issue of patta pass book = It may be true that the petitioner purchased 3 acres of land in the survey number, referred to above. The fact, however, remains that, much before the transfer, in her favour, the 4th respondent got validated a transaction in his favour, way back in the year 2000, obviously under Section 5-A of the Act. Unless that is challenged either by the petitioner or her vendor, the same state of affairs would remain. Further, in case the petitioner feels that any wrong or untenable entries were made in the revenue records, she has to avail the remedy of appeal, under Section 5(5) of the Act. Either way, the memo issued by the 3rd respondent cannot be said to be illegal or untenable.


THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

Writ Petition No.23462 of 2012
ORDER:

The petitioner claims to have purchased 3 acres of land in Sy.No.14/A/2 of Jayagiri Revenue Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District, through a sale deed, being document No.5450 of 2010, dated 27-09-2010.  Based on this purchase, she submitted an application before the Tahsildar, Hasanparthy Mandal, the
3rd respondent herein, with a request to incorporate her name in the revenue records and to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds.  The 3rd respondent issued notice, as required under Section 5(3) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), to the concerned persons.  The 4th respondent filed objection, stating that he purchased that very land, under an unregistered sale deed, and that the same has been validated through proceedings dated 28-12-2000, issued by the
3rd respondent.  It is also stated that his name was entered in the revenue records.  Taking note of this fact, the 3rd respondent issued memo dated 11-06-2012, expressing his inability to accede to the request of the petitioner.  The same is challenged in this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
It may be true that the petitioner purchased 3 acres of land in the survey number, referred to above.  The fact, however, remains that, much before the transfer, in her favour, the 4th respondent got validated a transaction in his favour, way back in the year 2000, obviously under Section 5-A of the Act.  Unless that is challenged either by the petitioner or her vendor, the same state of affairs would remain.  Further, in case the petitioner feels that any wrong or untenable entries were made in the revenue records, she has to avail the remedy of appeal, under Section 5(5) of the Act.  Either way, the memo issued by the 3rd respondent cannot be said to be illegal or untenable.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedies, in accordance with law.

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.   There shall be no order as to costs.


_______________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Dt.05-10-2012.

KO



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515