Allowed

Gattamaneni Adhi Lakshmi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Mar 2022WP/4457/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the revenue authorities finding on succession and title in a mutation order. The court held that such findings are beyond revenue jurisdiction and are subject to the decision of the pending civil suit under Section 8(2).

What did the court decide?

The finding on succession and title in the impugned order is set aside, subject to the pending civil suit.

Gattamaneni Adhi Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.4457 OF 2018

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“To issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.5 in deciding the Title dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No.6 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-90 cents, Sy.No.330/A, situated at Vorvakallu Village, Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District and directing to incorporate the name of Respondent No.6 in the Revenue Records vide RC No.73/2017 dated 01.12.2017 as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and without any power and contrary to settled principles of law, and consequently set aside the order passed by Respondent No.5, vide RC No.73/2017 dated 01.12.2017.”

¶6

The only grievance of this petitioner is that, the finding recorded at the end of the order impugned in the writ petition R.C.No.73/2017 dated 01.12.2017 is erroneous on the face of it, as the revenue authorities are not competent to decide about the succession of estate of the deceased Ghattamaneni Ramaiah s/o late Chennaiah.

¶7

The facts are not required to be reiterated here and examination of the finding recorded in the last paragraph of the impugned order is suffice for the limited purpose, in view of the submission made by Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.6.

¶8

The limited question is whether, revenue authorities are competent to record such finding deciding the succession of estate of the deceased Ghattamaneni Ramaiah s/o late Chennaiah.

¶9

Mrs. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, the finding recorded by the Tahsildar is contrary to the law laid down by Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Smt. Jayamma vs. The State of Karnataka¹ and learned single

¶10

1 W.P.No.6872 of 2013 (KLR)

¶11

MSM,J WP_4457_2018

¶12

¶13

Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kencharayappa vs. State of Andhra Pradesh² .

¶14

Fairly, Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.6 submitted that, to the extent of finding appears to be beyond the scope of jurisdiction of revenue authorities, but, the Court cannot issue a direction to mutate the name of this petitioner in the revenue records. At best, the Court may direct either of the parties to approach competent Civil Court invoking Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

¶15

The dispute is only with regard to mutation of name of this petitioner and rival claim of the unofficial respondent, on the application made by these petitioners. Such finding is recorded deciding the succession of estate of deceased Ghattamaneni Ramaiah s/o late Chennaiah. Therefore, the finding is contrary to the law laid down by Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Smt. Jayamma vs. The State of Karnataka (referred supra) and learned single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kencharayappa vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra). Hence, by applying the principles laid down in the above judgments of High Court of Andhra Pradesh and persuaded by the law laid by the Full Bench of Karnataka High Court, the operative portion of the order impugned is liable to be set-aside.

¶16

However, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner has already invoked jurisdiction of civil court in view of Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and it is pending before Senior Civil Judge Court, Sattenapalli in O.S.No.102 of 2018. Hence, the finding

2 2015 (2) ALT 526

MSM,J WP_4457_2018

of the Tahsildar under the impugned order deciding the title to the property and succession of the property in the operative portion of the order is hereby set-aside, leaving it open to the petitioners and respondents to raise all the permissible contentions before the Civil Court, in a pending suit. The other findings recorded in the order impugned in the writ petition are always subject to the decision of the civil court where suit is pending.

¶21

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶23

also stand closed.

¶24

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶25

Date:07.03.2022

¶26