) Heard Sri. K. Rathangaphani ... vs Counsel Appearing For Unofficial
2022 Latest Caselaw 2407 AP

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
                                  AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

               WRIT PETITION No. 17899 OF 2021

 ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

 1)       Heard Sri. K. Rathangaphani Reddy, learned Counsel

 appearing for the Petitioners; Sri. C. Prakash Reddy, learned

 Counsel appearing for unofficial Respondent No. 5 and Sri.

S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for

Respondent No. 1. With their consent, the Writ Petition is

disposed of at the admission stage.

2) The present Writ Petition came to be filed challenging

the Award, dated 20.05.2019, passed in PLAC No. 385 of

2018 and the consequential reliefs granted therein, as illegal,

improper and incorrect.

3) (i) The Petitioners herein claims to be an absolute

owners and possessor of land in Sy. No. 790/2, admeasuring

Ac.2.49 cents and Ac.3.90 cents of Indukur Village, V.N. Palli

Mandal, Kadapa District, which is an ancestral property and

which they have purchased by way of Sale Deed in the year

1948.

(ii) In the year 2012, the fifth Respondent herein got his

name mutated in the revenue records to an extent of Ac.0.097

cents in Sy. No. 790/2, belonging to the Petitioners. On

coming to know the same, an application came to be made by

the Petitioners to identify and establish their long standing

possession. The fourth Respondent, vide his report, dated

24.06.2013, held that, the Petitioners are rightful owners and

possessors of the land in the aforesaid survey number and

deleted the name of fifth Respondent from khata. But, a

perusal of the revenue record show that in-stead of

incorporating the name of the Petitioners, it was shown as

unknown and, as such, the Petitioners have taken steps to

get their names mutated in the aforesaid land.

(iii) While things stood thus, the fifth Respondent is said to

have filed a case before the Permanent Lok-Adalat, seeking a

direction to the Tahsildar to enter the name of the fifth

Respondent in the revenue records, insofar as land in dispute

is concerned. Strangely, without hearing the Petitioners, an

Order came to be passed on 20.05.2019 in PLAC No. 385 of

2018 allowing the request of the fifth Respondent. The

relevant portion of the orders is as under:

"Such deletion of name of the petitioner from the existing revenue record pertaining to his real estate agriculture land, even without giving any notice or opportunity to explanation his case is quite against the principles of natural justice. The action of the 2nd respondent in deleting the name of the petitioner in the revenue records pertaining to his real estate land without holding an enquiry and without passing an order and without furnishing a copy of such order to the petitioner is unknown to law and it amounts to

deficiency in the service of the 2nd respondent who is expected to maintain the entries in respect of agriculture lands with reference to the provisions of AP Land Rights Pattadar Passbook Act. Such action of the 2nd respondent without following procedure under the provisions of AP Land Rights Pattadar Passbook Act is nothing but deficiency in his service. Thus the petitioner established substantial grounds to pass an award with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to reenter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of land in Sy. no. 790/1 with the extent of 1.20 cents and Sy. No. 790/2 with an extent of 0.97 cents of Indukuru village of V.N. Palli Mandal, Kadapa District without prejudice to their right to make an enquiry basing on a 3rd party claim challenging the rights of the petitioner.

In the result, the petition shall be allowed award shall be passed in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to reenter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of lands in Sy. No. 790/1, with an extent of 1.20 cents and Sy. No. 790/2 with an extent of 0.97 cents of Indukuru village of V.N. Palli Mandal, Kadapa district without prejudice to their right to make an enquiry basing on a 3rd party claim challenging the rights of the petitioner over such land".

4) Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to

be filed.

5) While disputing the procedure that is followed in

passing the award, namely, that no order can be passed

unless there is a settlement of compromise, the learned

Counsel for the Petitioners would contend that, the

Permanent Lok-Adalat has no authority to pass such an order

and has usurped the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts and

violated the provisions of A.P. Land Rights Pattadar Passbook

Act, in allowing the claim of the Petitioners. It is further urged

that, that when there is a dispute between the parties with

regard to title and when there are rival claims, the Civil Court

would be the appropriate forum to get the disputes settled. It

is further urged that against any order passed by revenue

authorities, the remedy would be to file appeal under Section

5(5) of the Act. Having regard to the above circumstances and

as the order came to be passed behind the back of the

Petitioners, pleads that the order under challenge has to be

set-aside.

6) On the other hand, Sri. C. Prakash Reddy, learned

Counsel appearing for unofficial Respondent, submits that,

the action of the Revenue Authorities in deleting the name of

the unofficial respondent, without notice is equally bad in law

and after deleting it, they have shown it as unknown.

Therefore, the action of the fifth Respondent in approaching

the Permanent Lok-Adalat seeking incorporation of his name

in revenue records cannot be found fault with, more

particularly, with regard to issuing notice to the Writ

Petitioners. He pleads that, issuing of notice to the Writ

Petitioners would arise provided the name of the Writ

Petitioners is reflected in the revenue records. In the absence

of the same, it may not be necessary to issue notice to the

Writ Petitioners.

(ii) Insofar as the plea taken that the issue involved is of

public utility service, as contemplated under the Act, he

would submit that, it is a real-estate land and it is in close

proximity to the land development.

(iii) The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit

that, the question of issuance Writ of Mandamus would arise

provided the Petitioners have a legal right. In other words, he

would submit that the right alleged is not yet crystallized into

his right and, as such, no mandamus can be issued.

7) Sri. S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Counsel

appearing for Respondent No. 1, would submit that, since the

Writ Petitioners were not a party to the Award passed by the

Lok-Adalat, the Writ cannot be maintained and the proper

course for them is to approach the Civil Court and seek

appropriate relief. He also relies upon the judgment of the

Combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ratnamma W/o.

B K Jayaramireddy V. Revenue Divisional Officer,

Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and Two Others1, in

support of his plea.

8) In reply, Sri. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel

would contend that, since the right of the Petitioners is

2015 (6) ALD 609

affected and that the entries are going to be made in the

revenue records, without hearing the Petitioners and

substantial damage is caused to the Petitioners, in view of the

Order in PLAC, submits that a Writ of Mandamus would lie.

9) The point that arises for consideration is, whether the

Permanent Lok-Adalat is having jurisdiction to deal with the

matter of this nature and whether the Lok-Adalat was right in

passing the award without hearing the Petitioners?

10) Insofar as the plea of Sri. C. Prakash Reddy, learned

Counsel appearing for unofficial Respondent, that the name

of the fifth Respondent was deleted without issuing notice to

him, it is to be noted that the Writ Petitioners herein made an

application requesting the authorities to find out the true

facts of the case, as his name was not incorporated in the

revenue records. The Tahsildar, after conducting an enquiry,

deleted the name of the fifth Respondent from the revenue

records. But, the fifth Respondent did not challenge the same

by filing an independent Writ Petition or an Appeal against

the Order of the Tahsildar. In the Writ Petition filed by the

Petitioners questioning the Award of the Lok-Adalat, the

unofficial Respondent cannot support the Award on the

ground that he was also not heard when his name was earlier

deleted from the records.

11) One important fact, which requires to be noted here is

the Writ Petitioners were not made a parties to the

proceedings before PLAC. Only the District Collector and the

Tahsildar were made parties to the proceedings. It is not as if

that the fifth Respondent who was Petitioner in PLAC was not

aware about the right of the Writ Petitioners over the said

land. In O.S. No. 34 of 2019 filed by these two Writ

Petitioners, seeking a declaration and title over the plaint

schedule property and permanent injunction, the fifth

Respondent herein was shown as a defendant. The relief

claimed in the said suit was against the fifth Respondent

herein. That being so, the fifth Respondent herein ought to

have made the Petitioners as parties to the proceedings before

the Lok-Adalat. Further, in the proceedings, dated

24.06.2013, itself, the Tahsildar in his letter to Revenue

Divisional Officer, Kadapa, observed that these two Writ

Petitioners are having right over the land in Sy. No. 790/2

and their name have to be included in pattadar passbooks

and title deeds. It is also held that, fifth Respondent who also

claims to have land in Sy. No.790/2 has no right to the extent

of Ac.0.97 cents claimed by him, as he failed to produce any

documentary evidence in support of the same. Therefore, in

the fitness of things, the fifth Respondent ought to have made

the Writ Petitioners as a party to the proceedings. At-least the

Tahsildar, who is shown as party to the proceedings ought to

have informed the Permanent Lok-Adalat the rival claims

made in respect of the land in dispute. Even that was not

done, thereby an order came to be passed behind the back of

the Petitioners, which, according to us substantially effects

the Writ Petitioners rights. Hence, the Writ Petition is not only

maintainable but has to be allowed on the ground that order

impugned came to be passed without making the Writ

Petitioners as parties to the proceeding.

12) Further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners also

thrusts upon the jurisdiction of the PLAC in deciding the

dispute, ass the case on hand does not fall within the ambit

of "public utility service". It may not be necessary for us to go

into this aspect, for the reason that, this Writ Petition is liable

to be allowed on the first ground itself, namely, that an order

came to be passed without hearing the Petitioners and

without making them party to the proceedings, more so, when

the 5th Respondent is aware about the right of the Writ

Petitioners.

13) Hence, the Order under challenge is set-aside and the

matter is remanded back to the PLAC, Kadapa, wherein, the

Writ Petitioners herein are permitted to raise issues relating

to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok-Adalat as well, in

which event, the same shall be decided as a preliminary

issue.

14) With the above observations, the Writ Petition is

allowed. No order as to costs.

15) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

____________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

Date: 06.05.2022 S.M...

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION No.17899 OF 2021

DATE: 06.05.2022

S.M...