T Nagaraju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

T NAGARAJU, S/O T.NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O 15/338-C, AMARAPURAM ROAD, MEDAKASIRA TOWN AND MANDAL., SRI SATHYA SAI PUTTAPARTHY DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

¶14

THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SRI SATHYA SAI PUTTAPARTHY DISTRICT.

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICERCUM SUBCOLLECTOR, PENUGONDA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, MADAKASIRA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶17

SMT LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, W/O RAMANJANEYULU, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O PERAVALI COMPOUND, SUBASH ROAD, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶20

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶21

“to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order bearing Rc.No. 4584/2021/D4 dt. 8-2-2024 allowing the revision petition filed by the 5th respondent and cancelled the webland 1B entries stands in the name of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 3.56 cents in Sy.No. 303-lB situated at Madakaira village and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same, and to grant……”

¶22

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

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner is that the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order bearing Rc.No.4584/2021/D4 dated 08.02.2024, whereby the revision petition filed by the 5^th respondent was allowed and the Webland 1-B entries standing in the name of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.56 cents in Survey No.303-1B, situated at Madakaira Village and Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, were cancelled, is illegal and arbitrary.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s

¶25

father, late Sri T. Nagappa, who was employed in the Revenue Department, purchased land admeasuring Ac.3.56 cents in Survey No.303-18 of Madakaira Village and Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, under a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.50 of 1946 dated 10.01.1946. As he was serving under the British Government at the relevant point of time, the sale deed was taken in the name of the petitioner’s grandmother, Smt. Hanumakka. During her lifetime, Smt. Hanumakka voluntarily transferred the said property in favour of the petitioner’s father, and the revenue authorities mutated his name in the revenue records vide T.A. Dis. No.26/62-11 dated 04.04.1952. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s father was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. After the death of Smt. Hanumakka and subsequently the death of the petitioner’s father on 05.03.1985, the Transfer of Registry in respect of the said land was ordered in favour of the petitioner and her mother vide Proceedings No.TA.Dis.33/95-11 dated 06.02.1986.

¶26

He further submits that the ancestral lands in other survey numbers were separately subdivided and allotted to the petitioner’s paternal uncles. One of the uncles instituted a suit for partition in O.S. No.20 of 1986, which was later renumbered as O.S. No.04 of 1996, claiming a share in Survey No.303-18. The said suit was dismissed by Judgment and Decree dated 04.06.1996, and the appeal preferred

¶27

there against in A.S. No.2616 of 1996 was also dismissed on 09.05.2016, thereby conclusively establishing the petitioner’s absolute title over the subject land. Subsequently, Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds were issued in favour of the petitioner and her mother. After a lapse of nearly 35 years, the respondent filed an appeal seeking cancellation of the said Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds, which was rightly dismissed by the 3^rd respondent vide Rc.No.1233/2021/B dated 08.09.2021. However, the 5^th respondent filed a revision before the 2^nd respondent, and the same was allowed vide order dated 09.12.2022, directing deletion of the petitioner’s name from the 1-B register. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P. No.16545 of 2023 before this Court, and the said writ petition was disposed of on 14.07.2023, directing the respondents to undertake fresh consideration in accordance with law. Despite the said directions, the 2^nd respondent again allowed the revision vide order dated 08.02.2024, without properly appreciating the facts and material available on record.

¶28

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that, although the revision was allowed on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the civil suit, the revenue authorities are not entitled to adjudicate or declare the civil rights or shares of the parties. As rightly pointed out, the Sub-Collector, vide order dated 08.09.2021, had

¶29

observed that rights shall be determined only on the basis of records and by a competent civil court, and not by the revenue authorities.

¶30

Accordingly, the observations made by the 2^nd respondent in the impugned order dated 08.02.2024 are hereby set aside, confirming the order passed by the Sub-Collector dated 08.09.2021, while granting liberty to the unofficial respondents to approach the competent civil court for determination of their rights, if any.

¶31