Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Inakoti Prasada Rao vs Akkisetti Sunny Babu on 25 September, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010642152022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3488]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 943/2022
Between:
Inakoti Prasada Rao ...APPELLANT
AND
Pydi Srinu Srinivasarao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. V VIJAYA VARDHAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO
APHC010642212022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 944/2022
Between:
Inakoti Prasada Rao ...APPELLANT
AND
Pydi Gurunadharao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. V VIJAYA VARDHAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO
APHC010642192022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 945/2022
Between:
Inakoti Prasada Rao ...APPELLANT
AND
Akkisetti Sunny Babu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. V VIJAYA VARDHAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO
Dt: 25.09.2024
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Common Judgment:
As all the Writ Appeals arise out of similar orders of a learned
Single Judge, dated 23.09.2022, 26.09.2022 and 27.09.2022 and raise
the same questions of law and fact, they are being disposed of by way of
this common order. The parties to these Writ Appeals are being referred
to as they arrayed in W.A.No.943 of 2022.
2. The private respondents, in these Writ appeals, had
approached this court by way W.P. No. 29987 of 2022, W.P. No. 29974 of
2022, W.P. No. 29994 of 2022, contending that the 6th respondent-
Tahsildar, without notice or opportunity being given to the private
respondents, had marked, in orange and red, the adangal record,
maintained online, in relation to their lands in Sy.No.165-2 and
Sy.No.165-4 of Kopperla Village, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram
District, and included them in the dispute register and the said action was
illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and
contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar pass Books
Rules, 1989.
3. A learned Single Judge of this Court, at the stage of admission
had disposed of these writ petitions, following an earlier order of this
Court, dated 24.06.2021, in W.P.No.11738 of 2021.
4. The Judgment in W.P.No.11738 of 2021 dealt with the
question of marking of online revenue records with red colour and
inclusion of such lands in the dispute register. The learned Single Judge,
in W.P.No.11738 of 2021 after noticing Rule 9(1)(iv), Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) and
Rule 9(1)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass
Books Rules, 1989 had held that any such changes can be done only
after appropriate notice has been given to all the persons who would be
interested in the said entry and failure to issue such notices would render
the entries in the disputed register as an illegality.
5. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, in
these writ petitions, the appellant herein filed the present appeals with
leave.
6. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant also has a right
and claim over the said land and had been litigating this issue with the
private respondents herein and other persons due to which the recording
authority had put an orange mark and red mark against the entries
relating to these lands. The appellant contends that his grandfather along
Sri Narasimhulu had acquired land to an extent of Ac.3.20 cents in
Sy.No.165/1 of Kopperla Village under a deed of sale, dated 16.03.1938,
and registered as Document No.591/1938. The appellant also states that
the proceedings of Sri Visakha Grameena Bank, Kovvada in the year
1985 and the filing of O.S.No.219 of 1985 against the father of the
appellant, for recovery of a loan amount and subsequent sale of Ac.3.02
cents of land, by way of E.P.No.107/1986, demonstrates the ownership of
the members of the family of the appellant over this land. It was on this
basis that, the Appellant had approached the Tahsildar, who put a
orange/red mark against the online entries and entered the details of the
land in the dispute register after notice had been given to the private
respondents. The appellant contends that none of the facts could be
placed before the learned Single Judge due to the disposal of the writ
petition at the stage of admission and that there is every need to look into
the facts of the case to determine whether the action of the official
respondents in placing an orange mark and red mark on the online
entries and entering the details in the dispute register is appropriate and
legal or not.
7. Both the Tahsildar of the area as well as the private
respondents herein have filed their counter affidavits. Reference to the
Counter affidavits in Writ Appeal no. 943 of 2022, would suffice for
disposing these writ appeals.
8. The affidavit of the Tahsildar states that Kopperla Village was
an estate village of the erstwhile Vizianagaram estate which had been
taken over under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act. The revenue
records prepared on the basis of survey and settlement operations
conducted a long time back, and the settlement and fair adangal shows
that the land in Sy.No.165-2 admeasuring Ac.0.37 cents is recorded as
ryotwari land in the name of Pydi Srinu and Smt. Addagarla Lakshmi.
Similarly a land in Sy.No.165-4 measuring Ac.0.37 cents was also
recorded as Ryotwari Dry land in the name of Smt. A. Lakshmi. The 6 th
respondent-Tahsildar, contended that the writ petitioners ought to have
filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram
against the orders of the Tahsildar, or invoked the remedy of revision
under Section 9 of the R.O.R Act. The Tahsildar, contends that the
respondents 1 and 2 should not have approached this Court for relief and
that who should have established their title by way of a decision of the
competent Civil Court. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit on
behalf of himself and the 2nd respondent. The case of the respondents 1
and 2 is that the land in question belonged to their maternal grandfather
late Akkisetti Sanyasappadu. After his demise, their mother Sanyasamma
inherited the property and respondents 1 and 2 inherited the same after
her demise.
9. The respondents 1 and 2 disputed the claim of the appellant
that the grandfather of the appellant and Narasimhulu had acquired land
to an extent of Ac.3.20 cents in Sy.No.165/1 of Kopperla Village under a
registered deed of sale dated 16.03.1938 and that the said deed of sale
which was registered as Document No.591/1938 relates to land in
Sy.No.72 and not Sy.No.165-1. The respondents 1 and 2 also dispute the
contention of the appellant that the proceedings of Sri Visakha Grameena
Bank, Kovada in the year 1985 and the filing of O.S.No.219 of 1985
against the father of the appellant, for recovery of a loan amount and
subsequent sale of Ac.3.02 cents of land, by way of E.P.No.107/1986 are
incorrect infact O.S.No.219 of 1985 E.P.No.107 of 1986 was filed against
their mother and not the father of the appellant herein. The further
contention of the appellant that notice had been given to the respondents
1 and 2 before the lands were get in the dispute register is also denied. It
is contended that the notice was issued only to the 1st respondent and no
notice was sent to the 2nd respondent. Apart from that, the claim and right
of the appellant or his father is denied on the ground that no document
has been produced to demonstrate this.
10. It is contended that in such circumstances, the order of the
learned Single Judge has to be upheld.
11. It is also submitted that pursuant to the orders of the learned
Single Judge, the revenue authorities had removed the orange and red
marking on the online revenue records and that the said lands have also
been removed from the dispute register.
Consideration of the Court:
12. The facts as stated in the writ petition as well as in the appeal
would go to show that there are disputed claims over the lands mentioned
above. However, the question before this Court is whether the revenue
authorities could have affixed orange and red colour to the online revenue
entries and enter these lands in the dispute register.
13. A perusal of the R.O.R Act and Rules reveals that there is no
provision for setting up a dispute register in the said Act or the Rules.
14. Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the
private respondents has produced a circular, issued by the Chief
Commissioner of Land Administration A.P., Mangalagiri bearing
Ref.No.LR-II/ROR-II/144/2021 dated 19.03.2024. This circular relies upon
a circular of even number dated 09.04.2022. It appears that this circular,
which has been issued under Rule 33 of the R.O.R Rules, provides for
placement of disputed lands, in a dispute register. The guidelines for
placing such land in a dispute register were set out in the circular dated
09.04.2022 and certain amendments were carried out to these guidelines
by subsequent guidelines of 19.03.2024 and 29.04.2024.
15. The aforesaid guidelines stipulate that lands may be placed in
a dispute register only if the circumstances set out in the circular are
fulfilled. The said guidelines stipulate that lands can be placed in such
dispute registers when there are directions by the appropriate courts
before whom litigation is pending; where family members of a deceased
pattadar are unable to come a settlement and a Tahsildar is unable to
carryout necessary mutation in the absence of a joint statement from the
family members; where an appellate authority or the Revisional Authority
under the ROR Act, direct placement of the lands in a dispute register on
account of a pending ROR Appeal/Review; where the R.D.O/
Commissioner-Appeals direct placement of the land in a dispute register
on account of pending Inam appeal/review; where CSSLR/Commissioner-
Appeals direct placement of the land in a dispute register on account of
pending Estate Abolition appeal/review; where Joint
Collector/Commissioner-Appeals/Government ask for placement on
account of pending Appeals/Reviews/Revision under the A.P. Assigned
Land (POT) Act 9/77 or where there is a direction from the
CSSLR/Commissioner-Appeals to place lands in dispute register on
account of pending Appeals/Reviews under Regulation-II of 1970.
16. The subsequent amendments to these guidelines by the
circulars dated 19.03.2024 and 29.04.2024 do not make out any material
change in the guidelines.
17. The common factor in all these guidelines, except where the
recording authority, on account of disputes between the legal heirs of an
existing pattadar, is unable to record the successor, is that, there has to
be an express direction by the High Court/Civil Court/Appellate
Authorities/Provisional Authorities to place such lands in the dispute
register on account of pending litigation before them. In the present case,
no such direction has been placed before this Court. In the absence of
any such direction, an entry being made in the dispute register is clearly
not permissible.
18. Accordingly, there are no merits in the Writ Appeals and they
are dismissed. However, it is open to the appellant to seek inclusion of
the lands in the dispute register by obtaining such orders from any
authority before whom litigation is pending. However, the authorities so
approached would consider such application only after notice is given to
the respondents 1 and 2 and after hearing them. There shall be no order
as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
______________
HARINATH.N, J
RJS
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
&
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. HARINATH
WRIT APPEAL.Nos.943, 944 & 945 of 2022
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Dt: 25.09.2024
RJS
