Dindi Chandra Rao vs The State Of Ap
2023 Latest Caselaw 5081 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                 WRIT PETITION No.5183 of 2023

Between:-
Dindi Chandra Rao                            ....   Petitioner

                                  And

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department & Others.                .... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner       : Mr.V.V.N.Narayana Rao

Counsel for the respondents : G.P. for Revenue

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

2. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the Endorsement

dated 29.07.2022 of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the petitioner's

request for Digital Sign on Form-1(B) for the lands situated in Survey

Nos.18/1, 18/3, 18/8, 18/15, 18/17, 20/17, 20/18, 33/2 & 33/5 to an

extent of Ac.0.88 cents, Ac.0.28 cents, Ac.0.71 cents, Ac.0.07 cents,

Ac.0.14 cents, Ac.0.84 cents, Ac.1.02 cents, Ac.0.20 cents & Ac.0.05

cents totalling to an extent of Ac.4.19 cents of Ravivalasa Village,

Boghapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District, as illegal, arbitrary etc.,

and for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to issue Digital

Sign Form-I(B) in respect of the said lands.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the

petitioner purchased the above said extents of lands through registered

Sale Deed vide Document No.3154 of 2004 dated 04.11.2004 and that

the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. He

submits that the petitioner's name was incorporated in the revenue

records and Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds were also issued in

favour of the petitioner for the year 2021. While so, the learned

counsel submits that the petitioner on 25.07.2022 made a request to

the 3rd respondent to issue Digital Sign Form-1(B) for the subject

matter lands through Spandana Programme. The 3rd respondent, to the

petitioner's utter surprise, rejected the said request through the

impugned Endorsement dated 29.07.2022 stating that a Civil suit vide

O.S.No.201 of 2005 is pending before Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

and that action would be taken as per the judgment of the said Court.

The learned counsel submits that under the said circumstances, the

petitioner got verified the status of the suit and learnt that the same

was dismissed vide Judgment and Decree dated 04.07.2008. In view of

the same, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner approached

the 3rd respondent and requested him to reconsider the petitioner's

request for issuing Digital Sign Form-1(B) in respect of the subject

matter lands, but owing to local pressures, the 3rd respondent is not

taking action in the matter. He submits that despite the petitioner's

constant persuasion, there is no response from the 3rd respondent and

therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking

appropriate reliefs. The learned counsel also places reliance on the

decision of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad in Erukala Uma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand,

made submissions on the basis of written instructions dated

-Nil-.03.2023 received from the 3rd respondent. He tried to justify the

action of the 3rd respondent stating that the Civil Suit i.e., O.S.No.201

of 2005 was dismissed for non-prosecution and as seen from the

written instructions dated -Nil-.03.2023 furnished by the 3rd

respondent, it would appear that an Interlocutory Application is filed

seeking to restore the suit and in such circumstances, the view taken

by the 3rd respondent in the impugned Endorsement dated 29.07.2022

cannot be found fault with. He requests further time to file counter.

However this Court having noticed that sufficient time was already

2014(2) ALD 228(DB)

granted to the respondents to file the counter, is inclined to dispose of

the matter.

5. On a consideration of the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner coupled with the material on record, the sum

and substance is that the request of the petitioner for issuing Digital

Sign Form-1(B) in respect of the subject matter lands is not being

issued on the premise that a Civil Suit is pending in respect of the

subject matter property. Though it is stated in the affidavit that the

said suit in O.S.No.201 of 2005 was dismissed, it is the stand of the

respondents that an application to restore the same was filed and it is

pending. Keeping aside the aspect of pendency of an application for

restoration of the suit, in Erukala Uma's case referred to above, a

Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra

Pradesh, was answering a reference by a learned Single Judge, who

was not in agreement with view of another learned Judge in

V.Goutham Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagital,

Karimnagar2. The Hon'ble Division Bench after referring to the

provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass

Books Act, 1971(for short 'the Act') more specifically Sections 8 and 9

of the Act inter alia held that "the judgment rendered in V.Goutham

2003(1) ALD 681

Rao's case is applicable only in such cases where the nature of suit

conforms to a suit contemplated under Section 8(2) of the Act and not

as a straight jacket formula that wherever and whenever a suit is

pending, the revenue authorities under Section 4 of the ROR Act

cannot exercise their jurisdiction."

6. As seen from the material on record and Ex.P5, it would appear

that one Dindi Kanakam filed a suit for Partition in respect of the suit

schedule properties, but the same was dismissed by an Order dated

04.07.2008. The said suit would not fall within the ambit of Section

8(2) of the Act and in such circumstances, as also in the light of the

above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench, there may not

be any impediment to the 3rd respondent to issue Digital Sign Form-

1(B) in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject lands.

However, the petitioner, who is well aware of the filing of the suit, and

in respect of which an application for restoration of the same is stated

to be pending, have not chosen to implead them in the present writ

petition.

7. Be that as it may. The impugned Endorsement dated 29.07.2022

in the light of the expression of the Hon'ble Division Bench referred to

above is not sustainable. Further, even as per the Circular instructions

of the CCLA, mere pendency of Civil Suit in the absence of any order of

injunction etc., therein, cannot be a ground to reject the application for

mutation or issuance of Pattadar Pass Books etc.

8. In the aforementioned view of the matter, the impugned

Endorsement dated 29.07.2022 is set aside. Further, the 3rd

respondent shall take necessary action for issuing Digital Sign Form-

1(B) in respect of the subject matter lands, in accordance with Law and

the procedure in vogue, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of

four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall and

closed.

_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 18.10.2023 BLV

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

W.P.No.5183 of 2023

Date:18.10.2023

BLV