Disposed

Smt.Rudra Sampurnamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jul 2021WP/2595/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the revision of land records in favor of third parties without issuing notice to the petitioner. The Court directed the Revenue Authorities to follow Section 5 of the AP Rights in Land Act and Rule 19(1) by issuing a notice in Form VIII before adjudicating the petitioner's correction application.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to issue a notice in Form VIII to the petitioner and proceed with the correction application within two months.

Smt.Rudra Sampurnamma, Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2595 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶5

of India, seeking the following relief:

¶6

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in failing to consider Mee-seva application of the petitioner bearing Application No.RMU012106136884, dated 22.01.2021 to restore the entries as it is stands in the name of petitioner on the web land bearing S.No.45/7 in an extent of Ac.0.11 cents situated at Merlapaka Revenue Village Accounts of Balakrishnapuram Village, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rules framed there under and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India.”

¶7

The case of petitioner in brief is that originally one Rudra Mangaiah is the absolute owner of the land in Sy.No.45/7 in an extent of Ac. 0.11 cents of Merlapaka Revenue Village Accounts, Balakrishnapuram Village lands and his name was entered in Settlement Fair Adangal as a Pattadar. After his demise, his wife by name Rudra Nagabhushanamma became absolute owner of the property, her name was mutated in all the revenue records as she is Pattadar and enjoyer of the same. The said Rudra Nagabhushanmma also died leaving behind the petitioner as her sole legal heir and consequently the petitioner’s name was mutated as Pattadar and enjoyer of the land and issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed dated 27.03.1997 in his favour. Subsequently, the revenue authorities have also issued e-Pass Book in her name on 21.02.2017 vide Proceedings No.7R/15/2016. Since the year 1997, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land as on date, the petitioner obtained loan for purchase of sheep from Sree Gokula Sheep Development Sahakara Sangam, Yerpedu and executed a mortgage deed, dated 06.02.2018 by depositing her title deeds.

¶8

¶9

While the matter stood thus, the 3^rd respondent mutated the name of respondents 5 and 6 in the revenue records without issuing any notice or without conducting any enquiry, which is illegal and arbitrary. However, the petitioner made an application dated 22.01.2021 through Mee Seva for correction of the entries in revenue records vide application bearing No.RMU012106136884 under Form VI-A of R.O.R. Act, but so far no action was taken by the respondents.

¶10

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the change of the name of petitioner in revenue records without following due procedure is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rules 15, 16 and 19(1) of Rules framed under the Act and Section 5(1)(3) of the Act as per the law laid down by the full bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer¹ .

¶11

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue requested to issue appropriate direction to dispose of the application of the petitioner submitted through Mee Seva, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to respondents 5 and 6 strictly adhering to Rules 15, 16 and 19(1) of Rules framed under the Act and Section 5(1)(3) of the Act.

¶12

The first and foremost contention of the petitioner is that a notice is to be issued in Form VIII in terms of Rule 19(1) of the Rules and Section 5 of the Act deals with procedure to be followed for amendment and updating of record of rights. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 mandates publication of notice as per rules. According to sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, where the Mandal Revenue

¶13

1 2008 – AIR –AP-15

¶14

¶15

Officer has reason to believe that an acquisition of any right of a description to which Section 4 applies has taken place and of which an intimation has not been made to him under that Section and where he considers that an amendment has to be effected in the record of rights, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall carry out the said amendment in the record of rights. But, sub-section (2) of Section of the Act is silent as to the rules, but conferred power on the Mandal Revenue Officer to amend or effect such modification when no intimation is issued under Section 4 of the Act, is given to the Mandal Revenue Officer.

¶16

Section 4 of the Act obligates any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Mandal Revenue Officer within ninety days from the date of such acquisition, and the said Mandal Revenue Officer shall give or send a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such intimation to the person making it.

¶17

Thus, in case the person, who acquired right by any of the modes specified in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer can exercise such power as per subsection (2) of Section 5 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act is silent as to the rules as to how such amendment is to be effected.

¶18

¶19

It is an undisputed fact that a notice in Form VIII is published, which consists of two parts and the proforma of notice is extracted hereunder.

¶20

Whereas the undersigned has received an intimation of the fact of acquisition of a right as described in the schedule hereunder and it appears that an amendment has to be made in the Record of Rights in consequence thereof ...................

¶21

and/or

¶22

Whereas the Recording Authority has reason to believe that an acquisition of a right has taken place as described in the schedule hereunder and it appears that amendment has to be made in the Record of Rights in consequence thereof.

¶23

Now, therefore, under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh [Rights in Land] and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971.

¶24

All persons interested or affected are hereby required to show cause on or before .................. (date to be specified not being earlier than 30 days from the service/publication of the notice) as to why the amendment should not be carried out.

¶25

You.....................................................................

¶26

All persons interested or affected are hereby required to appear on or before the undersigned on .................... (date not

¶27

earlier than forty five days from the service/publication of the notice) as ....................... (Place) .......................... time in connection with the enquiry proposed to be held in respect of the above matter.

¶28

Recording Authority

¶29

SCHEDULE

¶30

S.No. etc., of the entry relating Brief purport of proposed to which is sought to be amended amendment

¶31

¶32

The notice in Form VIII consists of two parts. First part consists of recording of reason to believe that applicant has acquired right in the immovable property. According to last paragraph, the persons interested are entitled to submit their objections. Therefore, the second part of the impugned notice is only an intimation to the persons interested to express his prima facie opinion as to acquisition of right in the immovable property and in the last paragraph, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall call for objections from the persons interested.

¶33

Proviso to Section 5(1) and Section 5(3) of Act No.26 of 1971 represent statutory embodiment of the most important facet of the rules of natural justice i.e. audi alterem partem . These provisions contemplate issue of notice to the persons likely to be affected by the action/decision of the Mandal Revenue Officer to carry out or not to carry out amendment in the Record of Rights. Proviso to Section 5(1) lays down that if the Mandal Revenue Officer decides not to make an amendment in the Record of Rights, then he shall pass appropriate order only after giving an opportunity of making representation to the person, who gives intimation regarding acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4.

¶34

Section 5(3) provides for issue of written notice to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment. Similarly, a notice is required to be issued to any other person whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. A copy of the amendment and the notice is also required to be published in the prescribed manner. The publication

¶35

¶36

of notice in the prescribed manner is in addition to the notice, which is required to be given in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and also to any other person whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. To put it differently, the publication of a copy of the amendment and the notice is only supplemental and not the alternative mode of giving notice to the persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other person to whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. If the Legislature thought that publication of a general notice in Form-VIII will be sufficient compliance of the rules of natural justice, then there was no occasion to incorporate a specific requirement of issuing written notice to the persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment. The requirement of issuing written notice to such persons clearly negates the argument that publication of notice in Form-VII is sufficient. Thus the language of Form VIII in which notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of substantive provision contained in Section 5(3), which casts a duty on recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment [vide Chinnam Pandurangam ’s case (referred supra)].

¶37

¶38

In view of the principle laid down in the above judgment, certain procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the Act and proviso thereto is mandatory.

¶39

When the respondents submitted intimation in compliance of Section 4 of the Act, the procedure prescribed in Section 5 of the Act read with Rule 19 of the Rules is to be followed. Issue of notice in Form VIII vide Rule 19 (1) of the Rules and its publication vide Rule 19 (2) of the Rules framed is only in compliance of mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act. The respondents though not require to decided title of the immovable property, still they are bound to follow the procedure. When a person files an application for correction of passbook, he cannot be asked to file a civil suit on the ground that some third party has raised the question of legality of title. The authorities cannot escape from their responsibility to make an entry or amend the entries in the revenue records according to the procedure; though they cannot decide the title and possession, but they should exercise their power subject to any decree or order passed by Civil Court in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in “ R.S.Murthy v. Joint Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada² ”.

¶40

In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam ’s case (referred (1) supra) the 3^nd respondent is under obligation to make necessary enquiry by issuing notice in Form VIII to the petitioner only after conducting necessary enquiry. Further, the 3^rd respondent can

¶41

2 2001 (4) ALT 337 (D.B)

¶42

¶43

take appropriate action strictly adhering to Section 5 and Rule 19(1) by issuing notice in Form VIII so also publication of notice in Form VIII in compliance of statutory obligation and after affording reasonable opportunity to respondents 5 and 6 pass appropriate orders on the application submitted by the petitioner through Mee Seva vide Application No.RMU012106136884, dated 22.01.2021, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44