Burramukku Butchi Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8294 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU


                         W.P.No.24949 of 2018
O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

'to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to and in connection with the order passed by respondent No.3 in appeal vide Rc.No.103/2018-A dated 25.6.2018 and quash the same as illegal, violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India besides being in violation of the provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and consequently set aside the same ...'

2. This Court has heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned

senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned

Government Pleader for Revenue and OMR Law Firm for

respondent No.5.

3. Learned senior counsel submits that the impugned

order is totally contrary to law. He submits that the third

respondent has transgressed the limits set by law and passed

an order, which is totally opposed to the settled law. Learned

senior counsel points out that the flow of title that the

petitioners are claiming is not disputed in relation to

document Nos.2136/71, 2137/71 and 2419/90. These three

sale deeds are duly executed sale deeds in favour of the

petitioners. He points out that a Will dated 25.07.1973 is

also relied upon by the petitioners. It is his contention that in

O.S.No.172 of 2008, the II Additional District Judge, Guntur

came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to 'prove'

the execution of the Will. He therefore submits that at best,

the third respondent could have interfered with regard to

Ac.0.78 cents of land covered by the Will, but instead of doing

so, he set aside the order dated 14.12.2017 for the entire

extent of the land. It is also submitted that pattadar

passbooks and record of right books were issued on

01.12.2010 and the names of the petitioners have also been

recorded in the revenue records. The plaintiffs in the suit

also failed to prove their possession. Thereafter, respondent

No.5 made a representation to respondent No.4 to record their

names with regard to Ac.1.07 cents of land in Sy.No.74/3.

Learned senior counsel points out that the Tahsildar issued

the endorsement dated 14.12.2017 stating that the issue

about the recording of rights with regard to Sy.No.74/3

measuring Ac.1.07 cents will be done subject to the result of

the appeal filed against the suit O.S.No.172 of 2008. Against

the same, an appeal has been preferred. The appellate

authority, without considering the submissions, has set aside

the order dated 14.12.2017 canceling the entries with regard

to all the extents in Sy.No.74/3 of Kunchanapalli Village.

Learned senior counsel also relied on large compendium of

case law to argue that this action of the respondents is

contrary to law. He also points out that the State is insisting

upon the existence of an alternative remedy and arguing that

the writ petition is not maintainable. He points out that when

an order like this is passed totally contrary to law and in

violation of principles of natural justice, existence of an

alternative remedy is not a ground to deny relief to the

petitioners. Lastly, he submits that written representation is

not an 'appeal' as required under the Pattadar Pass Books

Act, the action was taken. He points out that a person

acquiring land is bound to make an appropriate application in

accordance with the provisions of the Pattadar Passbook and

Record of Rights Act. He argues that there is a specific format

for the appeal etc., and this was also not considered by the

Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, learned senior counsel

prays for an order.

4. For the Revenue Divisional Officer, learned Government

Pleader argues the matter at length. He relies upon the

counter affidavit and argues the matter. It is argued that an

appeal should have been filed before the Joint Collector, but

instead of that a writ is filed and therefore, the same is not

maintainable. He also submitted that the land measuring

Ac.1.07 cents belongs to the unofficial respondent and his

brother only. The other three sale deeds mentioned earlier

are not really disputed by him, but when it comes to the Will,

he strongly argues that Ac.1.07 cents belongs to the unofficial

respondent and his brother as the Will has not been proved in

accordance with law, therefore, it is deemed to be a

nonexistent Will.

5. On behalf of the unofficial respondent-respondent No.5

also similar argument is advanced by the learned counsel and

the contents of the impugned order are justified as being

correct. It is submitted that the impugned order of the

Revenue Divisional Officer is a reasoned order that has been

passed after consideration of all the legal and factual

submissions.

6. This Court after hearing all the counsel notices that

there is no dispute about the fact that in Sy.No.74/3, the

petitioners' father has acquired Ac.3.00 cents (document

No.2136/71) petitioners' mother has acquired Ac.1.00 cents

(document No.2137/71) and the petitioners' maternal-uncle

B.Somireddy acquired Ac.0.66 cents (document No.2419/90).

Despite in a way pertains to Will dated 25.07.1973 of Ac.0.78

cents which is registered before the Sub-Registrar's Office,

Vijayawada. Thus, for Ac.4.66 cents, there is no strict

dispute. Only with regard to Ac.0.78 cents, there is an

arguable issue. This Will is marked as Ex.B.3 in O.S.No.172

of 2008. In this case, issue No.2 is about Will dated

25.07.1973. The trial Court held that this Will is not duly

proved and held that the issue against the defendants. In the

same suit, it was held that the plaintiffs - present unofficial

respondents have 'not' proved their possession. There are

also other findings about the other documents. The fact also

remains that this litigation has not reached a quietus and an

appeal is still pending disposal. Once a competent Civil Court

is seisin of that the matter and the right, title and possession

of the properties is the subject matter of the dispute, this

Court is of the opinion that legal proprietary demands that

the respondent Nos.3 and 4 should not have entered into this

disputed areas and passed an order on the merits of the

matter.

7. In the opinion of this Court, the procedure adopted by

the third respondent is not correct. The appropriate

application has also not been made in form 4-A for him to

entertain the appeal and to pass an order on merits.

Nevertheless, as the writ petitioners have also participated in

the proceedings, this Court is not deciding this point.

8. The law on the subject is also sufficiently clear. The

mere existence of an alternative remedy will not preclude this

Court from entertaining the writ petition or passing orders

thereon if it finds that the impugned order is contrary to law.

Large volume of case law that is cited is settled law and is not

been referred to once again. The judgment in E.J.David v.

Additional Collector, Sangareddy Division,Sangareddy

District1 of the Telangana High Court also has an important

bearing on this case. It is clearly held that revenue

authorities cannot decide questions of title. In the present

case also, the Revenue Divisional Officer proceeded to decide

the 'title' to the property and a comment is made that the

Tahsildar in fact evaded his duties. In the opinion of this

Court the Tahsildar acted correctly in issuing the impugned

endorsement dated 14.12.2017, wherein he recorded the fact

that there are disputes pending between the parties including

the civil Court appeal which is yet to be disposed. Therefore,

he rightly held action will be taken in respect of the land

measuring Ac.1.07 cents covered by Sy.No.174/3 of

Kunchanapalli Village after receiving orders from the High

Court.

9. In the opinion of this Court, the order dated 14.12.2017

is correct in the circumstances and the order passed by the

third respondent on 25.06.2018 is contrary to law. This

Court holds that the Revenue Divisional Officer did not act in

a manner that is required by him under law and exercised the

jurisdiction which is not vested upon him namely, taking a

2021 (4) ALD 166 (TS)

decision on a question of 'title'. This is ex-facie visible from a

reading of the order itself. Since the same is visible from the

record and a pure question of law alone was argued, this

Court did not feel the need to summon the record. Hence,

this Court holds that the action of the third respondent in

passing the impugned order suffers from inherent lack of

Jurisdiction which is ex-facie visible from a reading of the

impugned order itself.

10. Therefore, the writ petition is partially allowed setting

aside the order dated 25.06.2018 and restoring the status quo

ante by upholding the order dated 14.12.2017. No order as to

costs.

11. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall

stand dismissed.

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date: 03.11.2022 KLP