Issue of pattadar pass books and title deeds - refusal of application with out conducting enquiry is bad = PETITIONER RESPONDENT ISKA VENKATA SAIBABA REDDY, NELLORE DIST VS PRL SECY REVENUE DEPT, HYD & 8 OT - http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=WP&mno=5923&year=2013

Issue of pattadar pass books and title deeds - refusal of application with out conducting enquiry is bad =

With out conducting an enquiry and with out giving an opportunity to be heard by victim, the Tahisldar refused to give pattadar pass book and title deed at the instigation of other side - is not correct - order set aside and directed to conduct fresh enquiry =
Relying on the decree of the Civil Court, the petitioner submitted an application seeking issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds on 17.12.2012.  By the impugned order, the Tahsildar, rejected the petitioner’s request for grant of pattadar pass books and title deeds on the ground the said land was not in active possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, and was covered by court litigation.
As it is not in dispute that the petitioner was neither put on notice nor given an opportunity of being heard in the enquiry caused on his application for grant of pattadar pass books and title deeds, ends of justice would be met if the impugned order is set aside.
  The Tahsildar shall cause an enquiry afresh into the petitioner’s application for grant of pattadar pass books and title deeds, give the petitioner and respondents 6 to 8 an opportunity of being heard, and thereafter pass an order afresh, in accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  

WP 5923 / 2013WPSR 31626 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
ISKA VENKATA SAIBABA REDDY, NELLORE DIST  VSPRL SECY REVENUE DEPT, HYD & 8 OT
PET.ADV. : ROY REDDYRESP.ADV. : GP FOR REVENUE
SUBJECT: REVENUE (MISC.MATTERS)DISTRICT:  NELLORE
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.5923 OF 2013


ORDER:

The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to call for the proceedings of the 5th respondent dated 11.01.2013 and to quash the same.
The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of Ac.2.53½ cts of land in Sy. No.1097/1 and 1098/1 of Nellore Bit-II villge, Nellore Mandal and District and to be in possession thereof.  
It is his case that the subject property is his ancestral property and fell to his share under a registered settlement deed.  
When the names of respondents 7 and 8 were mutated in the revenue records and pattadarpass books and title deeds were issued in their favour, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 9 before the Joint Collector who, by his order dated 21.11.2009, allowed the revision and directed the said pattadar pass books and title deeds to be cancelled.  
Aggrieved thereby, respondents 7 and 8 filed W.P. No.28399 of 2009 and this Court, while granting status quo, held that the order would be subject to the result of the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S. No.71 of 2006 before the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore.  
Thereafter the said suit, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, was decreed in the petitioner’s favour on 04.10.2012. 
Aggrieved thereby respondents 7 and 8 filed A.S. No.982 of 2012 and this Court, by order in A.S.M.P. No.2949 of 2012 in A.S. No.982 of 2012 dated 04.12.2012, declined to grant any interim injunction and observed that any alienation or change in the suit schedule property shall be subject to the result of the appeal. 
Relying on the decree of the Civil Court, the petitioner submitted an application seeking issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds on 17.12.2012.  
Curiously the 6th respondent filed O.S. No.333 of 2012 and an interim order of status quo was passed by the Civil Court in I.A. No.532 of 2012 in O.S. No.333 of 2012 on 28.12.2012. 
By the impugned order, the Tahsildar, who is arrayed as a respondent eo-nominee (9th respondent), rejected the petitioner’s request for grant of pattadar pass books and title deeds on the ground the said land was not in active possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, and was covered by court litigation.  
It is not clear from the impugned order as to how the Tahsildar came to know about the order passed by the Civil Court in I.A. No.532 of 2012 in O.S. No.333 of 2012 dated 28.12.2012, more so when, admittedly, respondent No.6 was neither put on notice nor was she given an opportunity of being heard.  
The petitioner’s grievance is that respondents 7 and 8 had deliberately instigated respondent No.6 to file a suit only with a view to deprive the petitioner of his right to be issued pattadar pass books and title deeds.
Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing for the 9th respondent, would submit that the Tahsildar had caused an enquiry, and it is on the basis of such an enquiry was the impugned order passed.  He would further state that the said Tahsildar is no longer in office, and has since been promoted and transferred to another place.
As it is not in dispute that the petitioner was neither put on notice nor given an opportunity of being heard in the enquiry caused on his application for grant of pattadar pass books and title deeds, ends of justice would be met if the impugned order is set aside.
  The Tahsildar shall cause an enquiry afresh into the petitioner’s application for grant of pattadar pass books and title deeds, give the petitioner and respondents 6 to 8 an opportunity of being heard, and thereafter pass an order afresh, in accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  
The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.  The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of.  No costs.
                                      RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J
Date: 01.04.2013
MRKR

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.