Smt M Rajeswari Vs H Pushpa

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be pleased to set aside the orders of the learned single judge passed in W.P.No.3003 of 2024, Dt. 14.02.2024 in the interest of justice and pass such

¶12

Between:

¶13

SMT M RAJESWARI, W/O YELLAPPA, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O D.NO.13/235/A1 RAJENDRANAGAR, GUNTAKAL TOWN, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT

¶14

...APPELLANT

¶15

AND

¶16

H PUSHPA, W/O LEPAKHI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O MALLIKARJUNAPALLI VILLAGE, HALAHARVI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶17

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶18

THE TAHASILDAR, HALAHARVI MANDAL, HALAHARVI, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶19

THE VILLAGE SURVEYOR, OFFICE OF TAHASILDAR, HALAHARVI MANDAL, HALAHARVI, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶20

2

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of order passed in W.P.No.3003 of 2024, Dt. 14.02.2024, and pass such

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of orders Dt.14.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.3003 of 2024 by the learned single judge pending disposal of the writ appeal and to pass such

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in LA. No.2 of 2024 in W.A.No.433 of 2024 dated 07.01.2025 in the interest of justice and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶29

1.N ASWARTHA NARAYANA

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶32

2.SAZID KALLUR

¶33

In W.P.No.23953/2023

¶34

Between:

¶35

H PUSHPA, W/O.LEPAKHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/ O. MALLIKARJUNAHALLI VILLAGE, HALAHARVI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶36

SMT.H.SADAKSHI, W/O.ANAND, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.MALLIKARJUNAHALLI VILLAGE, HALAHARVI

¶37

3

¶38

MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶39

SMT.SAKRAMMA, W/O.BUDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.MALLIKARJUNAHALLI VILLAGE, HALAHARVI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT

¶40

...PETITIONER(S)

¶41

AND

¶42

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PATTIKONDA REVENUE DIVISION, PATTIKONDA, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶43

THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, , KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶44

THE TAHASILDAR, HALAHARVI MANDAL, HALAHARVI, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶45

THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶46

SMT M RAJESWARI, W/ O.YELLAPPA, R/O.D.NO.13/235/A1, RAJENDRANAGAR, GUNTAKAL TOWN, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT

¶47

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶48

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned orders in Rc.B.673/2022 dated 2608-2023 passed by the 1st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, beyond jurisdiction and contrary to the powers conferred U/sec.9 AP Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 and consequently set aside the impugned orders in Rc.B.673/2022 dated 26-08-2023 passed by the 1st Respondent and further direct the Respondents to cancel the Pattadar Pass Book issued in favour of the Respondent No.5 in respect of the land extent Ac.1-00 cents each situated in Sy.No.35/2B1 of Mallikarjunahalli Village, Halaharvi Mandal, Kurnool District and further direct the Respondent No.3 to enter the names of the Petitioners in the revenue records and issue fresh Pattadar Pass

¶49

4

¶50

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶51

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned orders in Rc.B.673/2022 dated 26-08-2023 passed by the 1st Respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice.

¶52

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶53

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased leased to vacate the interim order dated 13.09.2023 in I.A.No. 01/2023 in W.P.No. 23953 of 2023 and also dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶55

1.P NAGENDRA REDDY

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶57

1....

¶58

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶59

5

¶60

The Court made the following common order:

¶61

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

¶62

As the writ appeal and the writ petition relate to the same issue, pending between the parties, in relation to the same land, they are being disposed of, by way of this common order.

¶63

The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.23953 of 2023.

¶64

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶65

The petitioners approached the Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Kurnool, by way of a revision, under Section 9 of the A.P.Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) read with Rule 23 of AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Rules, 1989. This revision was filed against the 4^th respondent on the ground that an extent of Ac.2-10 cents of land in Sy.No.35/2B1 of Mallikarjunahalli Village, Halaharvi Mandal of Kurnool District had been disputed by the petitioners and the 4^th respondent.

¶66

The case of the petitioners was that an extent of Ac.1-00 of land, said to have been assigned to them, in the year 1995, was shown to be belonging to the 4^th respondent, in the revenue records and that a pattadar pass book and title deed, had illegally been issued to the 4^th respondent on the strength of such a record. The Joint Collector is said to have then forwarded the

¶67

6

¶68

representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattikonda Revenue Division, Kurnool District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, treated the said proceedings as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act and took up the said appeal. At that stage, the 4^th respondent approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.32044 of 2022, for an early disposal of the appeal. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer by an order, dated 26.08.2023, in Rc.B.673/2022 had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the claim of assignment, by the petitioners, is false and that the 4^th respondent was also not entitled to about Ac.1-65 cents of the said land and for deletion of name of the 4^th respondent to that extent.

¶69

Aggrieved by this order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of W.P.No.23953 of 2023.

¶70

Even while this writ petition was pending, the petitioners again approached this Court by way of W.P.No.3003 of 2024 for a direction to the Revenue authorities to conduct a survey of the land claimed by the petitioners. This writ petition came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 14.02.2024, with a direction to the authorities to conduct survey and fix boundaries to the subject property in accordance with law, after issuing notices to all the affected parties.

¶71

Aggrieved by this order of the learned Single Judge, the 4^th respondent moved W.A.No.433 of 2024, contending that the survey of land for fixing the boundaries can be done only in cases where an application is filed by the

¶72

7

¶73

owner of the land and such an order could not have been given as the petitioners are not the owners of land for which they are seeking a survey.

¶74

A perusal of the revision petition filed before the Joint Collector and the manner in which the appeal has been disposed of by the Revenue Divisional Officer would show that there was some confusion, between the parties as well as Revenue authorities, as to the scope of the dispute that was to be resolved, under the proceedings in question. On one hand, there is a complaint, made out in the body of the revision petition that name of the 4^th respondent has been wrongly inserted in the revenue records, while the relief sought is limited for cancelling the pattadar pass book and title deed.

¶75

In the circumstances, we cannot categorically hold that an appeal was not maintainable before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Yet, at the same time, the question of whether there was an underlying order, making entries in the revenue records, against which an appeal was maintainable remains.

¶76

In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to dispose of both the Writ Appeal as well as the Writ Petition by directing the 2^nd respondent-The Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Kurnool District (in W.P.No.23953 of 2023), to take up the impugned order, dated 26.08.2023, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, by way of a revision, under Section 9 of the Act, and to pass appropriate orders after going into the question of the genuineness of the assignment proceedings and also on the question of whether such land had been

¶77

8

¶78

assigned by the Government to the 4^th respondent and the extent of land that has been assigned either to the petitioner or to the 4^th respondent to the writ petition.

¶79

The subsequent requirement of survey would depend on the finding given by the Joint Collector. In the event of the Joint collector giving a decision in favour of the writ petitioners, a necessary survey thereafter be conducted after issuing notice to all the affected parties.

¶80