Allowed

P.Rajasekhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Oct 2022WP/36283/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions allowed setting aside a Revenue Divisional Officer's order on property rights. The High Court held that such complex questions require a Civil Court. Petitioners were denied natural justice as no opportunity was provided to contest before the Officer. Petitions quashed impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; impugned order dated 27.08.2018 set aside; miscellaneous petitions dismissed.

P.Rajasekhar Reddy Vs State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶2

W.P.Nos.32923 and 36283 of 2018

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appeared for the petitioners in W.P.No.32923 of 2018. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appeared for the respondents.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 27.08.2018 is far beyond the scope and power of the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). He points out that the scope of jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer in such matters is extremely limited, but in the case on hand, he has virtually granted a declaratory decree by deciding on very complex of question of Hindu Law and Succession. By reading the order, the learned senior counsel points out that the Hindu Succession Amendment Act is applied to decide the rights in

¶6

the property by the Revenue Divisional Officer. He points out that such power is only given to a Civil Court of competent

¶7

¶8

jurisdiction. Apart from that, he points out that the prayer in the appeal is for cancellation of the Pattadar Passbook and the Record of Rights. It is not a prayer against the original entries in the revenue records and that therefore, it is directly opposed the judgment in Ratnamma v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District

¶9

and Ors .¹ . He also points out that the petitioners were impleaded as respondents before the Revenue Divisional Officer, but they were not given any opportunity to contest the case. It is pointed out that this aspect of the writ averment is not denied by the respondents. Therefore, learned senior counsel submits that both on fact and on law, the impugned order is set aside.

¶10

Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.36283 of 2018 also advances similar arguments both on fact and law. He points out that the same order is impugned by these petitioners also.

¶11

On behalf of the respondents, Sri Ambati Sudhakar Rao argues the matter at length. He submits that for the purpose

¶12

1 2015 6 ALD 609

¶13

¶14

of arriving at a decision, the Revenue Divisional Officer examined the facts and the law before coming to a conclusion. He submits that the statutory rights given to a daughter were recognised by the Revenue Divisional Officer, but in the strict sense of the term, an independent finding has not been given. Therefore, he supports the order and states that it is not contrary to the provisions of the statute. He also asserts that the right of a person to execute the gift deed has been considered and the statutory rights of a daughter have been merely referred and upheld. He also points out that the statute provides for a revision/an alternative remedy and therefore, the writ is not maintainable.

¶15

After considering the questions raised, the submissions made and the pleadings, this Court notices that it is a fact that in the impugned order serious questions of the flow of title have been decided. The marital relationship between the late M.Chenna Reddy and his family was discussed. The rights of the daughter have also been considered before coming to the conclusion that the issuance of the pattadar passbook and title deeds basing upon the gift executed without any rights by M.Chenna Reddy is not admissible.

¶16

¶17

In the opinion of this Court, the issues raised and considered in the impugned proceedings can only be raised or decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction and not by a revenue official.

¶18

This Court also notices that the prayer in the appeal filed is for cancellation of the pattadar passbook and title deed. The original entries in the revenue records have not been actually challenged. The pleading in the preamble before the grounds of appeal clearly shows that the appeal is filed for cancellation of the pattadar passbook and title deed. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this is directly opposed in the case of Ratnamma (1 supra), which directed that the entries in the record alone should be challenged and not the Act.

¶19

As far as the denial of opportunity is concerned, this Court notices that in the interim order passed on 12.09.2018, prima facie , it was observed that the writ petitioners did not get an opportunity of hearing. The vacate stay petition along with the copy of the interim order was filed on 23.07.2021. No specific averment is made in the vacate stay petition about the opportunity being given and arguments being advanced

¶20

¶21

by the petitioners before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The revenue department also did not file any documentary proof to show that the petitioners had in fact been given adequate opportunity to argue their case. Once the Court holds that there is a failure of the rules of natural justice, a writ is maintainable even if an alternative remedy is available. The law on this aspect is very well settled and need not be repeated here.

¶22

Therefore, both on fact and on law and for the above mentioned reasons, the writ petitions are allowed by setting aside the order dated 27.08.2018 passed in RC.No.D2/1705/2017. No order as to costs. As a sequel,

¶23

the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶24

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

¶25

Date: 18.10.2022 KLP

P.Rajasekhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Rajasekhar Reddy v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Datla Janaki Rama Raju Vs Pattaneshetti Ravi Subhash,I.a.S

Puvvada Gandhi, Vs State of a.P., Rep. Prl. Secy to Govt, Rev. Dept

Guggulothu Varalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C.Adinarayana Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Satyanarayana, Vs The Village Revenue Officer

M. Ranga Swamy, Vs The Village Revenue Officer