.1543/2013 on 14.03.2013 registered MSM,J WP_42973_2018

at Sub-Registrar Office, Krosur. The said Gaddam Venkateswarlu

executed gift deed in favour of his wife Gaddam Kotiratnam in the

year 2011 vide Registered Document No.2204/2011. Therefore,

name of Gaddam Kotiratnam was mutated in the revenue records

and thereby, on the application of this petitioner, his name was also

mutated in the revenue records. Therefore, the order of the fourth

respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer does not suffer from any

illegality or irregularity and that, the fourth respondent did commit

no error and requested to pass appropriate order.

Respondent Nos.5 & 6 who are the rival claimants filed

detailed counter affidavit, while supporting the order passed by the

second respondent/Joint Collector/Revisional Authority. They

specifically contended that, there are absolutely no grounds to

interfere with the order passed by the second respondent, as the

second respondent being a quasi judicial authority, did not act

without any jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or acted in

flagrant disregard of law or rules or the procedure or acted in

violation of principles of natural justice. On this ground alone, writ

petition for grant of Writ of Certiorari is liable to be dismissed.

The property in dispute is an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in

Sy.No.412/94 and an extent of Ac.2-24 cents in D.No.412/95-1

(referred as schedule property). Originally, one Rayala Appaiah was

the owner of total extent of Ac.6-00 cents out of Ac.3-98 cents in

D.No.412/85 and Ac.5-10 cents in D.No.412/86 in Chamarru Village

of Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District. The said Rayala Appaiah

gifted the schedule property to his wife i.e. sixth respondent vide

Registered Gift Deed Doc.No.1409/1967 and she accepted and acted MSM,J WP_42973_2018

upon the same. Since then, sixth respondent is in possession and

enjoyment of the schedule property with absolute right, title and

interest. The revenue authorities have also recognized title,

possession and enjoyment of the sixth respondent; issued Pattdar

Passbook and Title Deed bearing Patta No.689 and Pattadar Passbok

No.G405894 in her favour.

Subsequently, the said D.No.412/85 and D.No.412/86 were

subdivided as D.No.412/94 and D.No.412/95-1. While things stood

thus, Vankayalapati Kotaiah s/o Venkaiah i.e. grandfather of the

fifth respondent had approached the sixth respondent to purchase

the schedule property and in pursuance of the same, the sixth

respondent sold the schedule property in favour of Vankayalapati

Kotaiah vide Registered Sale Deed dated 14.06.2013 vide

Doc.No.1543/2013 registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Krosur and

the possession was delivered on the same day. Since then, the said

Vankayalapati Kotaiah is in possession and enjoyment of the

schedule property with absolute right, title and interest, free from

encumbrances.

The fifth respondent approached the revenue authorities for

issuance of Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deed in favour of

Vankayalapati Kotaiah, the unofficial respondents came to know that

one Gaddam Kotiratnamma had illegally obtained Pattadar Passbook

vide Pattadar Passbook No.G317384 for an extent of Ac.3-00 cents in

D.No.412/94 among other properties without any intimation to the

respondents herein and even without canceling the Pattadar

Passbook in the name of sixth respondent. The unofficial

respondents came to know that, in the year 2014, the said Gaddam MSM,J WP_42973_2018

Kotiratnamma sold away an extent of Ac.2-50 cents and Ac.0-50

cents in Sy.No.412/94 of Chamarla Village in faovur of the petitioner

vide Registered Sale Deeds dated 20.10.2014 and 24.10.2014

bearing Doc.Nos.11930/2014 and 2083/2014 registered at Sub-

Registrar Office, Narasaraopet and Sub-Registrar Office, Krosur,

respectively. It is further submitted that, coming to know regarding

the same, the respondents herein have filed an application before the

fourth respondent authorities for cancellation of Khata No.1930 and

Pattadar Passbook No.G317384 said to have been issued in the

name of Gaddam Kotiratnamma.

The fourth respondent dismissed the petition filed by the

respondents herein, as such the respondents herein had preferred

an appeal before the third respondent - Appellate Authority. It is

further submitted that the respondents herein made a detailed

representation before the third respondent authority that the

petitioner's vendors i.e. Gaddam Kotiratnamma created fake

documents as if they are the owners of the property to an extent of

Ac.3-00 cents in D.No.412/94.

It is also contended that, the petitioner filed suit for permanent

injunction against Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 vide O.S.No.418 of 2014

on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalle, which is still pending.

Despite pendency of the suit for injunction, the third respondent

erred in dismissing the appeal vide its order in ROR Case No.3697 of

2016-A, on the ground that the declaration suit is filed by the

petitioners and that the revenue authorities need not meddle with

the schedule property as the subject matter is already seized by the

Civil Court. However, the second respondent by exercising power MSM,J WP_42973_2018

under Section 9 of the Act, rightly allowed the revision, setting-aside

the order of Respondent Nos. 3 & 4, recording specific finding as to

the title to the property and thereby, the petitioner is not entitled to

claim any relief in the present writ petition, more particularly, Writ of

Certiorari and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

During hearing, Sri Mahadeva Kantrigala, learned counsel for

the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the affidavit, while

contending that the order of the second respondent is cryptic and it

does not disclose any reason in one line finding. Apart from that, the

fifth respondent entertained the application at belated stage after

expiry of limitation period permitted under Section 5(5) of the

Limitation Act. Therefore, the cryptic order passed by the second

respondent/Joint Collector is liable to be set-aside.

It is also further contended that, when the second respondent

concluded that, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 did not follow the procedure

prescribed under the law, at best, the Revisional Authority ought to

have remanded the matter setting-aside the order passed by the

authorities, directing to follow the procedure prescribed under

Section 5 and Rules 15, 16 and 19(1) and other provisions of the Act

and Rules framed thereunder. Instead of doing so, the second

respondent exercised power under Section 9, though limited,

recording a specific finding, reversing the orders passed by both the

Primary Authority and Appellate Authority i.e. Respondent No.4 and

Respondent No.3 respectively and the procedure adopted by the

respondents is erroneous.

MSM,J WP_42973_2018

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue supported

the order of the second respondent in all respects, while contending

that the allegations made in the writ petition are not sufficient to

issue Writ of Certiorari, since the order of quasi judicial authority

under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land

and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, passed the order within the

jurisdictional limits and by following necessary procedure.

At the same time, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6

Sri D. Prudhvi Teja supported the order of the second respondent,

while asserting title to the property and requested to dismiss the writ

petition.

Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 relied on judgment

of the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chinnam

Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally

Mandal and others1 and Anumolu Jaganmohan Rao v. Joint

Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam, Krishna District2.

In support of his contentions regarding the powers of quasi

judicial authorities under the Act, more particularly, Respondent

Nos. 2, 3 and 4, he also contended that the jurisdiction of this Court

is limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ

of Certiorari, while placing reliance on the judgment of High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of

Andhra Pradesh in Abdul Rafeeq and others v. State of

Telangana3 and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others4.

AIR 2008 ANDHRA PRADESH 15 (F.B)

(2002) 2 ALD 712

2017 (6) ALT 732

(2003) 6 SCC 675 MSM,J WP_42973_2018

On the strength of the principles laid down in the above judgments,

learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 requested to dismiss the

writ petition.

Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available

on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the fourth respondent/Tahsildar, Atchampeta, followed the procedure prescribed under law, while issuing an order. If not, whether the second respondent/Joint Collector is entitled to interfere with the order of the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, who affirmed the order of the fourth respondent/Tahsildar, by exercising power of Revision under Section 9 of the Act.?

2. Whether this Court can exercise power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order of quasi judicial authority to issue Writ of Certiorari in the facts of the case. If so, whether the order passed by the second respondent/Joint Collector is liable to be set-aside, by issuing Writ of Certiorari?

POINT Nos. 1 & 2:

As both points are interconnected, I find that it is appropriate

to decide both the points by common discussion.

The main reason for filing the revision before the second

respondent/Joint Collector is that, no notice was issued before

removing their names in the revenue records and failed to follow the

procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules framed thereunder.

On the basis of such contention, the second respondent concluded

that, both the fourth respondent/Tahsildar and the third

respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer failed to follow the procedure MSM,J WP_42973_2018

prescribed under the Act and Rules framed thereunder and thereby,

reversed the orders passed by the fourth respondent and directed to

delete the name of the petitioner in the revenue records against

particular survey numbers in dispute. This finding is challenged

before this Court by the petitioner who did not show any material to

establish that the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the Act

and Rules 15, 16 and 19(1) of the Rules framed thereunder had been

complied.

A separate procedure is prescribed for deletion of the names in

the revenue records, including issue of Pattadar Passbooks, change

of name of the pattadar and title holder. According to Section 4(2) of

the Act, every registering officer appointed under the Act and

registering a document relating to a transaction in land, such as

sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise shall intimate the Mandal

Revenue Officer of the Mandal in which the property is situate of

such transaction and publish notice under Section 5(3) r/w

Rule 19(1) in Form VIII, which is mandatory. However, in the present

case, the record does not disclose about compliance of the procedure

prescribed under Section 5(1) to 5(3) and Rules 15, 16 and 19(1) of

the Rules by publishing notice in Form VIII. Proviso to

Section 5(1) and Section 5(3) of Act No.26 of 1971 represent

statutory embodiment of the most important facet of the rules of

natural justice i.e. audi alterem partem. These provisions

contemplate issue of notice to the persons likely to be affected by the

action/decision of the Mandal Revenue Officer to carry out or not to

carry out amendment in the Record of Rights. Proviso to Section

5(1) lays down that if the Mandal Revenue Officer decides not to

make an amendment in the Record of Rights, then he shall pass MSM,J WP_42973_2018

appropriate order only after giving an opportunity of making

representation to the person, who gives intimation regarding

acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4. Section

5(3) provides for issue of written notice to all persons whose names

are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or

affected by the amendment. Similarly, a notice is required to be

issued to any other person whom the recording authority has reason

to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. A copy of

the amendment and the notice is also required to be published in the

prescribed manner. The publication of notice in the prescribed

manner is in addition to the notice, which is required to be given in

writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of

Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and

also to any other person whom the recording authority has reason to

believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. To put it

differently, the publication of a copy of the amendment and the

notice is only supplemental and not the alternative mode of giving

notice to the persons whose names are entered in the Record of

Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and

to any other person to whom the recording authority has reason to

believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. If the

Legislature thought that publication of a general notice in Form-VIII

will be sufficient compliance of the rules of natural justice, then

there was no occasion to incorporate a specific requirement of

issuing written notice to the persons whose names are entered in the

Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the

amendment. The requirement of issuing written notice to such

persons clearly negates the argument that publication of notice in MSM,J WP_42973_2018

Form-VII is sufficient. Thus the language of Form VIII in which notice

is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of

substantive provision contained in Section 5(3), which casts a duty

on recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose

names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in

or affected by the proposed amendment. (vide Chinnam

Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally

Mandal and others (referred supra)).

In view of the principle laid down in the above judgment,

certain procedure prescribed under Section 5(1) and (3) and proviso

thereto is mandatory. Even assuming for a moment that the entry

against survey number is incorrect, it is to be rectified or mutate the

name of any other person who acquired the property under Section 4

of the Act. It is the duty of the recording authority/Tahsildar to issue

notice to the person whose name is entered in the record of rights.

The language used in Section 5(1) & (3) mandating issue of notice to

the person whose name is entered in the record is suffice to hold

that, it is not directory, but it is mandatory.

In Paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit filed by the second

respondent/Joint Collector, the second respondent clearly stated

that, Pattadar passbooks were already issued by the revenue

authorities in the name of the sixth respondent herein and without

canceling the same, the then revenue authorities i.e fourth

respondent/Tahsildar issued Pattadar Passbooks in the name of

Gaddam Kotiratnamma w/o Venkateswarlu in deviation of the

provisions of the Act., whereas the fourth respondent/Tahsildar

supported his order. But, absolutely there is no material to establish MSM,J WP_42973_2018

compliance of procedure under Sections 5(1) and 5(3) and proviso

thereto of the Act, and publication in view of mandatory requirement

under Rules 15, 16 and 19(1) of the Rules framed under the Act.

The fourth respondent/Tahsildar came to a conclusion that

the name of the person who allegedly acquired right in the property

is to be mutated in the revenue record, the procedure prescribed

under Sections 5(1) and 5(3) and proviso thereto of the Act and

Rules 15, 16 and 19(1) of the Rules are required to be complied. But,

absolutely there is no material to establish that the fourth

respondent/ Tahsildar complied with the procedure. On this ground

alone, the interference of the second respondent/Joint Collector is to

be upheld in the orders passed by the fourth respondent/Tahsildar

and affirmed by the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer.

Therefore, the unilateral amendment of entries made in the revenue

records by the fourth respondent and affirmed by the third

respondent, mutating the name of this petitioner in the revenue

records in utter deviation of procedure is a serious illegality and it is

in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act

and Rules referred supra.

Though the fourth respondent/Tahsildar contended that the

procedure is complied, there is absolutely no material to establish

the same. Consequently, the Joint Collector rightly concluded that

the fourth respondent deviated the mandatory procedure under the

Act and interfered. Such interference cannot be set-aside by

exercising power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, in view of the law declared by this Court in Abdul Rafeeq MSM,J WP_42973_2018

and others v. State of Telangana (referred supra) and Surya Dev

Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others (referred supra).

In Paragraph Nos.26 & 27 of the judgment in Abdul Rafeeq

and others v. State of Telangana (referred supra), the learned

single Judge of High Court discussed the scope and jurisdiction of

this Court in interfering with the decision of the administrative

authority under the provisions of the Act, while exercising power

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and held as follows:

"In exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India an order of administrative authority, more particularly made in exercise of quasi-judicial power, can be tested and writ court may interfere only if Court comes to a conclusion that there is error of jurisdiction or decision is perverse. Writ Court does not sit as appellate authority over such decision. Thus, judicial review is confined to jurisdictional error and perversity of decision. The scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and not the decision per se.'

The learned single Judge also relied on the judgment of the

Apex Court in Commissioner of Police v. Syed Hussain5, dealing

with scope of judicial review of administrative action, wherein

Supreme Court held as under:

"10. It is one thing to say that order passed by the statutory authority is wholly arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and thus liable to be set aside, but it is another thing to say that the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by such authority should not ordinarily be interfered with by a superior court while exercising its power of judicial review unless one or the other ground upon which and on the basis whereof the power of judicial review can be exercised, exists.

11. It is not the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the impugned order of punishment smacks of arbitrariness so as to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority to impose such punishment is also not in question.

(2006) 3 SCC 173 MSM,J WP_42973_2018

12. Thus, even assuming that a time has come where this Court can develop administrative law by following the recent decisions of the House of Lords, we are of the opinion that it is not one of such cases where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. In ex p Daly [(2001) 3 All ER 433 (HL)] it was held that the depth of judicial review and the deference due to the administrative discretion vary with the subject-matter. It was further stated: (All ER p. 447, para 32) It may well be, however, that the law can never be satisfied in any administrative field merely by a finding that the decision under review is not capricious or absurd."

Following the principle laid down in Abdul Rafeeq and others

v. State of Telangana (referred supra), when the powers of this

Court are limited only when the order passed by the Administrative

Authority or Quasi Judicial Authority is perverse or without

jurisdiction; this Court can interfere with the same.

In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others (referred

supra) and the Supreme Court laid down broad principles to exercise

power of judicial review and it is as follows:

"Though we have tried to lay down broad principles and working rules, the fact remains that the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied down in a straitjacket formula or rigid rules. Not less than often the High Court would be faced with dilemma. If it intervenes in pending proceedings there is bound to be delay in termination of proceedings. If it does not intervene, the error of the moment may earn immunity from correction. The facts and circumstances of a given case may make it more appropriate for the High Court to exercise self-restraint and not to intervene because the error of jurisdiction though committed is yet capable of being taken care of and corrected at a later stage and the wrong done, if any, would be set right and rights and equities adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings. But there may be cases where 'a stitch in time would save nine'. At the end, we may sum up by saying that the power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the Judge."

In view of these principles referred in the above judgments,

normally, the writ courts would not interfere with the administrative

order, unless the procedure followed by quasi-judicial authorities or

administrative authorities lack jurisdiction and decision is perverse.

But, in the present case, the fourth respondent/Tahsildar did not MSM,J WP_42973_2018

follow the mandatory procedure, as discussed above and thereby, the

second respondent/Joint Collector interfered. But, the defect or

wrong done cannot be remedied by allowing the revision, directing to

delete the names of this petitioner, since the principle of natural

justice was not complied by the fourth respondent/Tahsildar. If, a

notice in Form-VIII is published, there may be several claims or

objections against mutation of the name of this petitioner. On

account of failure to comply with the mandatory procedure by the

fourth respondent/ Tahsildar, setting aside the same by the second

respondent on the ground of non-compliance of procedure may

result in future litigation. Therefore, in such case, the second

respondent ought to have set-aside the order and remanded the

matter to the fourth respondent directing to follow the procedure

prescribed under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. Instead of

doing so, the second respondent allowed the revision, setting-aside

the order passed by the fourth respondent and affirmed by the third

respondent. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the second

respondent to issue a direction to delete the name of this petitioner

while mutating the names of rival claimants is again contrary to the

procedure, since Form-VIII notice was not published as mandated

under Rule 19(1) of the Rules to avoid any further complications, the

second respondent ought to have remanded the matter with a

direction to follow the Rules by the fourth respondent/Tahsildar.

Thus, the second respondent/Joint Collector committed an error and

in such case, this Court can interfere with such order with a view to

put an end to litigation for mutation of names of the petitioner and

rival claimants and other interested persons.

MSM,J WP_42973_2018

Moreover, there are serious disputed questions of fact

regarding title and acquisition of the property of the petitioner and

rival claimants i.e. Respondent Nos. 5 & 6. When such disputed

questions of fact regarding acquisition of title are raised, the remedy

open to the claimants is to file suit for appropriate declaration before

the competent civil court and obtain a decree. Instead of doing so,

the petitioner filed suit O.S No.418 of 2014 on the file of the Senior

Civil Judge, Sattenpalli, Guntur District for bare injunction.

In fact, in B. Pushpamma v. Joint Collector6, the law is well

settled by this Court that, where there is a serious dispute regarding

agreement of sale, unless the title of such a disputed property is

decided one way or the other, necessary changes of entries in the

revenue record cannot be effected by the Revenue Officials under the

Act.

In view of the judgment referred supra, when there is a serious

disputed question regarding acquisition of title to the property to

change all entries in the revenue record is a serious illegality

committed by the fourth respondent/Tahsildar; affirmed by the third

respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer by the second respondent is

not beyond the scope of Section 9 of the Act by the second

respondent, while exercising power of revision when the order of the

fourth and third respondents is by misreading the material on record

and law.

Though the petitioner contended that the order passed by the

second respondent is cryptic, I am unable to agree with the

contention of the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected, since

the order is supported by reasoning and legal position. Hence, I find

2005 (1) ALT 240 MSM,J WP_42973_2018

that it is a fit case to remand the ROR case to the fourth

respondent/Tahsildar with a direction to follow the procedure

prescribed under various provisions referred above and pass

appropriate order within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy

of the order of the fourth respondent.

In the result, writ petition is allowed, setting-aside the order of

the second respondent/Joint Collector to the extent of the direction

to delete the name of this petitioner while concurring with the other

findings that the fourth respondent/Tahsildar deviated the

procedure mandated under the Act and Rules framed therein, while

remanding the matter to the fourth respondent/Tahsildar to dispose

of the application of the petitioner afresh, strictly adhering to the

procedure mandated under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. No

costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:14.07.2021 SP