Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") Sec.4 , 5 - if application for issue of pattadar passbooks was granted/ not granted - remedy is appeal to R.D.O. - R.D.O can not straight away to dispose the case - so the order of R.D.O with out appeal is not maintainable - Since civil suit is filed - it can be decided after seeing the result of suit - earlier patta pass books granted can not be cancelled straight away by R.D.O. - if he feels the revenue records are tampered /fake, he can take criminal proceedings against the culprits as per law - Hence the writ petition filed for issue of patta pass book was dismissed with a direction to decide after result of civil court- the Writ petition against the cancellation of earlier patta pass books - tampered one / fake one / forged one - was allowed with a direction to take criminal action only as there was no appeal properly filed = = Sri Vutukuru Subba Rao...Petitioner The State of A.P., rep.by its Revenue Secretary, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents = Published in judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10625

 Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") Sec.4 , 5 - if application for issue of pattadar passbooks was  granted/ not granted - remedy is appeal to R.D.O. - R.D.O can not straight away to dispose the case - so the order of R.D.O with out appeal is not maintainable - Since civil suit is filed - it can be decided after seeing the result of suit - Earlier patta pass books and title deed granted can not be cancelled straight away by R.D.O. - if he feels the revenue records are tampered/fake , he can take criminal proceedings against the culprits as per law  - Hence the writ petition filed for issue of patta pass book was dismissed  with a direction to decide after result of civil court- the Writ petition against the cancellation of earlier patta pass books - tampered one / fake one / forged one - was allowed  with a direction to take criminal action only as there was no appeal properly filed = 
If respondent No.3 acquired any
right, he could have approached respondent No.2 under Section 4 of the Act. 
 If
any such application was made, respondent No.2 was competent to exercise his  
jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Act, hold an enquiry under sub-section (3)
thereof and pass an order either accepting the application or rejecting the
same.  
If any party is aggrieved by such decision, he can file an appeal under
Section 5(5) of the Act.  
Even if respondent No.3 has approached respondent
No.1, he ought to have relegated him to respondent No.2 instead of arrogating to
himself jurisdiction of respondent No.2.  
On this short ground alone, the order
passed by respondent No.1, which is totally without jurisdiction is liable to be
set-aside.  The impugned order is accordingly set-aside.  
Inasmuch as the civil
suit, in which respondent No.3 is also a defendant, is pending, it is
appropriate that both parties pursue the said civil suit and approach respondent
No.2 under Section 8(2) of the Act based on the outcome of the suit.
respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction whatsoever to
entertain the representation of respondent No.3 and pass the impugned order.
I find force in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.  The
A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short "the Act")
provided for the procedure for mutation of the revenue record and issue of
pattadar passbooks and title deeds.
In Thripuvaram Krishna Reddy Vs. Joint Collector, Cuddapah1, this Court held, at
paras 4 and 5, as under :
" The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended and in my view rightly, that
respondent No.2/RDO has no jurisdiction to pass order dated 16.3.1999.  Under
Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 
1971 (for short "the Act") respondent No.2 is empowered to entertain an appeal
filed within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order
passed by respondent No.3 under Section 5(3) of the Act correcting the entries
in the revenue record.  
In N. Bal Reddy and others v. Revenue Divisional
officer, Hyderabad and others, 2004(2) ALD 419, 
this Court, however, interpreted
Section 5(5) to the effect that an order granting pattadar passbooks and title
deeds is also comprehended by the said provision.  On such an interpretation, if
respondent No.2 is held to have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal even
against an order issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds, respondent No.4
failed to file an appeal against the said order in the form of an appeal and
within the period of limitation. 
 In this context, it is necessary to refer to
Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 
1989, which reads as under:
"21. (1) An appeal against every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer either
making an amendment in the Record of Rights or refusing to make such amendment   
shall lie under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, to the Revenue
Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector/Assistant Collector or such authority as may be
notified by the Commissioner.
(2)  Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be in writing and shall set
forth concisely the grounds thereof within a period of sixty days from the date
of communication of the order and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order
appealed against.
(3)  Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (2) above, shall bear a Court fee
stamp of rupees five only."

Admittedly, neither the so-called petition is in the form of appeal affixed with
the required stamp nor was filed in time.  No application for condonation of
delay was claimed to be filed by respondent No.4 nor respondent No.2 passed any
order condoning the delay before entertaining and adjudicating the appeal on
merits.  Respondent No.2 ought not to have, therefore, entertained the petition
of respondent No.4 and treated it as an appeal.  If respondent No.4 was
aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he should have
filed a statutory appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, within the time limit,
or a civil suit under Section 8(2) of the Act before the competent Civil Court.
As he did not take recourse to either of the two remedies, it is beyond the
jurisdiction of respondent No.2 to entertain the petition filed by respondent
No.4, because he has no power akin to the power vested in respondent No.1 under
Section 9 of the Act."

After disposal of the writ petition, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned
order, whereunder he has got an enquiry held by respondent No.2 and rendered a
finding that the petitioners have created fake pattadar pass books.  While
ordering cancellation of the pattadar pass book and title deed, respondent No.2
has also ordered initiation of criminal proceedings against the persons
responsible for creating the fake pass books and tampering the entries in 1B
Register. 
Before parting with this case, it is made clear that if the Revenue
officials feel that the petitioners have indulged in fabrication/correction of
pattadar passbook and title deed, they shall be free to initiate criminal
proceedings according to law.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY           

Writ Petition Nos.23254 OF 02012

26-11-2013

Sri Vutukuru Subba Rao...Petitioner

The State of A.P., rep.by its Revenue Secretary, Secretariat, Secretariat
Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner:  Sri Ch.Venkat Raman

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4:  AGP for Revenue
Counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6: Sri P.Rajasekhar

+Writ Petition Nos.23254/2012 & 19519/2010

(W.P.No.23254 of 2012)

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:    
These two writ petitions pertain to the common subject matter and hence, they
are heard and disposed of together.
W.P.No.19519 of 2010 is filed feeling aggrieved by order in D.Dis.No.2444/08 H,
dated 16.04.2010, of respondent No.1.
W.P.No.23254 of 2012 is filed by
respondent No.3 in W.P.No.19519 of 2010 for a mandamus to declare the action of 
respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not mutating his name in the revenue records.
The
petitioner sought for a further direction to issue pattadar pass book and title
deed in his favour with regard to Ac.0.57 cents of land in Survey No.971/6 of
East Bapatla, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District (hereinafter referred to as 'the
subject property').
For convenience, the parties are referred to they are arrayed in W.P.No.19519 of
2010.
The brief facts leading to filing of these two writ petitions are as under:
The subject property was purchased by the grandfather of the petitioners on
04.01.1958.
The petitioners pleaded that after the death of their grandfather,
the subject property devolved upon their father and pattadar pass book and title
deed were issued to him.
That in the year 1992, oral partition took place among
the family members and that the subject property fell to the share of the
petitioners.  
That in the year 1995, pattadar pass books and title deeds were
issued to the petitioners under patta Nos.353 and 354 respectively.
That much
after the partition, the petitioners' father executed two registered gift deeds,
dated 26.12.2001, in favour of his two daughters (sisters of the petitioners).
That on 16.07.2005, the two sisters of the petitioners executed two registered
sale deeds in favour of respondent No.3 selling the subject property.
It is the further pleaded case of the petitioners that as respondent No.3
started claiming the subject property under the two registered deeds, they have
filed O.S.No.104 of 2005 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla
for declaration of title and permanent injunction or alternatively for partition
and separate possession of the property and allotment of 1/3rd share of the
property to each of the petitioners and their father.
While the said suit is pending, respondent No.3 has approached respondent No.1
by way of a representation for issue of pattadar pass book and title deed in
respect of the subject property.  As no action was taken thereon, he has filed
W.P.No.24152 of 2009 in this Court for a mandamus to declare the inaction of
respondent No.2 in considering his application/representation, dated 25.09.2009,
for grant of pattadar pass book and title deed by mutating his name in the
revenue records.
This Court by order, dated 19.11.2009, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, directed respondent No.2 to consider the
representation of respondent No.3 and pass an appropriate order.
After disposal of the writ petition, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned
order, whereunder he has got an enquiry held by respondent No.2 and rendered a
finding that the petitioners have created fake pattadar pass books.  While
ordering cancellation of the pattadar pass book and title deed, respondent No.2
has also ordered initiation of criminal proceedings against the persons
responsible for creating the fake pass books and tampering the entries in 1B
Register.
Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.19519
of 2010.  As the said order of respondent No.2 is not implemented, respondent
No.3 filed W.P.No.23254 of 2012 for its implementation.
I have heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.23254 of 2012 and
Mrs.S.Annapurna, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.19519 of 2010.
Apart from arguing the case on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioners
mainly submitted that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction whatsoever to
entertain the representation of respondent No.3 and pass the impugned order.
I find force in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.  The
A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short "the Act")
provided for the procedure for mutation of the revenue record and issue of
pattadar passbooks and title deeds.
In Thripuvaram Krishna Reddy Vs. Joint Collector, Cuddapah1, this Court held, at
paras 4 and 5, as under :
" The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended and in my view rightly, that
respondent No.2/RDO has no jurisdiction to pass order dated 16.3.1999.  Under
Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 
1971 (for short "the Act") respondent No.2 is empowered to entertain an appeal
filed within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order
passed by respondent No.3 under Section 5(3) of the Act correcting the entries
in the revenue record.
In N. Bal Reddy and others v. Revenue Divisional
officer, Hyderabad and others, 2004(2) ALD 419, 
this Court, however, interpreted
Section 5(5) to the effect that an order granting pattadar passbooks and title
deeds is also comprehended by the said provision.  On such an interpretation, if
respondent No.2 is held to have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal even
against an order issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds, respondent No.4
failed to file an appeal against the said order in the form of an appeal and
within the period of limitation.
 In this context, it is necessary to refer to
Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 
1989, which reads as under:
"21. (1) An appeal against every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer either
making an amendment in the Record of Rights or refusing to make such amendment   
shall lie under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, to the Revenue
Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector/Assistant Collector or such authority as may be
notified by the Commissioner.
(2)  Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be in writing and shall set
forth concisely the grounds thereof within a period of sixty days from the date
of communication of the order and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order
appealed against.
(3)  Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (2) above, shall bear a Court fee
stamp of rupees five only."

Admittedly, neither the so-called petition is in the form of appeal affixed with
the required stamp nor was filed in time.  No application for condonation of
delay was claimed to be filed by respondent No.4 nor respondent No.2 passed any
order condoning the delay before entertaining and adjudicating the appeal on
merits.  Respondent No.2 ought not to have, therefore, entertained the petition
of respondent No.4 and treated it as an appeal.  If respondent No.4 was
aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he should have
filed a statutory appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, within the time limit,
or a civil suit under Section 8(2) of the Act before the competent Civil Court.
As he did not take recourse to either of the two remedies, it is beyond the
jurisdiction of respondent No.2 to entertain the petition filed by respondent
No.4, because he has no power akin to the power vested in respondent No.1 under
Section 9 of the Act."


        From the various provisions of the Act discussed in the above Judgment, it
is evident that respondent No.1 is only an appellate authority.  He cannot act
either as the Primary Authority or the Revisional Authority.  Unless an appeal
is brought before him in the manner as prescribed under Section 5(5) of the Act
and Rule 21 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1989,
respondent No.1 cannot entertain any dispute.  
If respondent No.3 acquired any
right, he could have approached respondent No.2 under Section 4 of the Act. 
 If
any such application was made, respondent No.2 was competent to exercise his  
jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Act, hold an enquiry under sub-section (3)
thereof and pass an order either accepting the application or rejecting the
same.  
If any party is aggrieved by such decision, he can file an appeal under
Section 5(5) of the Act.  
Even if respondent No.3 has approached respondent
No.1, he ought to have relegated him to respondent No.2 instead of arrogating to
himself jurisdiction of respondent No.2.  
On this short ground alone, the order
passed by respondent No.1, which is totally without jurisdiction is liable to be
set-aside.  The impugned order is accordingly set-aside.  
Inasmuch as the civil
suit, in which respondent No.3 is also a defendant, is pending, it is
appropriate that both parties pursue the said civil suit and approach respondent
No.2 under Section 8(2) of the Act based on the outcome of the suit.
        Before parting with this case, it is made clear that if the Revenue officials feel that the petitioners have indulged in fabrication/correction of pattadar passbook and title deed, they shall be free to initiate criminal proceedings according to law.
        In the result, W.P.No.19519/2010 is allowed and W.P.No.23254/2012 is 
dismissed. 
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, WPMP No.24742/2010 and 29667/2012
filed in the respective Writ Petitions for interim reliefs are disposed of as
infructuous.

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J    
26th November, 2013

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.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.