Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M J Babu vs M Mani on 4 January, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023
W.A.No.1132 of 2023
Between:
M.Mani, S/o.Late M. Govindaswamy Naidu,
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Cultivation,
R/o.Nagaripet, Nagari Mandal,
Chittoor District & 8 others.
...Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Guntur & 13 others.
...Respondents
Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the
Appellants.
Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents
1 to 5.
Sri Subba Rao Korrapai, learned Counsel, appearing for
respondent Nos.6 to 13.
Respondent No.14 (died)
W.A.No.1172 of 2023
Between:
M.J. Babu,
S/o.Late M. Janakiram Naidu,
Aged about 47 years,
2
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023
Occ: Cultivation,
R/o. Pandajupuram, Nagari Post,
Nagari Mandal,
Chittoor District and another.
...Appellants
Versus
M. Mani,
S/o.Late M. Govindaswamy Naidu,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Cultivation,
R/o.Nagari, Nagari Mandal,
Chittoor District & 22 others.
...Respondents
Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the Appellants.
Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents
1 to 14.
Sri Subba Rao Korrapai, learned Counsel, appearing for
respondent Nos.15 to 22.
JUDGMENT
Dt:04.01.2024
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao learned counsel, appearing
for the appellants, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue,
appearing for respondents 1 to 5 in W.A.No.1132 of 2023 and
respondents 1 to 14 in W.A.No.1172 of 2023, Sri Subba Rao
Korrapati learned Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 13 in
W.A.No.1132 of 2023 and respondents 15 to 22 in W.A.No.1172 of
2023.
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023
2. The appellants 5 to 10 are said to have purchased
Ac.10.81 cents of land in Sy.Nos.64 and 68 to 70 of Nagari Village
and Mandal from the writ petitioners 2 to 4 and the father of writ
petitioner No.1, by way of a deed of sale dated 04.06.2012,
registered as document No.1363 of 2012. Subsequently,
respondents 6 to 13 are said to have approached the 2nd
respondent-District Collector, through the local representative of
the people, contending that certain bogus pass books have been
issued in relation to the Ac.10.81 cents of land and the sale deed
mentioned above had been registered on the basis of the said bogus
pass books and title deeds and the same need to be revoked. The
said complaint is said to have been forwarded to the 5th respondent-
Tahsildar, who submitted a report to the 3rd respondent-Joint
Collector, Chittoor and the said 3rd respondent endorsed the report
to the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to take up the issue
as an appeal and to initiate further action.
3. On this basis, the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional
Officer issued a notice, dated 01.10.2019, to the appellants and the
1st petitioner in the Writ Petition to appear before the 4th
respondent on 11.10.2019. On that date, the appellants appeared
before the 4th respondent and submitted their objections.
Thereafter, the 4th respondent by his proceedings bearing
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023
ROC.No.G/2920/2019 dated 17.10.2019, without considering the
objections of the appellants, had directed that the said land be kept
in the dispute Register of the Tahsildar's login. Aggrieved by the
said order dated 17.10.2019 and initiation of the proceedings by
way of the notice dated 01.10.2019 in proceedings
ROC.No.G/2920/2019, the appellants and the 1st petitioner, in the
writ petition, had approached this court by way of W.P.No.18066 of
2019 to set aside the above order as well as the proceedings
initiated against the appellants and the 1st Petitioner in the writ
petition.
4. It was the case of the appellants that there were various
litigations going on between the parties, including criminal cases in
Crime No.129 of 2012 and 130 of 2012 before the Nagari Police
Station, O.S.No.18 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,
Puttur which was decreed, O.S.No.87 of 2017 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, O.S.No.88 of 2017 on the file of Senior
Civil Judge, Puttur and W.P.No.2003 of 2019 which is pending
before this Court, and that the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional
Officer could not have initiated any proceedings under the
provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadar
Passbook Act, 1971( for short "The R.O.R Act"). The Appellants
contend that Section 8 of the R.O.R Act prohibits statutory
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023
authorities from entertaining any enquiry in relation to issues
which are before the competent civil Court. The appellants would
also contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who appears to
have initiated these proceedings under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R
Act does not have any jurisdiction to initiate suo-motu action on
the question whether pattadar passbooks and title deeds are
correct or not, under the said provision.
5. The respondents 6 to13, opposed the said Writ Petition.
After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge disposed of the
Writ Petition by his order dated 30.08.2023. The learned Single
Judge took the view that the proceedings of the 4th respondent-
Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R Act is
without jurisdiction, as such an appeal cannot be initiated, suo-
motu, and in the absence of any appeal filed by the aggrieved
person. However, the learned Single Judge while setting aside the
proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 17.10.2019, in
ROC.No.G/2920/2019, which included the property in the Dispute
Register, directed that further enquiry was to be conducted by the
4th respondent in relation to the question of whether the passbooks
produced by the vendor of sale deed dated 04.06.2012 registered as
document No.1363/2012 are genuine or not.
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioners 2 to 10
had moved W.A.No.1132 of 2023. Two other vendors of the deed of
sale dated 04.06.2012, who were third parties to the writ petition
have moved W.A.No.1172 of 2023 against the very same order on
the basis of the same grounds raised in W.A.No.1132 of 2023. The
contention of Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants in both the appeals, is that the learned
Single Judge having held that the 4th respondent-Revenue
Divisional Officer did not have jurisdiction to take up an appeal
under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R Act, by way of a suo-motu appeal
and in the absence of any appeal by the aggrieved party, could not
have further directed the 4th respondent to undertake the exercise
of verifying whether the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the
vendors of the sale deed dated 04.06.2012 including the appellants
herein are genuine or not. The learned counsel would also contend
that all these issues are already pending before the Courts, in the
form of various litigations mentioned above, and Section 8(2) of the
R.O.R Act is a clear bar against any statutory authority
entertaining any proceeding in relation to issues which are pending
before the civil Court.
7. Sri K. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 6 to 13 would submit that pattadar passbooks and title
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023
deeds produced before the registering authority were fabricated
documents. In the circumstances, he would submit that the
question before the enquiry authority is not whether the pattadar
pass books and title deeds were issued in accordance with the rules
or not. He would submit that the actual issue before the enquiring
authority is whether these pattadar pass books are fake documents
or not. In such circumstances, he would submit that, such an
enquiry does not fall within the scope of the litigations pending
before the civil Courts as the issues raised before the civil Courts
are on the question of who is the owner of the land and whether the
transactions are valid or not.
8. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the 4th
respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer could not have entertained
any appeal filed by the aggrieved party under Section 5(5) of the
R.O.R Act. There is no provision under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R Act
enabling the Revenue Divisional Officer to take up a suo-motu
appeal. Further, Section 5(5) of the Act does not clothe the 4th
respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer with any power of appeal
under the said provision, merely on the ground that a higher
authority has directed the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional
Officer to take up the matter, by way of a suo-motu appeal. In such
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023
circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the order of the
learned Single Judge to this extent.
9. However the question of whether an enquiry can be
conducted in relation to the question of whether the pass books and
title deeds concerned are genuine or not remains. As pointed out by
Sri K. Subba Rao, the enquiry which had been directed by the
learned Single Judge, was restricted to the question of whether the
pattadar pass books and title deeds are genuine or whether they
have been fabricated. To that extent, this Court is of the opinion
that the said enquiry is not barred under the provisions of Section
8(2) of the R.O.R Act.
10. However, since the 1st respondent does not have any
power under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R act to conduct any enquiry in
the present case, the consequence would be that the Revenue
Divisional Officer would not have power to go into the question of
whether the pattdar pass books and title deeds are genuine or not.
11. However, the Joint Collector/Collector would have
power under Section 9 of the R.O.R Act to take up a suo-motu
revision to consider the question of whether the pattadar passbooks
and title deeds produced by the vendors of sale deed dated
04.06.2012 is genuine or not and the Joint Collector, to whom the
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023
report had been submitted by the Tahsildar, ought to have
undertaken the said exercise under Section 9 of the R.O.R Act
instead of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to take up the
matter under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R Act.
12. In this view of the matter, both the Writ Appeals are
disposed of by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge to
the extent of directing the Joint Collector, Chittoor to undertake the
exercise of ascertaining whether the pattadar pass books and title
deeds produced by the vendors of the sale deed dated 04.06.2012
are genuine or fake.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
RJS
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.1132 & 1172 of 2023
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)
Dt:04.01.2024
RJS
