Disposed

B.Nagaraja Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Nov 2019WP/45163/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Tahsildar's action of deleting the petitioner's name and entering respondents' names in revenue records without notice violated statutory provisions. The notice issued by the Sub Collector was set aside, and parties were directed to approach the revisional authority.

What did the court decide?

The Tahsildar's action declared illegal and without jurisdiction; the notice dated 09.05.2019 set aside; parties directed to approach the Collector under Section 9 of the 1971 Act.

B.Nagaraja Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.19064 OF 2016, 45163 OF 2018 AND 7997 OF 2019

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Since these three Writ Petitions are inter-related and as the parties are also the same, so also the contentions, in order to have a quietus to the entire litigation in these Writ Petitions, this Court deems it appropriate to club these Writ Petitions and dispose of the same by way of this Common Order.

¶5

The petitioner in W.P. Nos.19064 of 2016 and 7997 of 2019 is one and the same, and the petitioner in W.P. No.45163 of 2018 is respondent No.5 in W.P. No.19064 of 2016 and respondent No.4 in W.P. No.7997 of 2019.

¶6

In W.P. No.19064 of 2016, challenge is to the action of the Tahsildar, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District, respondent No.4 therein, in deleting name of the petitioner in the record of rights in respect of the landed property situated in Sy.No.33/2 an extent of Acs.9.73 cents of Thonduru village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District, and entering names of the respondents 5 and 6 in Form I-B Namuna. W.P. No.45163 of 2018, filed by one Mr. B.Nagaraja Naidu, who is respondent No.5 in W.P. Nos.19064 of 2016 and respondent No.4 in W.P.No.7997 of 2019, challenges the action of the respondents therein in not considering his representation dated 22.10.2018 for correction of entries in the revenue records, and the petitioner therein seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 22.10.2018 and pass appropriate orders.

¶7

¶8

According to the petitioner in W.P. Nos.19064 of 2016 and 7997 of 2019, he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.9.73 cents situated in Sy.No.33/2 of Thonduru village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District. It is further stated that the petitioner purchased the said property by way of an agreement of sale dated 20.04.1981 from one Sri V.Rangaiah Naidu for a total consideration of Rs.31,136/- and after payment of the entire amount on 17.03.1982, an unregistered sale letter was executed by the said Rangaiah Naidu and the possession was given. It is further stated that thereafter, name of the petitioner was entered in the record of rights and the Tahsildar, Varadaiahpalem issued pattedar passbook and title deeds for the said land on 10.04.1993 and the copies of the Adangal and Form I-B register were obtained by the petitioner on 26.05.2016 indicating the name of the petitioner only. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P. No.19064 of 2016 that in the year 2016, names of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were entered in Form I-B register and the said change of entries was carried out by the Tahsildar without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. It is the submission of his counsel that the Tahsildar has no power of effecting change of entries after a period of one year as per sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the 1971 Act’). It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the impugned action is also contrary to Rules 15 to 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘the 1989 Rules’), which mandate issuance of notice to the persons likely to be affected and the holding of enquiry.

¶9

¶10

Coming to W.P. No.45163 of 2018 filed by one Sri B.Nagaraja Naidu, – the said Writ Petition came to be filed alleging inaction on the part of the respondents in considering his representation dated 22.10.2018 for correction of entries in the revenue records in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2.20 cents in Sy.No.33/2 of Thonduru village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District. The said Writ Petition obviously came to be filed without impleading the petitioner in W.P. No.19064 of 2016. On 13.12.2018, the said Writ Petition came up for admission before the composite High Court, and in I.A. No.1 of 2018, the composite High Court granted interim order, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 22.10.2018 for correction of entries in the revenue records in respect of the subject land in accordance with law. Obviously, as a consequence of the said order, a notice bearing Roc.G/1335/2016, dated 09.05.2019 came to be issued by the SubCollector, Tirupati, proposing to hold enquiry and directing the parties to appear for the same on 20.05.2019. Assailing the said notice dated 09.05.2019, W.P. No.7997 of 2019 came to be filed by the petitioner in W.P. No.19064 of 2016. This Court vide its order dated 27.06.2019 in I.A. No.1 of 2019, directed the Sub Collector not to proceed with the enquiry in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.9.73 cents in Sy.No.33/2, Thonduru village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District pursuant to the notice dated 09.05.2019.

¶11

According to the petitioner in W.P. No.45163 of 2018, an extent of Acs.9.73 cents in Sy.No.33/2 of Thonduru village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District, was inherited by his father one Sri K.V.Balarama Naidu from his ancestors and his possession would be evident from the revenue records, such as 10(1) Adangal, and

¶12

¶13

that the said K.V.Balarama Naidu passed away on 10.09.1988 and mother of the petitioner also passed away on 30.08.2017. It is further stated that the name of the petitioner’s father continued in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor till 2013. It is further stated that when an application was made by him to incorporate his name in the revenue records, the needful was done only to an extent of Acs.7.53 cents leaving Acs.2.20 cents, and it prompted the petitioner in W.P. No.45163 of 2018 to file a representation before the authorities.

¶14

In the present Writ Petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is concerned only with the procedure adopted by the respondent-authorities under the provisions of the 1971 Act and the Rules framed thereunder, but not with the title to the property, and obviously, the same cannot be the subject matter for adjudication before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, as per the records available before this Court, the Tahsildar issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioner in W.P. Nos.19064 of 2016 and 7997 of 2019 in the year 1993. The Adangals and Form I-B register placed before this Court and extracts of the same show that they were issued on 20.04.2016 and they indicate the name of the petitioner in W.P. No.19064 of 2016. But, in the Form I- B register dated 01.06.2016, name of the petitioner in W.P. No.19064 of 2016 does not find place.

¶15

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. Nos.19064 of 016 and 7997 of 2019, beyond the period of one year, the Tahsildar obviously cannot exercise his jurisdiction under Section 3(3) of the Act. It is also required to be noted that the

¶16

¶17

Revenue Divisional Officer also cannot meddle with the issue as per the provisions of Section 5 of the 1971 Act. The only alternative remedy which is available to the parties is Section 9 of the 1971 Act, which deals with the power of revision conferred on the Collector. Section 9 of the 1971 Act reads thus:

¶18

" 9. Revision :––– The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly:

¶19

Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this Section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation."

¶20

It is also the specific case of the petitioner in W.P. Nos.19064 of 2016 and 7997 of 2019 that the Tahsildar, without issuing notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, deleted name of the petitioner and entered names of respondents 5 and 6 in Form 1B in respect of the landed property situated in Sy.No.33/2 an extent of Acs.9.73 cents of Thonduru village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District. The said action on the part of the Tahsildar in not issuing notice to the persons likely to be affected by the change of the entries in the revenue records, is a patent and palpable violation of the provisions of Rules 15 to 17 of the 1989 Rules, and therefore, in order to

¶21

¶22

have a quietus for this issue and the litigation, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these Writ Petitions with the following orders.

¶23

(i) declaring the action of the Tahsildar, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District in deleting name of the petitioner in W.P. No.19064 of 2016 in record of rights in respect of the property situated in Sy.No.33/2 an extent of Acs.9.73 cents of Thonduru village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District and entering names of respondents 5 and 6, in Form 1- B Namuna, as highly illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989;

¶24

(ii) notice bearing No. Roc.G/1335/2016, dated 09.05.2019, issued by the Sub Collector, Tirupati, Chittoor district is hereby set aside;

¶25

(iii) the petitioner in Writ Petition No.45163 of 2018, who is respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.19064 of 2016 and respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.7997 of 2019, and respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.19064 of 2016, are at liberty to approach the revisional authority under the provisions of Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 for their grievance, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this common order, and if any such revision is filed by them, the same be considered and appropriate action be taken strictly in accordance with law and after hearing all the stake holders including the petitioners and unofficial respondents in the present Writ Petitions, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months thereafter. It is made clear that the said exercise

¶26

¶27

shall be undertaken by the revisional authority on merits without reference to the point of limitation.

¶28

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

___________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶30

Date: 01.11.2019 Siva/DRK

¶31

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶33

COMMON ORDER IN

¶34

WRIT PETITION Nos.19064 OF 2016, 45163 OF 2018 AND 7997 OF 2019

¶35

Date: 01.11.2019

¶36

Siva/DRK

B.Nagaraja Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Nagaraja Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inturi Chandra Mohan Rao Vs State of Ap

Ch. Kiran Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Maddula Neelakantam Vs Pachamatla Muralikrishna Subbaraju

Ganapathi Adinarayana Reddy Vs Smt. Ganapathi Ammajamma (Died)

Obulapuram Paramasiva Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Obulapuram Paramasiva"Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh