Chavakula Venkata Subbaraju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8053 AP

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

               WRIT PETITION No.37257 of 2018
ORDER:

Assailing the action of the 3rd respondent in illegally

altering the adangal / pahani records of the property

belonging to the petitioner admeasuring Ac.8-26 cents in

Sy.No.26-1 of Tallavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal,

Visakhapatnam to Ac.7.70 cents and adding the deleted

portion to the extent in favour of the 4th respondent, the

present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for

the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue

appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri G. Rama Gopal,

learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued the

matter at length. It is his contention that the petitioner is the

owner of Ac.8-26 cents of land situated in Sy.No.26-1 of

Tallavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal. He acquired

the same under five separate registered sale deeds from his

previous owners in the years 1989 and 1996. The property

was recorded in the revenue records on 18.04.2018 and the

adangal copies, which are filed as material papers. The entire

extent of Ac.8.26 cents is thus recorded petitioner's favour, as

per him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out

that in the copy of the No.3 adangal which is filed, the

acquisition of the land in bits viz., Ac.2-00 cents, Ac.2-48

cents, Ac.3-30 cents, Ac.0-28 cents and Ac.0.20 cents is

recorded. Subsequently, it is submitted that without notice to

the petitioner Ac.0-56 cents was reduced from the petitioner's

extent of land noted and included in the extent belong to the

unofficial respondent. This is visible from the adangal copy

dated 06.10.2018. Learned counsel submits that this

reduction in the petitioner's extent and an addition to the

unofficial respondent. Extent in the adangal copy dated

06.02.2018 is contrary to law, contrary to the process of the

A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,

1971 (for short "the Act") and also to the rules of natural

justice. He relies upon the judgment of the learned single

Judge of this Court reported in Velivela Sarojini v The

State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.,1. Basing on this

judgment learned counsel argues that the writ petition and

Manu/AP/0812/2021

petitioner must be given an opportunity to present his case

before any changes are made in entries in the revenue

records.

4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for State

argues that as far as the unofficial respondent is concerned,

she acquired Ac.1-12 cents of land through two sale deeds

dated 08.08.2006 and 01.06.2007. She made an application

in 2012 and after following due process Pattadar Passbook

and ROR book was issued to her. Notice was also published

in the village but no objections were received. It is also

submitted that the petitioner's extent was entered in the

notional katha, but not under Revenue Record like ROR, 1B

etc. It is pointed out that the petitioner did not file any

objections to the notice issued on the application filed by the

writ petitioner. The entries were made in 2012 and Pattadar

Passbook and title deed were issued to the unofficial

respondent but the petitioner did not raise any objection or

file an appeal. It is also asserted that the writ petitioner did

not file any document to show that she has title to the

property. Therefore, learned Government Pleader submits

that if the petitioner had title to the property he should have

made a claim at the appropriate stage. Lastly, it is submitted

that the writ petition is filed long after the entries were made

in favour of the unofficial respondent.

5. For the unofficial respondent Sri G. Rama Gopal

appears and states, relying upon his counter affidavit / vacate

stay petition, that the flow of title in his client's favour is

described with clarity, whereas the writ petitioner did not

disclose the details of the sale deeds under which he has

acquired the property. He points out that a vague allegation

is made that the petitioner acquired the property under five

sale deeds in 1989 and 1996. The petitioner's title to Ac.8-26

cents is vehemently denied. The unofficial respondent asserts

the title to the property of Ac.1-12 cents in Sy.No.26/1 part.

It is pointed out that the mutation was carried out in 2012

itself and the Pattadar Passbook and Record of Rights book

were issued. Sri Rama Gopal submits that on the ground of

suppression of facts / failure to disclose the material

particulars the petitioner is not entitled to any relief also.

6. This Court is of the opinion that the Writ

Petitioner has to fail. As rightly pointed out by the learned

Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the unofficial

respondent has not disclosed the details of the title deeds by

which he is claiming right in the property. The case law relied

upon by the learned counsel also deals with the issue as to

when the Mandamus can be issued. The law on the subject

was summarized and it is clearly held that the mandamus is

a discretionary remedy. It is held that only when a person

establishes he has a legal right to the performance of a duty

by the respondents and the said right is subsisting he can

claim a mandamus. In the case on hand the petitioner has

not proved that he has a legally subsisting right in the

property of Ac.8-26 cents by disclosing his sale deeds.

Despite the clear and categorical averments in the counter

affidavits, neither a rejoinder affidavit nor the title deeds were

filed before this Court. This Court, therefore, is unable to

hold for the present that the petitioner is the owner of the

property in Sy.No.26/1.

7. Apart from that, this Court also notices that the

procedure stipulated under the Act has also not been followed

by the writ petitioner. Once he claims a right in the property

he has to make an appropriate application for mutation of his

name and/or for changes in the record of rights. For the

amendment and upgrading of the record of rights also the

authority concerned has to be convinced about the

correctness of the party's application. The respondents have

stated on oath that in the year 2012 itself that Pattadar

Passbook and Record of Rights Book were issued to the

unofficial respondent. The writ petitioner is claiming the title

to the property in Sy.No.26/1 under five sale deeds. The

names of the jformer owners were also not disclosed. The

unofficial respondent on the other hand has clearly disclosed

the details of the sale deeds, registration number and also the

names of the vendors. The flow of title is described with

certain clarity.

8. In these circumstances, this Court cannot hold

that the petitioner has established certain rights in the

property which would enable him to seek mandamus.

Despite the counter affidavit, nothing to the contrary has

been pointed out or established before this Court. It is also

not clear why he has not applied for Pattadar Passbook or a

Record of Rights book in line with the Act, despite claiming

title to the property from 1989.

9. Considering all the above, this Court is of the

opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this

Writ. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made

clear that the opinions expressed in this order are for the

purpose of disposal of this writ petition only and shall not be

treated as an expression on the right, title or interest of either

of the parties to the litigation. There shall be no order as to

costs.

10. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if

any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:28-10-2022.

SSV