Partly allowed

R.Somla Naik v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Aug 2021WP/13284/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioners challenged the Revenue Divisional Officer's order declaring the title of other parties as absolute owners. The court ruled that revenue authorities cannot declare title and set aside the specific finding regarding ownership, remanding the matter for a de novo enquiry to mutate records in favor of the rightful owner.

What did the court decide?

The finding regarding the respondent No. 5 to 7 becoming the owners based on civil court judgments is set aside, and the Tahsildar is directed to conduct a de novo enquiry and mutate the entries in th

R.Somla Naik Vs the State of Ap — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.13284 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in entertaining the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.5 to 7 for declaration of their title in respect of lands in Sy.No.39/A an extent of Ac.4.31 cents out of Ac.12.92 cents and an extent of Ac.2.83 cents out of Ac.8.49 cents in Sy.No.39/C and an extent of Ac.8.64 cents out of Ac.25.93 cents in Sy.No.45 of Ramagiri village, Pamidi Mandal, Ananthapur District and passed orders vide D.Dis No.D2/1564/2019, dated 05.06.2021 of the 3^rd respondent/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and pass such other order ……”.

¶6

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the land in S.No.45 an extent of Ac.25.93 cents, S.No.39/A an extent of Ac.12.92 cents and S.No.39/C an extent of Ac.8.49 cents respectively of Ramagiri village, Pamidi Mandal of Ananthapur District, the same was inherited by the petitioners from their fore-fathers and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property for the last 90 years. The petitioners were also issued pattadar pass books and their names are mutated in the web land.

¶7

As the land originally belongs to Lale Naik, Tukke Naik and Singhe Naik, in record of holding, their names are shown as Lale Naik as Lalegadu and Tukke Naik as Tukkegadu and Same Naik for the Survey No.45. With regard to Sy.No.39/A and 39/C in the Record of

¶8

¶9

Holding it is shown as Ramachandra Naik, S/o.Kiche Naik, who is the father of Lale Naik, Tukke Naik and Singhe Naik.

¶10

The family members of Tukke Naik @ Tukkegadu, Same Naik @ Samegadu and Lale Naik @ Lalegadu had been in possession and enjoyment of the property in Sy.No.45 an extent of Ac.25.93 cents, Sy.No.39/A an extent of Ac.12.92 cents and Sy.No.39/C an extent of Ac.8.49 cents having succeeded the same from their grand fathers Rupla Naik, his sons by name Same Naik, Kiche Naik and Ramachandra Naik, his sons Lale Naik, Tukke Naik and Singe Naik for the past many years.

¶11

While the things stood thus, the respondent Nos.5 to 7 made an application No.ATP20200616706 in „Spandana‟ in the year 2020 to the 2^nd respondent-District collector, Ananthapur for mutation of their names in the revenue records on the ground that there is a relinquishment deed in their favour in the year 1954 which is allegedly created by respondent Nos.5 to 7 by themselves and the grand father of the petitioners is no way concerned and the respondent Nos.5 to 7 never acted upon the said relinquishment deed and also they filed Injunction Suit in OS.No.89 of 2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gooty and the same was decreed exparte on 26.09.2002 in respect of Sy.No.39/A and 39/C and the same was referred to 3^rd respondent for enquiry and in turn the 3^rd respondent forwarded the same to the 4^th respondent/ Mandal Revenue Officer, Pamidi for enquiry.

¶12

The 4^th respondent conducted an enquiry and obtained legal opinion from the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Gooty and gave a report vide proceedings R.C.No.336/A/2020, dt.23.09.2020 informing that

¶13

¶14

the respondent Nos.5 to 7 are not in possession of the subject lands and the petitioners already obtained pattadar pass book and entered their names in the web land, hence the respondent Nos.5 to 7 are not eligible for mutation in the revenue records in respect of land in an extent of Ac.12.92 cents in Sy.No.39/A and an extent of Ac.8.49 cents in Sy.No.39/C.

¶15

Based on the report of 4^th respondent, the respondent Nos.5 to 7 preferred an appeal before the 3^rd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur and the 3^rd respondent conducted enquiry and passed the order based on the relinquishment deed executed in the year 1954 and exparte decree in OS.No.87 of 2002, OS.No.88 of 2002 and OS.No.89 of 2002 vide D.Dis No.D2/1564/2019, dated 05.06.2021 declaring the title of the respondent Nos.5 to 7 as absolute owners of the property in an extent of Ac.4.31 cents out of Ac.12.92 cents in Sy. No.39/A and an extent of Ac.2.83 cents out of Ac.8.49 cents in Sy.No.39/C and an extent of Ac.8.64 cents out of Ac.25.93 cents in Sy.No.45 of Ramagiri village, Pamidi Mandal, Ananthapur District. The petitioners now questioned the order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur District/ 3^rd respondent herein in entertaining the Appeal filed by the respondent Nos.5 to 7 for declaration of their title in respect of lands in Sy.No.39/A an extent of Ac.4.31 cents out of Ac.12.92 cents, an extent of Ac.2.83 cents out of Ac.8.49 cents in Sy.No.39/C and an extent of Ac.8.64 cents out of Ac.25.93 cents in Sy.No.45 of Ramagiri village, Pamidi Mandal, Ananthapur District and the finding recorded by the 3^rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law since the authorities under A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act cannot declare the title of the parties except recording the entries in

¶16

¶17

the revenue records and issuance of pattadar pass book and title deeds, therefore, the petitioners requested to set aside the order of the 3^rd respondent.

¶18

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the finding at the last para of the order passed by the 3^rd respondent regarding title is beyond the scope of enquiry permitted under the Act and the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer are not supposed to declare the title to the property and the findings recorded by the 3^rd respondent is contrary to law and requested to set aside the same. Whereas Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 would fairly submit that the finding is beyond the scope of enquiry and requested to pass appropriate order. It is further submitted that the 4^th respondent recorded a finding that the respondent Nos.5 to 7 are in possession and enjoyment of the property while 3^rd respondent recorded finding is beyond the scope of enquiry under the Act.

¶19

Undisputedly, report was called for by the Tahsildar basing on the representation in Spandana programme submitted to the 2^nd respondent. But aggrieved by the findings of the Tahsildar, an appeal preferred by the respondent Nos.5 to 7 and the 3^rd respondent passed the impugned order, however a finding is recorded in the last para of the order as follows :

¶20

As per the material papers filed by the appellants the Hon‟ble Civil Court passed orders in OS.No.87 of 2002, 88 of 2002 and 89 of 2002 granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs V.Venkatesh Naik, S/o.Sugali Ramula Naik; V.Balu Naik, S/o.Same Naik and Krishna Naik,

¶21

¶22

S/o.Durge Naik against the respondents in Decree and Judgment dated 26.09.2002. The above orders of the Civil Court are not challenged before any appellate Court. Hence the decree holders have become absolute owners of the property in an extent of Ac.4.31 cents out of Ac.12.92 cents in Sy.No.39/A an extent of Ac.2.83 cents out of Ac.8.49 cents in Sy.No.39/C an extent of Ac.8.64 cents out of Ac.25.93 cents in Sy.No.45 of Ramagiri village, Pamidi Mandal, Ananthapuram District. As per the report of Tahsildar, Pamidi, the appellants are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the appellants have got balance of convenience in their favour and as such the appeal is allowed. The Tahsildar Pamidi is directed to take necessary action for deletion of the entries mutated erroneously if any, after conduct of denovo enquiry and mutate the entries in web land in favour of the rightful person as per ROR Rules”

¶23

Thus, as seen from the order passed by the 3^rd respondent, the matter was remitted to Tahsildar directing to conduct denovo enquiry and mutate the entries in the web land in favour of rightful person as per ROR Rules.

¶24

Thus the finding to the extent that the respondent Nos.5 to 7 became the owners based on the Decree and Judgment in OS.No.87 of 2002, OS.No.88 of 2002 and OS.No.89 of 2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gooty is beyond the scope of enquiry permitted under the Act and Rules. The revenue authorities are not supposed to declare the title of the person who approached the revenue authorities under

¶25

¶26

the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act. Therefore the finding regarding the title to the property based on the Judgements in issues recorded by the 3^rd respondent is hereby set aside while directing the Tahsildar to conduct denovo enquiry while maintaining the other part of the order i.e., to conduct denovo enquiry and mutate the names of rightful owner in the revenue record.

¶27

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶29

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 13.08.2021 sj

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO.13284 OF 2021

¶35

Date: 13.08.2021

¶36

R.Somla Naik v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Somla Naik v. the State of Ap

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

Jangala Chelamayya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. B. Jayasudha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Srinivasulu Vs Smt. D.Devi

G.Varalakshmi, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt B.Srinidhi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.B. Pantulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh