Niadu Sambasiva Rao, vs The Joint Collector,
2022 Latest Caselaw 7444 AP

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

           WRIT PETITION No. 2692 OF 2009


ORDER:

Heard Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned

counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri Y.Subba Rao,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. None

appeared for Unofficial Respondent Nos.4 to 8 today as well

as on the earlier occasion when the matter was partly

heard on 10.08.2022.

2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to declare the

order passed by the Respondent No.1 in proceedings

D.Dis.(D2)/4637/2006, dated 31.08.2008 and Order

passed by the Respondent No.2 in proceedings

D.Dis.No.1793/2005, dated 11.08.2006 as illegal, arbitrary

and violative of principles of natural justice and to set

aside the same.

3. Facts in brief as are under: The Writ Petitioner

No.1 is the absolute owner and in possession of

agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in

Sy.No.211/3 and the Writ Petitioner No.2 is the absolute

owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.0-64 cents

in the same Sy.No.211/3 situated at Eturu Village,

Chandarlapadu Mandal, Krishna District.

4. The Writ Petitioners state that originally one

Smt B.Hamsaveni, W/o.Venkatratnam is the owner of the

total extent of Ac.2-30 cents. She has alienated the entire

extent of Ac.2-30 cents under agreement of sale dated

02.06.1982, in favour of one Sri Bathina Gopaiah of the

same village and delivered possession to him. Sri Bathina

Gopaiah in turn distributed this land in favour of his

daughter and two sons i.e. Ac.1-00 cents to Smt Krishna

Kumari (wife of Writ Petitioner No.1) at the time of marriage

towards "Pasupukumkuma"; and in favour of his sons Sri

B.Apparao and Sri B.Satyanarayana to an extent of

Ac.0-66 cents and Ac.0-64 cents respectively.

5. The Respondent No.3 issued Pass Books and

Title Deeds in favour of the Writ Petitioners in the year

1985 as per the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and

Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

6. Troubles began for the Writ Petitioners when

the brothers of the Original Pattadar namely

Smt.B.Hamsaveni, W/o.Venkatratnam i.e. Respondent

Nos.4 to 6 herein, by suppressing the real facts, sold away

the entire land of Ac.2.30 cents in favour of Respondent

Nos.7 and 8 herein by executing Sale Deed dated

10.02.2005. It is pertinent to state that Respondent Nos.7

and 8 herein are the sons of Sri B.Apparao, who is the

brother-in-law of the Writ Petitioner No.1 herein.

7. On the strength of the Registered Sale Deed

obtained by Respondent Nos.7 and 8, they have

approached the Respondent No.3 for issuance of Pass

Books and Title Deeds. They have also submitted a

Representation to the Respondent No.2 for the self same

purpose i.e. for cancellation of the Pass Books of the Writ

Petitioners (which were issued in the year 1985). The

Respondent No.3 namely the Tahsildar submitted a report

after conducting enquiry. Basing on the said report, the

Revenue Divisional Officer directed Mandal Revenue Officer

to cancel the Pass-Books of the Writ Petitioners and issue

Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in favour of

Respondent Nos.7 and 8. The Respondent No.2, in his

Order dated 11.08.2006, had stated as under:

"In view of the above circumstances there is no need to go into the details of ownership of title over the land in question and the only point for consideration is whether the Mandal Revenue Officer, has followed the procedure for issue of Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds to Bathina Appa Rao and two others. As per the observations made above, the Mandal Revenue Officer, has issued Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds to Bathina Appa Rao, Bathina Satyanarayana and Naidu Samba Siva Rao without any valid documents showing the title over the land which is against the Act and Rules and are liable for cancellation. Accordingly, the pass books issued in favour of Bathina Appa Rao, Bathina Satyanarayana and Naidu Samba Siva Rao in Rs.No.211/3 of Eturu Village of Chandarlapadu mandal are here by cancelled. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chandrlapadu is directed to take further action in the matter. She is also directed to take action for issue of Pattadar

Passbooks and Title Deeds to the Writ Petitioners as per the existing Rules".

8. Having been aggrieved, the Writ Petitioners

preferred Revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for

short the Act) (wrongly mentioned that Revision is filed

under Section 5(5) of the Act) before the Respondent No.1.

The Respondent No.1 has noted the fact that Sri Bathina

Gopaiah is an enjoyer of the subject lands and also

confirmed the Sale Deeds that were executed by

Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 in favour of Respondent Nos.7

and 8 in the years 2005 and 2006. The Revisional

Authority namely the Respondent No.1 held that Pattadar

Pass Books and Title Deeds issued to the Writ Petitioners

herein without any valid title over the lands is against the

Act and Rules and are liable for cancellation. Thereby, the

Rivisional Authority/Respondent No.1 confirmed the Order

passed by the Respondent No.2.

9. Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for

the Writ Petitioners submitted that the appeal filed by

Respondent Nos.7 and 8 under Section5 (5) of the Act are

barred by limitation inasmuch as, the Pass Books were

issued in favour of the Writ Petitioners way back in the

year 1985 whereas the Statutory Appeals were filed in the

year 2005. He had drawn the attention of this Court to the

period of limitation incorporated in Sub-Section 5 of

Section 5 of the Act to prefer an Appeal to the Revenue

Divisional Officer within a period of 60 days from the date

of communication of the order passed by the Mandal

Revenue Officer. Since the statute prescribes limitation

period of 60 days, the Authority that exercises its powers

derived from statutes has no power to enlarge period of

limitation.

10. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners also

submitted that the decision of the Authorities was

influenced by the Registered Sale Deeds in favour of

Respondent Nos.7 and 8 whereas the executive has grossly

failed in taking note of the possessory rights of the Writ

Petitioners that have accrued over a period of 23 years.

11. Sri Y.Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of Respondent

Nos.1 to 3 herein has submitted that it is well within

jurisdiction of the Statutory Authorities to have entertained

the claim of Respondent Nos.7 and 8 basing on the

Registered Sale Deeds. He has also drawn the attention of

this Court as regards the suo motu power vested with the

Joint Collector under Section 9 of the Act to state that the

Collector has the suo motu power to entertain Revision on

any ground even including on the ground of limitation and

condone the delay.

12. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners has

cited a Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of

this Court in Kosaraju Balaji vs. The State of

Telangana and Others1 in support of his preposition that

the Official Respondents have no power or jurisdiction to

entertain an appeal which is hopelessly barred by time

unless there is an Application to condone the delay. In the

instant case, it is pertinent to note that along with the

MANU/AP/0669/2015

appeal filed under Sub-Section 5 of Section 5 of the Act,

the Unofficial Respondent Nos.7 and 8 did not file any

Application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel

for the Writ Petitioners has also cited another Judgment

rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in

Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy vs. Joint Collector,

Cuddapah and others2. This case deals with the period

of 60 days limitation contemplated under Sub-Section 5 of

Section 5 of the Act. The relevant portion of the Judgment

is extracted herein:

"5. Admittedly, neither the so-called petition is in the form of appeal affixed with the required stamp nor was filed in time. No application for condonation of delay was claimed to be filed by respondent No.4 nor respondent No.2 passed any order condoning the delay before entertaining and adjudicating the appeal on merits. Respondent No.2 ought not to have, therefore, entertained the petition of respondent No.4 and treated it as an appeal. If respondent No.4 was aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds, he should have filed a statutory appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, within the time limit, or a civil suit under Section 8(2) of the Act before the competent Civil Court.

2009 (1) ALD 248

As he did not take recourse to either of the two remedies, it is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 to entertain the petition filed by respondent No.4, because he has no power akin to the power vested in respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Act.

6. In this view of the matter, the order passed by respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction and consequently the order of respondent No.1 upholding the order of respondent No.2 also cannot be sustained. These two orders are, therefore, quashed. Liberty is, however, given to respondent No.4 to approach the Civil Court under Section 8(2) of the Act. In the event, he obtains a decree from the competent Civil Court, he can approach the respondents for correction of entries and cancellation of Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds issued in favour of the Writ Peitioner".

13. Having heard the submissions of the learned

counsel for the Writ Petitioners and the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the Official

Respondents, this Court has meticulously gone through

the Impugned Orders herein namely the Order dated

31.08.2008 passed by the Respondent No.1 and Order

dated 11.08.2006 passed by the Respondent No.2.

14. When this Court has perused the Order dated

11.08.2006 passed by the Respondent No.2 herein, it is

clear that the Unofficial Respondent Nos.7 and 8 have

neither filed the appeal in a proper format nor mentioned

the statutory provision and least of all, it transpires from

the record that even an application to condone the delay

under Sub-Section 5 of Section of the Act has not been

filed. Though the various depositions of the parties have

been noted, the Respondent No.2 has not even adverted to

the issue of limitation. It also appears from the record that

the Respondent No.2 has mechanically passed an Order

basing on the report submitted by the Respondent No.3.

15. So much so, when this Court has perused the

Order passed by the Respondent No.1, dated 31.08.2008, it

transpires that the said Authority got carried away by the

Report submitted by the Respondent No.3 as well as the

Registered Sale Deeds that were in favour of Respondent

Nos.7 and 8.

16. The Orders which are impugned herein suffer

from various legal infirmities. Limitation is an issue which

has not been considered by the Authorities while the

statute clearly stipulates 60 days time for approaching the

Revenue Divisional Officer by way of an Appeal. The

Authorities have not considered the issue of limitation and

therefore, the question of condoning the delay by the

Official Respondents in a mechanical manner does not

arise. There is yet another legal infirmity. The appellants

namely the Unofficial Respondent Nos.7 and 8 have

approached the Appellate Authority namely the

Respondent No.1 herein by filing an Appeal without the

accompanying Application to condone delay.

17. When the Revisional Authority had in fact taken

note of the fact that Sri Bathina Goopaiah is an enjoyer,

the Authority ought to have known that valuable rights

have accrued in favour of enjoyers and therefore, it would

not be within the domain of the statutory Authority to pass

mechanical Orders by ignoring these valuable civil rights

which are to be decided by a competent Civil Court.

18. Under the facts and circumstances of this case,

this Court is constrained to observe that the Statutory

Authorities have clearly gone beyond the statutory duty

that is prescribed to them under the statute. When the

facts justify that the parties to the dispute have raised the

claim, even by adverse possession and enjoyment for a long

period of time, it becomes a civil dispute and the Statutory

Authorities shall strictly lay their hands-off in such dispute

and direct the parties to approach the Civil Court. This

Court makes it clear that the Statutory Authorities have

neither the competence nor are they saddled with any such

power to decide civil disputes.

19. In this view of the matter, the present Writ

Petition is allowed by setting aside the proceedings

D.Dis.(D2)/4637/2006, dated 31.08.2008 and proceedings

D.Dis.No.1793/2005, dated 11.08.2006. The parties,

namely the Writ Petitioners as well as the Unofficial

Respondents are given liberty to approach the Civil Court

to settle their civil disputes as regards title as well as

possession. The observations made by this Court pertain

to/are confined only to the lis in the present Writ Petition

and they shall in no way have any bearing on the Civil

Court or for any other purpose. There shall be no order as

to costs.

20. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed

in terms of this order.

________________________________ G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: .09.2022.

SDP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION No. 2692 OF 2009

_____.09.2022

SDP