@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Ms. G. Rohini, J.@mdashThis writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 29.10.2011 passed by the 1st respondent - Joint Collector, Adilabad and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal.
The undisputed facts, in brief, are as under:
One Aira Pothanna was the owner of different extents of land situated in Sy.Nos. 722, 725 and 63 of Koutla-B Village and Sy.No. 128 of Kajri Village of Sarangapur Mandal, Adilabad District. The respondent No. 3 herein is his sister. She claimed that her brother Pothanna had gifted her the said land in Sy.Nos. 722, 725 and 63 to an extent of Ac.3-20 guntas, Ac.3-20 guntas and Ac.4-25 guntas respectively by executing a Gift Settlement Deed dated 20.07.1979. However, her name was not mutated in the revenue records. In the meanwhile Pothanna died in the year 1982 and the name of his wife Smt. Chinnavva who claims to have acquired title to the property in question by way of succession was mutated in the revenue records. Smt. Chinnavva executed two registered sale deeds dated 4.11.1986 in favour of the writ petitioners herein and on the basis of the said sale deeds the names of the petitioners herein were entered in the revenue records. The petitioners herein were also issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the land in question.2. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent herein made an application dated 1.4.1988 for mutation of her name in the revenue records on the basis of the Gift Settlement Deed, dated 20.07.1979 executed by her brother Pothanna. Alleging that the Revenue officials failed to consider her application, the respondent No. 3 herein filed W.P.No. 10952 of 1988. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 20.01.1989 with a direction to the Revenue officials to enter the name of the 3rd respondent herein in the Revenue records on the basis of the Gift Settlement Deed if it was otherwise in order.
3. In pursuance thereof the respondent No. 3 made another application dated 30.03.1989 and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sarangapur by proceedings dated 24.04.1989 entered the name of the 3rd respondent herein in the revenue records. Challenging the said order, dated 24.04.1989, the petitioners herein filed W.P.No. 7089 of 1989. By order dated 17.02.1994 this Court set aside the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 24.04.1989 and directed a fresh enquiry by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the ground that before passing the said order the petitioners herein were not given an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent had taken up a fresh enquiry and after hearing both the parties held by order dated 8.11.2010 that the matter required adjudication by the competent civil court since the title claimed by the writ petitioners under the sale deeds executed by the wife of late Pothanna as well as the title claimed by the 3rd respondent herein under the Gift Settlement Deed executed by Pothanna was in dispute. Accordingly, it was left open to both the parties to resolve the dispute by approaching the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. The said order dated 8.11.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar was challenged by the 3rd respondent herein by filing a Revision petition u/s 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ROR Act). The 1st respondent - Joint Collector allowed the said Revision petition by order dated 29.10.2011 and set aside the 2nd respondent''s order dated 8.11.2010 holding that the registered gift deed executed by the original pattadar Pothanna in the year 1979 being the first transaction, the same should be implemented in the revenue records. The said order dated 29.10.2011 is assailed in this writ petition on various grounds.
4. I have heard Sri Avinash Desai, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and Sri V. Ravindra Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 & 2.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the 1st respondent - Joint Collector committed a grave error in going into the question of title claimed by the rival parties. It is also contended that the revision petition u/s 9 of the ROR Act against the 2nd respondent''s order dated 8.11.2010 was not maintainable at all since a remedy of appeal was available against the said order dated 8.11.2010 and the 3rd respondent had failed to exhaust the said remedy of appeal. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, the 1st respondent - Joint Collector ought not to have entertained the Revision petition. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent vehemently contended that since the title acquired by the 3rd respondent in respect of the property in question was already upheld by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, there was no need for compelling the 3rd respondent to get her title declared in the Civil Court and therefore the 1st respondent was justified in setting aside the 2nd respondent''s order and directing mutation of the 3rd respondent''s name in the revenue records.
7. At the outset, it is to be noticed that on the basis of the gift deed, dated 20.07.1979 stated to have been executed by her brother Pothanna, the 3rd respondent filed O.S.No. 137/1979 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Nirmal, against the daughters of Pothanna seeking permanent injunction alleging that they were interfering with her possession in respect of the property covered by the gift deed. Pending the said suit, temporary injunction was granted in favour of the 3rd respondent herein and the same was also confirmed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Adilabad in CMA.No. 26 of 1979 by order dated 11.6.1980. By that time, the 3rd respondent''s brother Pothanna was alive and he filed O.S.No. 55 of 1980 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Nirmal against his wife and children seeking permanent injunction. It appears that in the said suit the execution of the gift deed dated 20.07.1979 in favour of the 3rd respondent herein was admitted by the plaintiff Pothanna. However as could be seen from the pleadings in O.S.No. 137 of 1979 the defendants therein, through whom the writ petitioners herein are claiming title, had disputed the genuineness of the gift deed dated 20.07.1979. Admittedly O.S.No. 137 of 1979 was not decided on merits and it was dismissed for non-prosecution since the plaintiff / 3rd respondent herein failed to pursue the proceedings. It appears that even O.S.No. 55 of 1980 was dismissed as abated on the death of Pothanna- the plaintiff therein. Thus there is no adjudication by the competent civil court with regard to the rights claimed by the 3rd respondent under the gift deed dated 20.07.1979 stated to have been executed by late Pothanna.
8. However the 1st respondent - Joint Collector had proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the gift deed in favour of the 3rd respondent herein has never been challenged and it is an undisputed document. As noticed above, no finding as such is recorded at any stage in spite of the fact that the vendors of the petitioners have been disputing the validity of the gift deed right from the date of its execution.
9. The law is well-settled that the Revenue Authorities exercising the jurisdiction under the ROR Act cannot go into the serious questions of title. It has been held by the Courts in a catena of decisions that the revenue authorities are not substitutes for the courts of competent civil jurisdiction and they cannot decide the complicated questions of title in the summary enquiry provided under the ROR Act [ vide
10. In the instant case, though the gift deed under which the 3rd respondent is claiming title is stated to have been executed prior to the sale deeds under which the writ petitioners are claiming title, admittedly there has never been any enquiry with regard to the validity of the said gift deed dated 20.07.1979 and there is no adjudication with regard to the title claimed by the 3rd respondent under the said gift deed. In fact the genuineness of the gift deed was disputed long back in O.S.No. 137 of 1979 itself. Admittedly the said suit was dismissed for default and there was no adjudication of the title claimed by the 3rd respondent. There is a serious dispute even with regard to the possession of the land in question.
11. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, as rightly held by the 2nd respondent the matter requires adjudication by the competent Civil Court. I also find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 1st respondent had committed a grave error in entertaining the Revision petition though a remedy of appeal is available u/s 5(5) of the ROR Act, which the 3rd respondent failed to exhaust. Though there is no absolute bar as such for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction even where the party failed to exhaust the appellate remedy available under the statute, as per the settled principles of law such interference is permissible only to prevent grave miscourage (sic. miscarriage) of justice and not in a regular and routine manner. Absolutely no justifiable reason could be shown in the present case for invoking the revisional jurisdiction straightaway without exhausting the remedy of appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned order which suffered from a patent legal error is unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.
