P.Murali Mohan Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Murali Mohan Reddy, S/o Subba Rami Reddy, Aged^about53 years. business, resident of Flat No.401, Door No.7-119/4, Temple view Residency, Padmavathipuram, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittor District

¶15

Mandali Giridhar, S/o M. Venkateswara Rao, Aged^about59 years. business, resident of Door No.8-4/3,Plot No.70, Street No.8 Ravindranagar Colony, Habsiguda, Hyderabad-7.

¶16

...Appellants/Respondent No. 5 and 6 in WP No. 32880/2018

¶17

AND

¶18

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rept., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶19

The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶20

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli Revenue Division, Madanapalli, Chittoor District.

¶21

The Tahsildar, Chinnagottigailu Mandal, Chittoor District, Chittoor

¶22

M Malleswara Chand, S/o/Late M.Venkata Narasimhulu, Aged about 75 years, R/o.101,HS. 18-8-43/E, CPR Hill Ridge, Apartment,

¶23

TirumalaBy Pass Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ...Respondents/Respondents/Petitioner in WP No. 32550/2018

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2094

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit flied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to permit the petitioners appellants to reconstruct the file and resubmit the appeal WA Sr 17191 of 2022 filed on 27-04-2022 and receive the same in the interest of justice

¶26

lA NO: 2 OF Pn?*;

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to suspend the order dated 18-02-2022 passed in WP.No. 32880/2018 by tbe Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of the writ appeal in the interests of justice.

¶28

lA NO: 3 OF 2n9fi

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to mutate and incorporate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and village accounts in respect of their prosperities iand admeasuring an Ext Ac 2-42 acts in Sy No. 2226 and Ac4-62 cts in Sy No 2227 and alos an extent of Act. 9-43 cts of fry lands in Sy no. 217 situated in Cbittecheria viiiage, Chinnagattigaiiu Mandal of Chittoor District based on the title and possession of the petitioners by following the due process of law in the interests of justice

¶30

‘ «SP

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P A SESHU

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI G VENKATA REDDY

¶34

The Court made the following order:

fir

APHC010212442022

MM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶39

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶40

[3541]

¶41

TUESDAY. THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶42

PRESENT

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶44

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶45

WRIT APPEAL (SR) NO: 1719112022^ . ; V. ■-

¶46

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent

¶47

Between:

¶48

P MURALI MOHAN REDDY, -

¶49

...APPELLANT

¶50

AND

¶51

THE SATE OFAP,-

¶52

...RESPONDENT

¶53

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶54

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased • Pleased to permit the petitioners appellants to reconstruct the file and resubmit the appeal WA Sr 17191 of 2022 filed on 27-04-2022 and receive the same in the interest of justice

¶55

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶56

1.P ASESHU

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent:

2.GP FOR REVENUE

3.G VENKATA REDDY

RRR,J & JS,J W.A.(SR).No.l7191 of 2022

¶62

The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶63

The appellants herein, claim that, they had purchased^{Ac.2.42centsof} land in Sy.No.2226, Ac.4.62 cents of land in Sy.No.2227^{&Ac.9.43centsof} land in Sy.No.2179, in Chittecherla Village, Chinnagattigallu Mandal of Chittoor District. After such purchase, the appellants are said to have approached the Revenue Authorities for mutation. As^{thesaidmutationwas} not being considered by the Revenue Authorities, the 2 nd appellant approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.10450 of 2017^{foradirectiontothe} Revenue Authorities to mutate the revenue records in favour of the 2 nd appellant. In this Writ Petition, the Tahsildar of the Mandal, filed a counter-affidavit, in March, 2017, stating that, there^{wasasaletransaction} between the vendor of the appellants and the appellants^{wherebythelandis} said to have been transferred under a registered document.^{However,the1®'} appellant had not been put in possession by the vendor.^{TheTahsildar,further} stated that the mutation of the appellants could not^{beprocessedasthe2} nd appellant was not in possession of the land and there^{isaseriousdisputeof} title between the vendor and the appellants.

¶64

Thereafter, the Tahsildar, initiated proceedings and^{deletedthenameof} the vendor of the appellants from the revenue records^{andinsertedthenames} of the appellants in the revenue records, in relation^{totheaforesaidland.}

¶65

Aggrieved by this action of the Tahsildar, the vendor^{oftheappellants,} had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.32880 of^{2018.On12.09.2018,}

¶66

RRR,J & JS,J W.A.(SR}.No.l7191 of 2022

¶67

a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court^{atHyderabadforthe} States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, after considering^{theavermentsin} the affidavit filed in the Writ Petition bearing No.^{10450of2017,hadheldthat,} the Tahsildar having refused to mutate the revenue^{recordsonaccountofthe} lack of possession of the appellants could not have^{immediatelycarriedout} mutation in the revenue records and issued pattadar passbooks. The learned Single Judge, also noted that, there were serious disputes between the vendor of the appellants and the appellants regarding^{thetitleoverthesubject} land. On this basis, the learned Single Judge, directed the Tahsildar to reverse the entries as prayed for in the interim prayer^{intheWritPetition.} It may also be noted that the learned Single Judge, had^{specificallynotedthat,} no notice was given to the vendor of the appellants^{beforethechangeinthe} revenue records.

¶68

vendor of the 4. Subsequently, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.P.No.32880 of 2018, had submitted before^{alearnedSingle} Judge of this Court, that no further orders would be^{requiredastheinterim} direction of the learned Single Judge, granted earlier,^hadworked itself out. The learned Single Judge, accepting this contention,^{haddisposedoftheWrit} Petition, by making interim order absolute, by an order,^{dated18.02.2022.} 5. The appellants, who were arrayed as respondents^5&6, in the Writ Petition bearing No.32880 of 2018 and who had been^{representedbythe} learned counsel filed the present Writ Appeal being^{aggrievedbytheOrders}

¶69

RRR,J & JS,J W.A.(SR).No.17191 of 2022

¶70

6*

¶71

of the learned Single Judge, dated 18.02.2022. The^{WritAppealbundleissaid} to have been misplaced on account of which permission^wassoughtfor reconstructing the bundle. After such permission had^{beengivenbythisCourt,} the bundle has been reconstructed and placed before^thisCourt. It may also be noted that, in this process, there was a delay of^{about500days,whichhas} also been condoned, by way of a separate Order.

¶72

Sri P. A. Seshu, learned counsel appearing for the^{appellants,would} contend that, the claim of the appellants could not have been denied in as much as they have acquired all the title of their vendor^{bywayofaregistered} sale deed. He submits that, in such circumstances, it would have been appropriate for a direction to be given for verification^{ofthesefactsratherthan} deletion of the names of the appellants from the revenue^{recordswithoutany} further enquiry.

¶73

Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel appearing for^{thevendorofthe} appellants, would submit that, in the absence of notice^{beforethepassingof} the impugned order mutating the revenue records in^{favouroftheappellants,} the same would have to be set aside, on grounds of^{violationofPrinciplesof} Natural Justice.

¶74

Sri P. A. Seshu, learned counsel appearing for the^{appellants,would} draw the attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit^{filedbytheTahsildar,in} W.P.No.32880 of 2018, wherein the Tahsildar, had certified^{thattheappellants}

¶75

RRRJ & JS,J ‘t W.A.(SR).No.l7191 of 2022

¶76

are in possession of the land and that, such a finding had been given only after a discrete enquiry had been conducted by the^Tahsildar.

¶77

In the counter-affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, in W.P.No.32880 of 2018, there is no statement that Rule 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, which requires the appropriate Authority to issue notice to all persons whose names were entered in the Record of Rights as having interested in the land before any change of entries in the record can be made, had been complied. Further, it appears that the requirements of Rule 18 of issuance of Form — 8 as per Rule 19 had also not been complied as the counter-affidavit of the Tahsildar is silent on these issues.

¶78

In these circumstances, even if a fresh view of the entire controversy ISi; to be taken, the change of entries by deleting the name of the vendor of the appellants and including the names of the appellants in the revenue records had been done in violation of the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989.

¶79

However, the fact remains that the appellants have a registered document in which the land is said to have been transferred to them by their vendor. Sri G. Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel for the vendor, would contend that, the said transfer itself is disputed and Suits have also been filed between the parties, in relation to the deed of sale, wherein the relief sought includes cancellation of the said deed and reconveyance of the property.

¶80

6 RRR,J & JS,J W.A.(SR).No.l7191 of 2022

¶81

Sri P. A. Seshu, learned counsel appearing for the^{appellants,disputed} these facts and further contends that the said Suit^{hasbeenclosed.Wedonot} propose to go into these disputes except to observe^{thatthereareserious} questions of fact, which are have to be gone into before^{anydecisioncanbe} taken, in relation to the mutation of the revenue records.

¶82

In these circumstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of, without Order of the learned Single Judge, leaving it open to the disturbing the submit fresh applications for mutation of the revenue^records appellants to and any such mutation shall be only after notice and appropriate^opportunity of hearing is given to the vendor of the appellants. It would also be open to the appropriate Authority before whom such an application is made to either pass an order or await a decision from an appropriate Court^{ofCiviljurisdictionon} the disputes between the parties.

¶83

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶84

shall stand As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any Sd/- V.DIWAKAR closed.

¶85

Sd/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶86

To,

¶87