Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Bezawadadf Ramanna Dora 2 Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 38 Others on 25 September, 2023

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

                  APPEAL SUIT No.142 of 2005

JUDGMENT:

This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') is directed against

the decree and judgment in O.S.No.48 of 1998 dated

29.10.2004 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

2. The plaintiffs, before the trial Court, are the appellants.

The respondents herein are the defendants.

3. The appellant instituted the suit for declaration and

possession of the plaint schedule property.

4. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record

and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is

necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in

their respective pleadings.

5. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs in brief in the

plaint was as follows:

(i) Appellants and one Venkata Rao are the sons of

one Lakshminarasayya and they partitioned their

properties under registered partition deed, dated

08.10.1957, except the plaint schedule property. The

said Venkata Rao has no manner of right over the

plaint schedule property as he was allotted land in

S.No.14/3 to an extent of Ac.1.84 cents and he sold

away his share to Madireddy Venkata Raghava Rao.

(ii) The Government/Respondent Nos.1 to 3 has no

manner of right to grant any ownership certificate

regarding the plaint schedule property in S.No.14/1

under the Homesteads Act and granting of pattas in

favour of respondent Nos.4 to 37 is illegal and invalid.

Therefore, appellants got issued notice, dated

11.10.1997 to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 under Section

80 of CPC to get evict respondent Nos.4 to 37 from the

schedule property, but they did not give any reply.

Hence, the suit.

6. The respondent Nos.2, 5, 14 and 25 denying all the

allegations in the plaint and contending in their written

statement as follows:

(i) The plaint schedule property is in possession of

respondent Nos.4 to 37 for the last fifty (50) years; that

the suit is barred by limitation; that they applied for issue

of certificate of ownership under Homesteads and

Dwelling House Act; that the Mandal Revenue Officer and

Mandal Deputy Surveyor inspected and enquired the

eligibility of the applicants and recommended for grant of

certificate of ownership for the schedule land.

(ii) One Bezwada Venkata Rao in his statement given to

the Mandal Revenue Inspector deposed that his father

informed him that he freely gifted the land to Settibalijas;

that during the family partition, this piece of land was not

partitioned; that the balance extent of the land in said

survey number fell to his share; that after issuing notice,

inviting objections and also calling for objections of Gram

Panchayat, if any, and after receipt of consent from the

Gram Panchayat and by following the procedure under

the Homesteads and Dwelling House Act, certificates were

issued to the respondent Nos.4 to 37 conferring their

ownership; that as per the Act, the decision of the

Authorized Officer should be challenged before the

Revenue Divisional Officer and prays to dismiss the suit

with costs.

7. On these pleadings, the trial Court settled the following

issues for trial:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title prayed for?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession?

and

3.To what relief?"

8. At the trial, on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs,

P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1 to A.4 in

support of their contentions. On behalf of the

respondents/defendants, themselves examined as D.Ws.1 to

11 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.18.

9. Basing on the material and evidence, trial Court came

to conclusion that the Civil Court will not have jurisdiction to

adjudicate the pattas granted by the authorized officer under

the Act, as such, the plaintiffs remedy is elsewhere and the

suit for declaration is not maintainable. Thus, dismissed the

suit without costs.

10. It is against this decree and judgment, the

appellants/plaintiffs preferred this appeal.

11. Heard Sri P.Vinayaka Swamy, learned counsel for the

appellants/plaintiffs and Sri M.K.Rajkumar, learned

Government for Appeals for the respondents.

12. Sri P.Vinayaka Swamy, learned counsel for the

appellants submits that the trial Court without considering

the evidence and documents filed by the appellants found

that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit; that

Venkata Rao has no manner of right over the plaint schedule

property as it is a joint family property; that the trial Court

ought to have decided the title of the appellants; that the

respondents Nos.1 to 3 have no manner of right to grant any

ownership certificate with regard to Survey No.14/1 under

Homestead Act and granting pattas is illegal and invalid; that

the findings of the trial Court are bad in law and thereby

prays to allow the appeal.

13. Per contra, Sri M.K.Rajkumar, learned Government

Pleader for the respondents submits that the trial Court on

considering the facts and circumstances, material on record

rightly dismissed the suit; that the Civil Court has no

jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue under Andhra Pradesh

Occupants of Homesteads (Conferment of Ownership) Act,

1976 as rightly observed by the trial Court; that there are no

grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and

that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

14. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter

referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court.

15. It is against this backdrop, the following points, which

arise for determination need consideration now:

1. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the pattas granted by the Authorized Officer under Andhra Pradesh Occupants of Homesteads (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1976?

2. Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court? and

3. To what relief?

16. POINT NOs.1 & 2:

It is not in dispute that the defendants No.4 to 37 are in

possession of the suit schedule property and the

Government/Authorized Officer issued pattas in their favour

under Andhra Pradesh Occupants of Homesteads

(Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to

as "Homesteads Act"). As per the said pattas the defendants

have been in possession of the suit land for the last fifty (50)

years. Even according to the plaintiff, defendant Nos.4 to 37

were inducted into possession in the year 1997 itself.

17. In view of the above, now this Court has to appreciate

the law on the point of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to

adjudicate the pattas granted by the authorized officer under

the Homesteads Act by referring the certain provisions of said

Act.

18. As per the Homesteads Act, 'homestead' means:

"The site of any dwelling house occupied, either as licensee or otherwise, by any landless agriculturist or agricultural labourer or artisan in any village and includes such other area adjacent to the dwelling house as may be necessary for the convenient enjoyment of such dwelling house".

19. 'Authorized Officer' means:

"Any Tahsildar specially authorized by the Government by notification to exercise the powers conferred on, and perform the functions entrusted to, the authorized officer by or under this Act, for such areas as may specified in the notification".

20. It is required to refer Section 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the

Homesteads Act, as follows:

7. Disputes to be decided by the authorized officer: -

If any dispute arises between the land-owner and an occupant of homestead regarding any mater governed by the provisions of this Act including any dispute as to whether or not any landless agriculturists or agricultural labourer or artisan, was occupying any dwelling house on the date of commencement of this Act, such dispute shall be decided by the authorized

officer, after following such procedure as may be prescribed.

8. Appeal: - Any person aggrieved by any order or decision of the authorized officer under this Act may appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer within such period as may be prescribed and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall decide the appeal after following such procedure as may be prescribed.

9. Revision: - The District Collector may either Suo motu or on an application call for and examine the records of any officer subordinate to him in respect of any decision' order or other proceedings made under this Act to satisfy himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any such decision or order or as to the regularity of such proceedings, and if, in any case it appears to the District Collector that such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly:

Provided that the District Collector shall not pass any order adversely affecting any party unless such party has been given an opportunity of making his representation.

11. Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts: - No civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Government are, or the authorized officer is empowered by or under this Act, to determine and no order of eviction shall be passed and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.

21. In view of the above provisions, it is very clear in vivid

terms that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of

any matter which the Government or the authorized officer is,

empowered by or under the Homesteads Act.

22. In the present case, even as per the plaintiffs,

Tahsildar, who is authorized officer, issued pattas in favour of

defendants under Homesteads Act and they were inducted in

possession in the year, 1997 itself. If any dispute arises

between the land owner and the occupant of homestead

regarding granting of pattas, the authorized officer is

empowered to decide the issue, but not the Civil Court and If

any person aggrieved by any order or decision of the