Revenue - Lack of Jurisdiction of Tahsildar in civil matters of private lands = while there are civil suits pending between them and the third respondent regarding several private patta lands, the second respondent had issued a notice dated 25.03.2013, calling upon them to attend his office to resolve the disputes.= The Tahsildar, who is present in the Court today, fairly states that he lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice as the subject lands are private patta lands, and not lands belonging to the Government. He would express his unconditional apology for having issued the impugned notice and in having directed the petitioners to appear before him for resolution of disputes. He would state that it is only because the third respondent had submitted a representation that he has issued the impugned notice. Since the Tahsildar admits that he lacks jurisdiction, the impugned proceedings are set aside. Passing of such frivolous orders, in matters in which the revenue officials lack jurisdiction, has resulted not only in the petitioners having to incur needless expenditure but also of the precious Court’s time being wasted. I consider it appropriate, therefore, while recording the submission of the Tahsildar that he will no longer interfere with the matter, to dispose of the Writ Petition with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid by the second respondent, from his personal funds, to the East Godavari District Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today.

published in http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2013/wp/wp_11782_2013.html
WP 11782 / 2013

WPSR 63201 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
KOLLU ABBAI, E.G.DIST & ANOTHER  VSTHE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, E.D.DIST & 2 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : DHANAMJAYARESP.ADV. : GP FOR REVENUE
SUBJECT: REVENUE MATTERSDISTRICT:  WEST GODAVARI
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

WRIT PETITION No.11782 of 2013
ORDER:                                                                             

          The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the respondents, more particularly the second respondent, in issuing the impugned notice dated 25.03.2013 in connection with the land dispute, when the matter is seized of by the Civil Court, as arbitrary and illegal.
          The petitioners’ grievance is that, while there are civil suits pending between them and the third respondent regarding several private patta lands, the second respondent had issued a notice dated 25.03.2013, calling upon them to attend his office to resolve the disputes.
          When the matter came up earlier on 10.06.2013, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra and Rayalaseema Areas) was in no position to state which provision of law empowered the Tahsildar to issue the impugned notice dated 25.03.2013.  In order to ascertain the provision of law which empowered the Tahsildar to issue the impugned notice, the Tahsildar was directed to be present in the Court along with the entire records. 
The Tahsildar, who is present in the Court today, fairly states that he lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice as the subject lands are private patta lands, and not lands belonging to the Government.  He would express his unconditional apology for having issued the impugned notice and in having directed the petitioners to appear before him for resolution of disputes.  He would state that it is only because the third respondent had submitted a representation that he has issued the impugned notice. 
          Since the Tahsildar admits that he lacks jurisdiction, the impugned proceedings are set aside.  Passing of such frivolous orders, in matters in which the revenue officials lack jurisdiction, has resulted not only in the petitioners having to incur needless expenditure but also of the precious Court’s time being wasted.   
I consider it appropriate, therefore, while recording the submission of the Tahsildar that he will no longer interfere with the matter, to dispose of the Writ Petition with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid by the second respondent, from his personal funds, to the East Godavari District Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today.
          The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.  The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 

_______________________________

                                         (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)
17.06.2013                                                       
vs

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.

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

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.