Dannada Nandarapu Shiva Kumar vs The Joint Collectorii
2021 Latest Caselaw 2041 Tel

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

               CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.97 of 2017
ORDER:

This revision is filed challenging the order dated 24.09.2016 in

Case No.D1/1395/2014 passed by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy

District.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the paternal

grandfather of the petitioners, namely, Dannada @ Nandarapu

Komaraiah was the original pattadar of the land admeasuring Ac.10.25

guntas in Sy.No.167/A, situated at Hameedullah Nagar village,

Shamshabad village, Ranga Reddy District. The name of the paternal

grandfather was reflected in the revenue records and pahani patrikas

since 1950 onwards till 1994-95. The said Dannada had two sons viz.

Satyanarayana and Mallesh, who is the father of the petitioners.

Their paternal senior uncle, Satyanarayana, was literate, intelligent

and had political and social influence. The father of the petitioners,

Mallesh, is an illiterate and innocent person and worked as shepherd

and used to work in agricultural fields. Without issuing any

proceedings, the names of Dannada Chandraiah, S/o. Butchaiah,

Dannada Chandramma, W/o. Chandraiah were incorporated as

pattedars and possessors to an extent of Ac.1.31 guntas each and one

Dannada Laxmaiah's, (S/o. Butchaiah) name was incorporated as

pattedar and possessor to tan extent of Ac.5.12 guntas out of

Ac.10.25 guntas in the aforesaid survey number. Thereby, the extent

of land was reduced to only Ac.1.31 guntas. The said entries are made

by the said persons in collusion with the revenue officials.

They approached the revenue authorities for correction of revenue

entries. It is further stated that a suit in O.S.No.468 of 2013 on the file

of the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, was filed for

partition, separate possession and injunction. It is further stated that

the petitioner came to know from the written statement of the

defendant No.1 that several registered sale deeds have been executed

in the names of the respondent Nos.8 and 9 and the petitioners are

taking necessary legal steps for seeking relief of declaration to declare

the alleged sale deeds as null and void.

3. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 before the Joint Collector stated that

the petitioners are the children of the respondent No.7, who is real

brother of the respondent No.6. The respondent No.6 is blessed with

five sons. They admitted that Dannada @ Nandarapu Komaraiah is the

original grandfather of the petitioners but denied that the said

Komaraiah was the exclusive owner of the land admeasuring Ac.10.25

guntas in Sy.No.167/A. Several other grounds have also been raised

by the unofficial respondents opposing the revision filed by the

petitioners before the Joint Collector.

4. Taking into consideration the fact that a partition suit

O.S.No.468 of 2013 and another suit in O.S.No.1064 of 2002 on the

file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District are

pending, the Joint Collector opined that it is not a healthy practice to

allow the parties to initiate parallel summary proceedings that too

before the revenue authorities having limited jurisdiction. It was

observed that the petitioners sought correction of revenue entries

in respect of the land in question after long lapse of 19 years. Thus,

the revision is barred by sheer antiquity and obscurity of the

transaction. Further, the revisions petitioners have not furnished

proper explanation for extraordinary delay in filing the revision.

5. Mr. A Keshava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated

that the father of the petitioners is illiterate and he was a shepherd.

Thus, he did not have knowledge of changes in the revenue record.

There is no limitation for instituting the revision under Section 9 of the

A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971.

6. Having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion

that the revision was filed with an extraordinary delay of 19 years.

The petitioners, as mentioned above, have already approached the

civil Court by instituting a suit in O.S.No.468 of 2013. Though it is the

case of the petitioners that they have share in the property, being the

sons of Mallesh, who is the second son of D. Komaraiah, it is settled

that entries in the revenue records do not confer any title. Further,

issuance of pattedar passbooks and title deeds does not amount to

recognizing the title of the unofficial respondents. The pattedar

passbook and title deeds issued under the A.P. Rights in Land and

Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 have got limited value. In any case,

if any further suit is initiated and title of the property is decided

therein, the judgment and decree passed by the civil Court would

prevail over the revenue proceedings and consequently, the pattedar

passbooks and title deeds would be issued to the parties in whose

favour the decree is passed.

7. In view of the above observations, this Court does not find any

merit in the revision petition. However, any observation made above

shall not be construed as an expression of opinion. The Court below

shall dispose of the suit in O.S.No.468 of 2013 without being

influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

The civil revision petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous

petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J July 8, 2021 DSK