Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Heard Sri V.R.N. Prashanth vs Financial Commissioner on 19 November, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010233492016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3508]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
I.A No.2 of 2016
and
WRIT APPEAL No: 456 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam)
Heard Sri V.R.N. Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner/appellant, learned Government Pleader for Revenue,
Smt.T.V.Sridevi, and Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel
appearing for the unofficial respondents in detail. The aforesaid counsel
reiterated their respective stands.
2. On 14.06.2016, vide orders passed in W.A.M.P.No.2849 of 2015,
the legal representatives of sole appellant were brought on record. On
21.06.2016, the writ appeal was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter,
I.A.No.2 of 2016 (W.A.M.P.No.1732 of 2016) was filed seeking to recall
the dismissal order dated 21.06.2016 passed in W.A.No.456 of 2016, and
the same has been allowed for the reasons stated in the accompanying
affidavit filed in support of the I.A No.2 of 2016, as such, the writ appeal is
restored to its file.
3. This instant intra court appeal is preferred, being aggrieved by the
orders dated 01.04.2015 passed in W.P.No.3541 of 2015 whereby and
whereunder, the learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court for the
States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, at Hyderabad dismissed the
writ petition, thereby confirming the concurrent orders of the Joint
Collector, Vizianagaram District and the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Vizianagaram Division in respect of issuance of pattadar pass books &
Title Deeds, etc.
4. Originally, the writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner
challenging the order dated 27.12.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent,
Joint Collector, Vizianagaram District, in exercise of power under Section
9 of the A.P Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for the
sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as "Act 26 of 1971").
5. The parties in the lis are hereinafter referred to as they were
arrayed in the writ petition.
The crux of the petitioner‟s case are as follows:-
6. The petitioner claims to be absolute owner and possessor of total
land of Ac.48.00 cents in Sy.Nos.384, 385, 386/1, 386/2 and 387 of
Bogapuram East Village, Bogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District., (in
brief hereinafter referred to as "subject lands"). According to him, his
name was also recorded in Revenue records as the owner and possessor
of the "subject lands" till the year 2002 only. The writ petitioner submits
that, he filed an Appeal before the 3rd respondent, the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Vizianagaram Division, Vizianagaram District, under Section 5(5)
of the "Act 26 of 1971" arraying the respondents 5 to 8 as party
respondents that the names of the respondents 5 to 8 were recorded in
the Revenue records, despite they having no right, title or interest in
"subject lands". The petitioner further submits that he never sold the
"subject lands" to 5th respondent and contends that the registered sale
deeds executed by the 5th respondent in favour of respondents 6 to 8 are
totally invalid in law and hence none of them are entitled to be recorded
as owners and possessors of "subject lands". The writ petitioner further
submits that, he requested the 3rd respondent/R.D.O to cancel the
pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of respondents 5 to
8 as they do not have any valid right, title or interest over the "subject
lands". He also questioned in the appeal with regard to non-issuance of
notice to him.
7. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that, the 3rd respondent
after calling for reports from the concerned Tahsildar, passed orders on
29.04.2014 directing the writ petitioner to approach competent Civil Court
for adjudication of the title dispute. Aggrieved by the said order, he
approached the 2nd respondent, Joint Collector, Vizianagaram District, by
way of revision under Section 9 of the "Act 26 of 1971", whereby the 2nd
respondent passed orders on 27.12.2014 confirming the orders dated
29.04.2014 of the 3rd respondent and also directed the petitioner to
proceed to a Civil Court for settling the dispute with regard to title.
8. Questioning the orders of the 2nd respondent, the Joint Collector,
the writ petitioner filed writ petition before the erstwhile High Court for the
States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana at Hyderabad, seeking to set
aside the orders dt: 27.12.2014 of the 2nd respondent.
9. Thus, the Writ Petition No.3541 of 2015 instituted seeking the following
main prayer:-
"....Petition under Article 226 of Constitution
of India praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ and quash the orders of the 2nd
respondent contained in Rc.No.1988/2014 dated
27.12.2014 and also the orders of the 2nd respondent
in Rc.No.1780/2012 dated 29.04.2014 and direct the 4 th
respondent to delete the names of the respondents 6 to
8 from the revenue records in respect of the land
admeasuring Ac.48.00 in Sy.Nos.384, 385, 386/1,
386/2 and 387 of Bhogapuram East Village and Mandal
Vizianagaram District and restore the name of the
petitioner as the owner and possessor of the said lands
duly cancelling the Pattadar Pass Books and Title
Deeds that were issued to the respondents 5 to 8......"
10. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 had not filed their counters. None appeared
for the 5th respondent. Infact, the 6th and 7th respondents filed common
counter, whereas the 8th respondent also filed counter separately denying
the averments made in the writ affidavit and prayed to dismiss the writ
petition.
Brief case of the respondents 6 to 8 is as follows:-
11. The main contention of the 6th respondent is that, the writ petitioner
has not followed the procedure contemplated under the "Act 26 of 1971".
According to Rule 15(1) of the said Act, the petitioner has to approach the
Mandal Revenue Officer, who is the competent authority for rectification
of an entry in the revenue records by making an application under Section
3(3) of "Act 26 of 1971" within one year from the date of notification in the
official Gazette or within one year from the date of issuance of pattadar
pass books and title deed. However, the writ petitioner without
approaching the competent authority, directly filed an appeal before the
3rd respondent. He further contended that the 5th respondent was issued
pattadar pass books and title deeds way back in the year 2004 itself, after
following the procedure of the "Act 26 of 1971", and also taking into
consideration the faith and sworn statement dated 29.06.2004 given by
the writ petitioner before the 4th respondent (K.A.Swamy alias Kommuru
Sanjeeva Rao) itself. Since then, the 5th respondent has been in
possession and enjoyment of the "subject lands". It is also contended
that, the 5th respondent entered into an agreement of sale dated
22.05.2010 with the 7th respondent in respect of Ac.25.00 cents out of
Ac.28.97 cents in Sy.No.387 of Bhogapuram East Village and Mandal,
Vizianagaram District., for a consideration of Rs.25.00 lakhs, but failed to
execute registered sale deed, prompting the 7th respondent to file Pre-
litigation Case No.311 of 2011 before Lok-Adalat Bench, Vizianagaram,
wherein the 5th Respondent appeared and agreed to execute Registered
Sale Deeds consequently which was settled and an Award has been
given on 16.12.2011 by the Lok-Adalat, District Legal Services Authority,
Vizianagaram. As such registered document No.4103/2013 of Sub-
Registrar Office, Vizianagaram emanated. Further on instructions from
the 7th respondent, he subsequently sold Ac.3.97 cents to the 6th
respondent vide registered Sale Deed Doc.4101/2013, SRO,
Vizianagaram. And an extent of Ac17.15 to the 8th respondent vide
registered Sale Deed Doc.No.4102/2013, S.R.O, Vizianagaram, thereby
the 4th respondent mutated their names in the revenue records.
12. It is further contended by the 6th respondent, that the 5th respondent
was issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in the year 2004 after due
enquiry as contemplated under Section 5 of the "Act 26 of 1971"based on
a statement given by the writ petitioner and since then he has been in
possession and enjoyment of the land, as such, they are the bona fide
purchasers. Further, it is also stated that the writ petitioner already filed
civil suit i.e., O.S No.104 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,
Vizianagaram. Further, the respondents stated that already writ petitioner
he himself invoked the common Law remedy, hence, writ petition is liable
to be dismissed as rightly held by the respondents 2 and 3 in their
respective speaking orders.
13. The learned Single Judge after perceiving all the facts and
circumstances set out in the pleadings and also after hearing the
arguments of respective counsels, further taking into consideration of
concurrent findings of facts involved in the lis pleased to dismiss the W.P
No.3541 of 2015 vide orders dated 01.04.2015. For the sake of the
comprehensive view, the relevant portion of the orders dt:1.4.2015 of the
learned Single Judge extracted as under:
"In the light of the above factual situation and
considering the fact that the rights of the parties are
involved in the present case and the scope of enquiry
under the ROR Act by the authorities is limited, and
especially the title aspects could not have been decided
by the authorities under the Act, I do not find any
informity in the order dated 27.12.2014 confirming the
order dated 29.04.2014 of the Revenue Divisional
Officer, who had merely observed the parties to workout
their remedies in the Civil Court. It is also brought to
the notice of the Court that as a matter of fact petitioner
has filed O.S.No.104 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge Court, Vizianagaram, seeking permanent
injunction and other reliefs. In the above factual
background, I do not find any merits in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The
observations made, if any, in dismissing the Writ
Petition shall not be construed as expressing the
opinion with respect to the rights of the parties in any
manner and shall not prejudice either of the parties in
the civil court, which are pending or which may be
instituted."
14. In these circumstances, being dissatisfied with the order dated
01.04.2015 passed by the learned single Judge, the petitioner preferred
the present intra court appeal.
15. Sri V.R.N. Prashanth, learned counsel for the writ
petitioner/appellant would submit that revenue authorities under the
provisions of "Act 26 of 1971" and Rules thereon have got right to decide
the controversy without reference to any civil litigation. He also
contended that there is no flow of title from the writ petitioner to the 5 th
respondent, who inturn executed registered sale deed in favour of the un-
official respondents, who were issued pattadar pass books and title
deeds, and filing of civil suit has no bearing. Further, no notice served to
the writ petitioner.
16. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for
the official respondents would submit that as the facts and circumstances
set-out in the lis and draw our attention in respect of specific findings
arrived by the appellate and revisional authorities. It is the specific
assertion of the revenue authorities as per the statement given by the writ
petitioner before the revenue authorities and by recording the same only
within the knowledge and consent of the writ petitioner only pattadar pass
books and title deeds issued way back in the year 2004. Hence, Plea of
no notice does not stand at all.
17. It is the specific case of the un-official respondents that, in the
course of enquiry before the concerned Tahsildar during the year 2004 as
per the statement of the writ petitioner only, pattadar pass books and title
deeds issued in favour of the 5th respondent way back 2004 itself.
Thereafter, the 5th respondent executed registered sale deeds in favour of
the un-official respondents in respect of different extents of the "subject
lands". In fact, the very appeal filed by the writ petitioner is in in-fraction
of procedure enunciated in the Section 5(5) of "Act 26 of 1971" (as appeal
filed before the 3rd Respondent in the year 2012, before the amendment
of "Act 15 of 2022" w.e.f.1.10.2022 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and
Pattadar Pass Act, 1971) and also un-official respondents taking shelter
under Section 8(2) of the "Act 26 of 1971.
18. Un-official respondents further contended that, questioning the
issuance of said pattadar pass books and title deeds in the year 2004 in
favour of the 5th respondent, challenged by the writ petitioner after
passing of eight years i.e., on 30.05.2012 by filing an appeal before the
3rd respondent, without offering any explanation for the inordinate delay of
eight years and not even filing of condone delay petition. Interestingly,
the 5th respondent who executed the registered documents i.e.,
Document No.4102/2013 before the S.R.O., Vizianagaram in favour of
the 8th respondent filed an affidavit dated 29.11.2014 by taking different
stand as if he does not know anything including pattadar pass books and
title deeds granted in his favour as per the statement of the writ petitioner.
More so, even before the 3rd respondent two different and divergent
reports which are quite contradicting to each other. Further, the writ
petitioner he himself instituted civil suit i.e., O.S No.104 of 2015 on the file
of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, against the said 5th respondent and
others.
19. In the light of their peculiar facts and circumstances involved in the
instant case, the moot question cropped in the lis is that, the findings
arrived by the appellate & revisional authorities in exercising their
statutory powers as enunciated in the A.P Rights in Land and Pattadar
Pass Books Act (Act 26 of 1971) and Rules thereon., and orders of the
learned Single Judge who exercised his jurisdiction under Art. 226 of
Constitution of India legally sustained or not?
20. The A.P Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (Act 26 of
1971) and Rules thereon enacted with a view to consolidate and amend
the Laws relating to the Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books in the
State of A.P.
21. It is apt to refer the well settled legal principle by the Apex Court in
Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner 1 ., wherein, it was held as
under:-
".....entries in the revenue records do not confer
title and are only intended for achieving the fiscal
purpose and no ownership is conferred on the basis of
such entries....."
22. In view of settled legal principle, it is evident from the respective
orders of the appellate and revisional authorities that they are different
and distinct articulations emanated by the respective parties which are
not at all having any consistence at all. More so, reports of the then
Tahsildars are also different and contrary with each other. Hence, by
perceiving all these highly disputed facts, several complex and intricate
questions are emanating which will be resolved by the competent civil
court only but not by the revenue authorities by way of summary
proceedings.
23. It is apt to state that the revenue authorities are not substitutes for
the Courts of competent civil jurisdiction and it is for the party concerned
to invoke such jurisdiction so as to bar the summary enquiry by the
2007 (6) SCC 186
revenue authorities into issues of highly disputed questions. Needless to
state that revenue authorities in such a „summary enquiry‟ would not be
capable of deciding the complicated questions in comprehensive manner.
24. According to us, when the pattadar passbooks and title deeds have
been issued, the same cannot be cancelled automatically, more so, when
the case involves serious question relating to the ownership, declaratory
rights of the parties., unless civil Court find that there is no justification for
issuance of the same. The presumption of correctness in issuance of
pattadar pass books in favour of the persons is in the "Act 26 of 1971"
and action of Government. But said recording in revenue records is not
conclusive as it can be corrected and rectified by the civil Court. Unless a
competent civil Court decides the actual title of the property in favour of
any person, consequential measure for issuance or cancellation of
pattadar pass books does not arise.
25. It is trite to refer the Section 8 of "Act No.26 of 1971", which reads
as under:-
"Section 8. Bar of Suits:-
(1) No suit shall lie against the Government or any
officer of Government in respect of a claim to have an entry
made or in relation to an entry made in any record of rights
or to have any such entry omitted or amended.
(2) If any person is aggrieved as to any right of which
he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights
he may institute a suit against any person denying or
interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his
right under Chapter-VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
(Central Act 43 of 1963), and the entry in the record of rights
shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration."
A bare reading of the above provision of law discloses two eventualities
viz., (a) a person who is aggrieved of any of the rights he possessed by
the entry made in the record of rights, he may institute a suit against any
person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration
of his right and (b) the entry in record of rights shall be amended in
accordance with such declaration by the Court.
26. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mahila Bajrangi (Dead) through
LRs. v. Badribai, W/o. Jagannath2 held as under:-
".....the Tahsildar or authorities exercising
powers of mutation (original, appellate or revisional)
have not been accorded the status of civil Courts or
Courts of exclusive Jurisdiction and such orders cannot
be used as a basis or source for asserting a claim of res
judicata before a competent civil Court in a subsequent
suit involving adjudication of title to the immovable
property. The Supreme Court also observed that
mutation proceedings before the revenue authorities
were not judicial proceedings in a Court of law and do
not decide questions of title to immovable
properties....."
(2003) 2 SCC 464
27. The Erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
Thummalapally Bhagya Laxmi Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy
District3., held as under:-
"29. The Act provides for preparation and
updating of record of rights; acquisition of rights and
amendment/updating of record of rights for
regularization of alienations/ transfers, issuance of
Form 13-B and entry in record of rights in accordance
with such certificate. Against these two separate
functions under the Act, the remedy of appeal and
revision is provided to aggrieved party. Under either of
the situations, the concluding Act is entry in record of
rights.
30.The enquiry under the Act is summary in
nature. The decision of recording authority under
Section 5-A of the Act is required to be confined to the
limited extent of regularizing a transaction which is
otherwise not in conformity with the requirement of the
Stamp Act/the Registration Act etc. If, in respect of the
same property the parties approach or have
approached the Civil Court and the Civil Court decided
the rights of parties, the revenue authorities are bound
by the judgment and decree of the Civil Court in
exercise of their jurisdiction under the Act, because
Section 8(2) has made it mandatory to update record of
rights in accordance with such declaration. If contrary
view is taken, then it results in anomalies and
contradictory situations and to avoid such situations, the
revenue authorities are bound by the adjudication of
2014 (4) ALD 289
competent civil Court in exercise of their power under
the Act."
28. In other words, maintaining the writ petition under the light of
intricate, complex issues as clearly stated Supra, it means indirectly
seeking the verdict on the disputed questions of title and possession from
the revenue authorities which has to be dissuaded by all means.
29. Yet another reason in order to arrive our conclusion in the lis is that
apparently writ petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent
seeking to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in
favour of the 5th respondent. In these circumstances, the case of the
writ petitioner also hit by the well settled legal principle held in Ratnamma
Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram4, which reads as under:-
".....It is well settled that the right of appeal must
find its source in legislative authority. The right of
appeal accrues to the litigant when it is expressly
provided for in the statute and axiomatic that the right of
appeal is a substantive right and must be conferred by
a statute. As already held, appeal is provided for
against the original proceedings or substantive
determination under Sections 4, 5 and 5-A of the Act.
The Legislature in its wisdom and noticing the purpose
of issuing PPB/TD did not provide right of appeal
against mere issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of
the Act. Therefore, on the literal construction of
Sections 3 to 6-A of the Act, it can be held that the
(2015) 6 ALD (DB)
remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is not
provided against the issuance of PPB/TD under Section
6-A of the Act. By treating the action under Sections 5
and 6-A of the Act as single or mutually dependent, in
our considered view, the remedy of appeal against
mere issuance of PB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act is
not available....."
30. In the result, we find no illegality or irregularity in the order dated
01.04.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge and the same is affirmed.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending
applications shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
___________________________________
JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Date:19.11.2024
GVK
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
and
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Date:19.11.2024
GVK
