K. Radhakrishna & Ors Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors

B Krishna Mohan, J

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 9. The respondent No.10 is the writ petitioner in the second writ petition i.e., W.P.No.7353 of 2021.

2. This writ petition i.e., W.P.No.5678 of 2021 was filed questioning the orders D.Dis.1189/2019/G, dated 17.02.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent as contrary to Section 5(3) of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rule 19(2) of Rules thereunder and contrary to the Full Bench judgment of the erstwhile High Court reported in 2007 (6) ALT 134 and the other decisions in 2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB).

3. The second writ petition i.e., W.P.No.7353 of 2021 was filed by the vendor of the petitioners in W.P.No.5678 of 2021 questioning the same proceedings of the 2nd respondent on the same grounds with the same prayer as pleaded in the first writ petition with respect to the very same subject matter to an extent of Ac.9.47 cents out of Ac.13.90 cents in Sy.No.435-2A and Ac.0.73 cents out of Ac.1.25 cents in Sy.No.437-2 of Chennekothapalli Village & Mandal, Ananthapur District.

4. Hence common order is passed as under.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners jointly purchased the subject lands vide registered sale deed Doc.No.820/2017, dated 07.09.2017 from the 10th respondent/ the petitioner in the 2nd writ petition and others. The said vendors acquired rights over the said property by way of inheritance from Smt. B.Yellamma who purchased the said property by registered sale deed Doc.No.1629/1959, dated 01.08.1959. Thus the petitioners obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds vide khata No.1542 for the subject lands as per the enjoyment and the same is detailed as under:

6. Eversince, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. While so, at the instance of the respondent Nos.4 to 9, their claimed family member Smt. Bhagyamma filed petition/complaint before the 2nd respondent for cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners. In turn, the revenue authorities without giving prior notice to the petitioners usurping the powers of civil court, passed the impugned orders dated 17.02.2021. As per the said impugned orders, one Smt. Bhagyamma, wife of Gandluri Ramaiah filed a petition before the 2nd respondent for cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the vendor of the petitioners i.e., the 10th respondent, wherein admittedly the petitioners names are also reflected in the revenue records (1-B ROR, PPB/TD) which were issued by revenue authorities in favour of the petitioners in pursuance of the registered sale deed Doc.No.820/2017, dated 07.09.2017. Surprisingly, all of a sudden, by way of the above said impugned action dated 17.02.2021, the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to take necessary action for deletion of revenue entries in respect of the subject lands contrary to Section 5(3) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rule 19(2) of the Rules thereunder. Thus violated the Full Bench decision of the erstwhile High Court reported in 2007 (6) ALT 134 (F.B.) and the judgment of the erstwhile High Court reported in 2015 (6) ALD 609(D.B.).

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that wherever there is a serious dispute of title or claims of rival title, revenue authorities have to direct the parties to approach the civil court for redressal. Further the authorities have to show refrain from proceeding with the enquiries under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The revenue authorities ought not to have adjudicated the title and rights of the petitioners and the unofficial respondents as there are highly disputed facts and succession of the property rights are involved which are predominantly civil in nature dealing with the civil rights of the parties.

8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents relying upon the counter of the 2nd respondent filed in the second writ petition i.e., W.P.No.7353 of 2021, treating it as common counter for both the writ petitions, submits that one Smt. Bhagyamma, D/o Late Gandluri Ramaiah filed a petition before the 2nd respondent for cancellation of pattadar passbooks/title deeds issued with regard to the land in Sy.No.435-2 to an extent of Ac.14.40 cents, Sy.No.436 to an extent of Ac.12.42 cents, Sy.No.437-1 to an extent of Ac.1.88 cents, Sy.No.437-2 to an extent of Ac.1.25 cents and Sy.No.331-2 to an extent of Ac.5.18 cents of Chennekhothappli Village of Chennekothapalli Mandal as Gandluri Ramaiah and Gandluri Lakshmaiah (Ancestors of Smt. Bhagyamma/the petitioner therein) did not sell the lands to Smt. Yellamma, W/o B.Peddanna vide Doc.No.1629/1959, dated 01.08.1959 since Gandluri Ramaiah died in the year 1953 and Gandluri Lakshmaiah died in the year 1957.

9. Basing upon the said petition, the 3rd respondent submitted a report stating that the said lands were classified as patta lands as per RSR of the said village standing in the name of ‘Karnam Annappagari Venkata Subbarao’. His son Sri Shivaramarao i.e., the son of Diglot Pattadar sold the said lands to Gandluri Venkata Ramanappa, S/o Gandluri Venkata Swamy vide Doc.No.298/1940. Subsequently, Gandluri Ramaiah and Gandluri Lakshmaiah, sons of Gandluri Venkata Ramanappa sold away the said lands to Smt. Yellamma, W/o Bulagondla Peddanna vide Doc.No.1629/1959. Basing upon the said registered document, the name of Smt. Bulagondla Yellamma, W/o B.Peddanna was entered in 10-1 account vide Kulam No.252 for the said lands. But at the time of enquiry, it was noticed that the 10th respondent / petitioner in second writ petition i.e., W.P.No.7353 of 2021 claimed as legal heir of Smt. Yellamma, W/o B.Peddanna and gifted the said land in Sy.No.436-1 to an extent of 5.00 Acres out of Ac.12.27 cents to his wife namely Mallamma vide Doc.No.4.5/2003 even though he is not the legal heir of Smt. Yellamma, W/o B.Peddanna. Finally, the 3rd respondent recommended for cancellation of pattadar pass books issued for the land in Sy.No.435-2A to an extent of Ac.13.90 cents, Sy.No.436-1 to an extent of Ac.12.27 cents, Sy.No.437-1 to an extent of 1.88 cents and Sy.No.437-2 to an extent of Ac.1.25 cents of Chennekothapalli Village of Chennekothapalli Mandal.

10. Then the respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein gave representation to the 2nd respondent to add them as petitioners therein stating that they are the legal heirs of the original petitioner therein Smt. Bhagyamma who died on 14.05.2020. Hence, notices were issued to all the parties with a direction to appear before the 2nd respondent and the case was posted for hearing on 12.06.2020, 17.06.2020, 24.06.2020 and finally posted on 30.12.2020. Both the petitioners therein and the learned counsel for the respondents therein appeared before the said authority and argued the case. After perusal of the material available on record and basing upon the report of the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent herein opined that the registered Doc.No.1629/1959 dated 01.08.1959 is itself an irregular one as the vendors of the same i.e., the original pattadars died in the year 1953 and 1957 respectively. But as per the said document, the sale transaction was occurred on 01.08.1959. Hence, it was observed that the said original pattadars did not sell the subject lands under the above said Doc.No.1629/1959 and gift deed Doc.No.405/2003.

11. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent herein was directed by the 2nd respondent to take necessary action for deletion of entries made in the webland with regard to the lands in Sy.No.435-2A to an extent of Ac.13.90 cents, Sy.No.436-1 to an extent of Ac.12.27 cents, Sy.No.437-1 to an extent of Ac.1.88 cents and Sy.No.437-2 to an extent of Ac.1.25 cents of Chennekothapalli Village standing in the name of the 10th respondent and his legal heirs by mutating the names of the legal heirs of the original pattadars duly following their rule position as per eligibility. Accordingly, the said appeal was disposed of by the 2nd respondent dated 17.02.2021 which is assailed in these two writ petitions.

12. Similarly, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein relying upon their counter submits that in fact, the ancestors of the respondent Nos.4 to 9 did not sell the land to Smt. Yellamma as stated above since it is evident from the fact that Gandluri Ramaiah died on 11.03.1953 and Gandluri Lakshmaiah died on 21.01.1957 which is much prior to the sale deed dated 01.08.1959. Hence the sale deed bearing Doc.No.1629/1959 is a void document and as such the subsequent sale deed said to have been obtained by the writ petitioners is also a void document. From the Index I & II of the registered Doc.No.1629/1959 submitted by the Sub Registrar, it is noted that the names of pattadars i.e., Gandluri Ramaiah and Gandluri Lakshmaiah were struck off by the then Sub-Registrar as the said pattadars were not present at the time of the alleged registration as they are no more as on the date of the alleged execution of Doc.No.1629/1959 dated 01.08.1959. The 2nd respondent before conducting enquiry issued notice to the writ petitioners and the answering respondents and both the parties have attended the enquiry and the writ petitioners except filing the above said void documents did not file any reliable document in support of their claim and as such as stated supra the 2^nd respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 17.02.2021 in a well considered manner. If the writ petitioners are aggrieved of the same, they could have filed an appeal before the Joint Collector concerned but without availing the alternative remedy, these writ petitions are filed. As per Section 5-B(2) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, the 2nd respondent may suomoto call for record of case or proceedings from the recording authority and inspect it in order to satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings therein is regular, legal and proper and make suitable order in that behalf. Exercising the said power, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order and there is no illegality committed in the said order and as such the writ petitions are devoid of merits.

13. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the rival submissions made, it is to be seen that it is the case of the petitioners that no notices were issued and no opportunity was given to participate in the above said enquiry before passing the impugned order by the 2nd respondent dated 17.02.2021 inspite of having interest over the subject lands for the petitioners under the above said registered sale deed Doc.No.820/2017 dated 07.09.2017 and pattadar pass books and title deeds issued there upon vide Khata Nos.1542 and 1544 and 1-B ROR dated 04.03.2021. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent ought not have entered upon to decide the civil dispute by observing that the registered sale deed Doc.No.1629/1959 dated 01.08.1959 as irregular and ignoring the same, the appeal of the respondent Nos.4 to 9 was allowed by way of the above said impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 17.02.2021 directing the 3^rd respondent to take necessary action for deletion of entries made in the webland with regard to the subject lands which are in the name of the 10th respondent/petitioner in the second case and his legal heirs for mutation of the names of the legal heirs of the original pattadars following the rule position as per their eligibility.

14. Per contra, as seen above, it is the case of the official respondents and the respondent Nos.4 to 9 that the petitioners vendors i.e., the 10th respondent herein/ petitioner in the second case and others were the parties before the 2nd respondent and the original petitioner therein/complainant and her legal heirs were there as the petitioners before the 2nd respondent and upon hearing all the parties concerned following the above said cited decisions only, the 2nd respondent passed the above said impugned order dated 17.02.2021 for making necessary corrections of mutations in the revenue records for the subject lands. Since the execution of the Doc.No.1629/1959 dated 01.08.1959 was not established validly in prima facie, upon seeing the link documents submitted before the said authority, the 2nd respondent rightly came to the above said conclusion and as such it cannot be found fault with by the petitioners herein. As per law, whose names are there in the revenue records by way of earlier mutations and the persons who sought necessary amendments to such mutations as aggrieved they were all heard in the above said enquiry before the 2nd respondent and only thereafter the above said impugned proceedings were passed.

15. Be that as it may, inspite of the above said rival contentions of the parties, it is to be seen that even according to the settled legal position, the petitioners become the persons interested with respect to the subject lands and as such they are entitled to assail the above said proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 17.02.2021. But before whom the question would follow when there is an effective alternative remedy available under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971/ ROR Act. The petitioners cannot seek the discretionary remedy before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as all the grounds raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions can very well be canvassed before the said authority concerned availing the statutory provisions which is an efficacious remedy for the redressal of the grievances of the petitioners. Therefore the petitioners are permitted to approach the revisional authority concerned against the above said impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 17.02.2021 by enclosing all the necessary documents in support of their claim within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, it shall be disposed of strictly in accordance with law by the said authority concerned. Till filing of the same, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the above said impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 17.02.2021 and further orders if any required even by way of interim relief the same shall be pleaded before the said revisional authority concerned. In default of filing the same by the petitioners, the interim protection given by this court stands vacated automatically.

16. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. Interim orders, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.