Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chinna Venkata Reddy Gari Bharath ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 April, 2023

Bench: Subba Reddy Satti

        HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

                    WRIT PETITION No.13542 of 2021

   China Venkata Reddy gari Bharath Reddy, S/o
   Ramakrishna Reddy, age 34 years, resident of
   Sajjaladinne   village, Tadipatri   Mandal,
   Anantapuramu District, present residing at
   House     No.10-444-A,  Mudhigedu     Road,
   Koilkunta Town, Kurnool District.
                                                            ... Petitioner.
                   Versus

   The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
   Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
   Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati and 11
   others.
                                          ... Respondents.


Counsel for the petitioner          : Sri Banka Nageswara Rao

Counsel for respondents 1 to 4      : GP for Revenue

Counsel for respondents 5 & 6       : GP for Stamps & Registration

Counsel for respondents 7 & 8       : GP for Home

Counsel for respondent No.11        : Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni


                                    ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

relief:

"... ...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.4 in not following the direction of

SRSJ WP No.13542 of 2021

the respondent No.3 and mutation of the names of the respondent Nos.11 and 12 in the web land entries as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 (1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondent No.3 to conduct enquiry against the respondent No.3 to take action as per due process of law and direct the respondent No.4 to removal of the names of respondent Nos.11 and 12 till the disposal of the civil suit regarding the title of the property ... ..."

2. The facts as per the affidavit are that,

(a) Petitioner entered into an agreement of sale dated

27.03.2012 with 9th respondent in respect of Ac.10.07 cents

in R.S.No.663, 665, 668-C3 of Alluru village, Tadipatri

Mandal, Anantapur District. Petitioner filed a private

complaint against 9th respondent on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri on 12.01.2017 for the

offence under Section 420 of IPC and the same was registered

as Crime No.38 of 2018. Petitioner also filed suit seeking

specific performance against the 9th respondent and the same

is pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gooty.

(b) 9th Respondent executed sale deed dated 28.12.2019

in favour of 11th respondent vide document No.11085 of 2019

SRSJ WP No.13542 of 2021

and also executed another sale deed in favour of 12th

respondent vide document No.206 of 2018 in respect of

Ac.10.07 cents. Having come to know about it, petitioner

made representation to the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector

praying not to mutate the names of respondents 11 and 12.

Accordingly, the Joint Collector sent the endorsement to the

4th respondent vide proceedings in L.Dis.No.553/2020/D4

dated 31.01.2020. Pursuant to said endorsement, 4th

respondent issued an endorsement vide Rc.No.72/2020/B

dated 07.03.2020 informing the petitioner that since the suit

pending, mutation will be effected subject to result of the

suit. However, contrary to the endorsement dated

07.03.2020, 4th respondent updated the revenue records and

mutated the names of respondents 11 and 12 basing on the

registered sale deeds. Impugning the action of 4th respondent

in updating the revenue records mutating the names of

respondents 11 and 12, the above writ petition is filed.

3. Counter affidavit was filed by 4th respondent and

contended interalia that the petitioner has not placed any

record before the 4th respondent regarding civil disputes. 4th

respondent is not a party defendant to the suit allegedly filed

SRSJ WP No.13542 of 2021

by the petitioner on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gooty

seeking specific performance of sale. Respondents 11 and 12

got valid registered documents and basing on those

documents, revenue records were updated and the revenue

records mutated their names and eventually, prayed the

Court to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard Sri Banka Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for

petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for

respondents 1 to 4, learned Government Pleader for Stamps

& Registration for respondents 5 & 6, learned Government

Pleader for Home for respondents 7 and 8 and Sri Harish

Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel for 11th respondent.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that

basing on the agreement of sale dated 27.03.2012, petitioner

filed civil suit seeking specific performance against 9th

respondent on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gooty and the

same is pending. He would also submit that since civil suit is

filed, 4th respondent ought not to have updated the revenue

records and mutated the names of respondents 11 and 12

pursuant to registered sale deeds in respect of same property.

SRSJ WP No.13542 of 2021

He would submit that 4th respondent in fact informed the

petitioner by way of endorsement dated 07.03.2020 that

basing on civil Court decree, revenue records will be updated,

however contrary to the said endorsement, 4th respondent

updated the revenue records in November, 2020 and the

same is illegal and arbitrary.

6. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue would submit

that respondents 11 and 12 made proper applications basing

on registered sale deeds. 4th respondent by following the

procedure under Sections 4 and 5 of the Andhra Pradesh

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 ("the Act"

for brevity) and Rules made thereunder, mutated the names

of respondents 11 and 12.

7. Learned counsel for 11th respondent would submit that

11th respondent purchased the property under a registered

sale deed dated 28.12.2019 and 12th respondent purchased

the property under a registered sale deed dated 15.12.2018.

Application was made in accordance with the procedure. 4th

respondent by following the procedure under Act and the

Rules made thereunder updated the revenue records and

SRSJ WP No.13542 of 2021

mutated the names of purchasers. Petitioner, if is aggrieved,

had the alternative remedy of filing of appeal and this writ

petition is not maintainable.

8. The prayer in the writ petition is to declare the action of

4th respondent in not following the direction of 3rd respondent

qua mutation of names of respondents 11 and 12 as illegal

and arbitrary. Petitioner basing on the agreement of sale filed

civil suit for specific performance in Senior Civil Judge, Gooty

and the same is pending consideration before the competent

civil Court. However the suit number was not mentioned in

the affidavit. Petitioner's claim is based on agreement of sale

and without possession. Thus the petitioner's doesn't have

any right or title to the property purchased by the 11th and 12

respondents. Whereas respondents 11 and 12 are claiming

rights under two registered sale deeds and basing on the

same, respondents 11 and 12 made application to 4th

respondent. In turn, 4th respondent after following the

procedure under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and Rule 9 of

the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books

Rules, 1989, updated the revenue records and mutated the

names of respondents 11 and 12.

SRSJ WP No.13542 of 2021

17. For issuance of Writ of Mandamus, petitioner should

satisfy the Court qua the infringement of his legal right and

corresponding legal obligation on the part of the State or its

instrumentality.

18. In State of U.P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and

others1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"10 ...Under the Constitution, a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition."

19. In Union of India Vs. S.B. Vohra2, the Hon'ble Apex

Court considered the similar issue and held that for issuing a

writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming,

must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ of

mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal

duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so.

(1996) 9 SCC 309

(2004) 2 SCC 150

SRSJ WP No.13542 of 2021

20. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain3,

the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity to establish

existence of legal right and its infringement for grant of Writ

of Mandamus referred the principles stated in the Law of

Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G.

Ferris, Jr.:

"Note 187.-Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed.

Note 192.-Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty.

(2008) 2 SCC 280

SRSJ WP No.13542 of 2021

Note 196.-Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances."

22. A conspectus of the expressions of Hon'ble Apex Court

would discern that a writ of Mandamus can be issued if the

petitioner satisfies or establishes existence of legal right in

himself and a corresponding legal duty in the respondent.

However, the case on hand, petitioner is yet to get a legal

right over the property. Suit for specific performance, seems,

is pending. Unless, the suit is decreed and petitioner gets sale

deed, he cannot agitate his legal right to update the Adangal

and 1-B and thereafter issuance of Pattadar Pass Book and

Title Deed. Even the endorsement does not restrict the 4th

respondent to act in accordance with Act and Rules made

thereunder. As of now, as observed supra, petitioner is only