Sec.3 & Sec.9 of ROR Act - third parties names were shown against their properties - made an application before the collector - collector directed the RDO to decided the matter treating it as an appeal - R.D.O gave directions to the Tahasildar - No remedy - A.P.High court held that since the entires not made for the first time with in one year from the date of notification as per sec.3 of R.O.R. Act - Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to made any corrections in the entiries with out permission from Collector - Hence the Collector is the appropriate authority to decide the same as per sec.9 and as such directions given to dispose the application within 3 months- 2015 A.P. msk law reports

On noticing that some third parties names were shown 
against their properties in the revenue records, the petitioners
approached the District Collector bringing the said fact to his
notice and sought necessary corrections in the revenue records.

It is not in dispute that as on the date of application by the
petitioners to the District Collector, third parties names were
appearing in the revenue records against the properties to which
the petitioners are claiming right.  In other words, the petitioners
are seeking substitution of their names in the place of the names
already recorded in the revenue records.  
Entries in the revenue
records reflecting a partys name relate to the proceedings of the
Tahsildar under Section 3 of the Act. 
 It is not the case of the
petitioners that at the time when the names of the said third
parties were initially recorded (the date & details of which are not
mentioned by the petitioners in the writ petition), the claim of the
petitioners was also there before the Mandal Revenue Officer, who
was exercising powers under Section 3 of the Act.

A perusal of Sections 3 to 5 and 9 of the Act leave no
manner of doubt that the Tahsildar is not vested  with any
powers to make  corrections either  suo motu or on an
application except at the time of  making entries for the
first time in terms of the notification issued under Sections
3(1), 3(2) of the Act.  
Any corrections in relation to the
entries could be made in the given circumstances
satisfying  Section 3(3) of the Act  within one year. 
If the
case requiring corrections of the revenue records beyond
the time limit of one year,  necessary orders can be passed
only by the District Collector in exercise  of the revisional
powers and the Tahsildar is not vested with any such
In that view of the matter, liberty is given to the
petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent-District
Collector, and submit an application ventilating his
grievance and seek redress.  
On submission of such 
application, the 2nd respondent-District Collector shall
dispose of the same within a period of six months.

In the circumstances, the District Collector is directed to
call for the record and exercise powers conferred upon him under
Section 9 of the Act to redress the grievance of the petitioners
within a period of 3 months from today. 2015 A.P. msk law reports


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

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.