Remanded

Bathula Brahmaiah v. The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Sept 2023WP/11482/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside revenue orders determining land title in a mutation dispute, holding that revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate title. The matter was remanded for a fresh enquiry with hearing opportunities, and status quo was maintained.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 08.02.2020 and 13.11.2017 set aside; matter remitted to appellate authority for fresh enquiry within three months; status quo maintained.

Bathula Brahmaiah Vs The Joint Collector and… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.11482 of 2020

¶4

Bathula Brahmaiah, S/o China Ankaiah, aged 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Yerrabalem Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District and another.

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District, and four others.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners : P. Nagendra Reddy

¶10

Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue

¶11

Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, learned counsel

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The writ petition under Article 226 is filed challenging the proceedings dated 08.02.2020, passed by respondent No.1 in D.Dis.7981/2016/B confirming the orders of respondent No.2 passed in D.Dis.7981/2016/B dated 13.11.2017, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶14

Page 2 of 11

¶15

SRS, J W.P.No.11482 of 2020

¶16

The case of the petitioners is that petitioners are absolute owners of land of an extent of Ac.1-56 cents in survey No.117/2 of Yerabalam village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District, being ancestral. According to the petitioners, brother of petitioners’ grandfather purchased the subject property under registered sale deed bearing No.91/1964 dated 24.02.1964. Subsequently, in the partition, the subject land fell to the share of petitioners’ grandfather, by name Bathula China Balaiah. The name of petitioners’ grandfather was updated in the revenue records and later authority issued pattadar passbook and title deeds in favour of petitioners’ grandfather. In the year, 2016, respondent No.5 filed appeal before respondent No.2 under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), without filing any application to condone delay. The said appeal was allowed on 13.11.2017. Against the order dated 13.11.2017 petitioners filed revision before respondent No.1 by raising various grounds. However, respondent No.1 dismissed the revision confirming the

¶17

Page 3 of 11

¶18

SRS, J W.P.No.11482 of 2020

¶19

order of respondent No.2, without looking into the grounds raised by the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition.

¶20

Respondent No.1 filed counter. It was contended that respondent No.2/Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Kandukur enquired and after hearing the arguments of both sides, found that the Tahsildar failed to follow the procedure while updating Record of Rights (for short ‘ROR’) in favour of Bathula China Balaiah. Thus, RDO cancelled the entries in ROR and directed Tahsildar to issue pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of respondent No.5. Further, respondent No.1, after conducting enquiry and verifying the records, while confirming the order of RDO, stated that RDO has observed that the Tahsildar, Donakonda, in fact, violated Section 5(3) of the Act while updating record of rights in favour of Bathula China Balaiah and accordingly, dismissed the revision. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶21

Respondent No.5 filed separate counter affidavit. It was contended inter alia that respondent No.5 is owner of the subject land. The lands originally belonged to Pagadala

¶22

Page 4 of 11

¶23

SRS, J W.P.No.11482 of 2020

¶24

Kondaiah, S/o Lingaiah and his name was reflected in the Fair Land Register. After demise of said Pagadala Kondaiah, property was devolved upon his legal heirs. In the family arrangement, the subject land fell to the share of Pagadala Pedayogaiah, father of respondent No.5. After the death of father of respondent No.5, respondent No.5 succeeded the property. When petitioner No.1 and others interfered with possession of respondent No.5 over the subject property, respondent No.5 filed O.S.No.191 of 2015 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Darsi, for grant of perpetual injunction. The said suit was decreed on 28.01.2016. Thereafter, respondent No.5 approached the Tahsildar, seeking issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed. At that juncture, respondent No.5 came to know about issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of Battula China Balaiah and filed appeal before RDO. RDO, after conducting enquiry and after recording findings, set aside the entries made in favour of Battula China Balaiah and directed respondent No.3 to issue pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of respondent No.5. Petitioners did not produce original pattadar pass book and title

¶25

Page 5 of 11

¶26

SRS, J W.P.No.11482 of 2020

¶27

deed for verification during enquiry. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶28

Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions in line with the averments made in the writ affidavit.

¶30

Learned Assistant Government Pleader as well as learned counsel for respondent No.5 reiterated contentions in line with the averments made in the respective counter affidavits.

¶31

As seen from the proceedings, dated 13.11.2017 of Revenue Divisional Officer, respondent No.5 filed appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. The original record placed before this Court would disclose that prayer sought for in the appeal is to delete the entries standing in the name of Bathula China Balaiah in ROR, 1-B, Namoona, Adangals and online entries in respect of Ac.1-56 cents in survey No.117/2 i.e. the subject

¶32

Page 6 of 11

¶33

SRS, J W.P.No.11482 of 2020

¶34

property and to mutate name of respondent No.5 in ROR, 1-B Namoona, Adangals and Online entries.

¶35

In the appeal filed before RDO, apart from arraying the Tahsildar, the writ petitioners are also shown as party respondents. Along with writ petitioners, mother of petitioner No.1 and son of late China Balaiah were also shown as party respondents. In the appeal, respondent No.5 stated that based on endorsement, dated 21.06.2016 issued by Tahsildar, appeal was filed.

¶36

The endorsement, dated 21.06.2016 vide Rc.B/1593/2016 would disclose that respondent No.5 made application for issuance of title deed and pattadar pass book and that after conducting enquiry, Mandal Revenue Inspector submitted report. On verification of the records, it was found that as per the 1-B namoona, pattadar passbook was issued in favour of Bathula China Balaiah. The suit O.S.No.191 of 2015 filed by respondent No.5 was decreed and the competent civil court granted perpetual injunction. However, there is no direction by the competent civil court to issue pattadar passbook in favour of

¶37

Page 7 of 11

¶38

SRS, J W.P.No.11482 of 2020

¶39

the plaintiff/decree holder therein. Hence, the endorsement was issued to respondent No.5 directing him to file appeal before appellate authority, if respondent No.5 is aggrieved by issuance of pattadar passbook in favour of Bathula China Balaiah.

¶40

In the appeal, during enquiry before respondent No.2/RDO, petitioners remained ex parte. Respondent No.2/RDO, in its order, pointed out the irregularities committed by the then Tahsildar in updating ROR.

¶41

In the revision filed, petitioners filed registered document of 1964. Respondent No.1, while confirming the order of respondent No.2/RDO made the following observation:

¶42

"As per 10(1) FLR register, land measuring Ac.1-56 cents in survey No.117/2 was recorded in the name of Pagadala Kondaiah, S/o Lingaiah, whereas the name of Bathula China Balaiah, S/o Gurumurthy was recorded in 1(B) against the said land showing that the land was acquired through purchase. But, the revision petitioner has failed to furnish link documents either in the lower Court or during enquiry in the present revision petition how the land was transferred to the ancestors of the revision

¶43

Page 8 of 11

¶44

SRS, J W.P.No.11482 of 2020

¶45

petitioners herein and also failed to furnish the relevance to the documents furnished by them to the revision.”

¶46

Respondent No.1 endorsed the finding recorded by respondent No.2/RDO that the then Tahsildar violated Section 5(3) of the Act while updating ROR in favour of Bathula China Balaiah.

¶47

A perusal of the orders of respondent Nos.1 and 2 discloses that neither respondent No.1 nor respondent No.2 considered the aspect of delay in filing appeal by respondent No.5. Petitioners are claiming title over the property by virtue of document of the year, 1964 and respondent No.5 is claiming title over the same property by virtue of entry in FLR.

¶48

As pointed out by respondent No.2, if the then Tahsildar, failed to adhere to the procedure while updating record of rights, the matter should have been remanded to conduct enquiry afresh. In case of title dispute, the revenue authorities cannot adjudicate the title dispute and hence shall relegate the parties to Civil Court.

¶49

Page 9 of 11

¶50

SRS, J W.P.No.11482 of 2020

¶51

However, the case on hand, in the considered opinion of this court, the Joint Collector/respondent No.1 exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding title of the parties. Revenue authorities will never substitute to Civil Court qua deciding title dispute. Thus, the proceedings of respondent No.1 as well as proceedings of respondent No.2 are liable to be set aside.

¶52

In view of the above, orders/proceedings dated 08.02.2020 and 13.11.2017 passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in D.Dis.7981/2016/B are set aside. The matter is remitted to appellate authority be it RDO or DRO. The appellate authority shall conduct enquiry afresh duly giving an opportunity of hearing, to the petitioners and respondent No.5. The appellate authority shall conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. Petitioners and respondent No.5 shall cooperate with appellate authority during enquiry.

¶53

This Court by order, dated 15.07.2020 granted status quo existing as on that day, in respect of the subject property. The

¶54

Page 10 of 11

¶55

SRS, J W.P.No.11482 of 2020

¶56

said order shall continue till disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority.

¶57

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶58

No costs.

¶59

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶60

________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶61

Date : 05.09.2023 ikn

¶62

Page 11 of 11

¶63

SRS, J W.P.No.11482 of 2020

¶64

114

¶65

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶66

WRIT PETITION No.11482 of 2020

¶67

Date : 05.09.2023 ikn

Bathula Brahmaiah v. The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bathula Brahmaiah v. The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate

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

Tuta Naga Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Ap

Gudimetla Rama Kanaka Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Zilla Prabhakara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

E Narsimhappa Vs State of Ap

G v Rama Subbaiah Vs the State of Ap

Dunna Peda Ramaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh