Votturu Koteswara Rao Vs the State of Ap

PITTI SIVAR A MA KRISHNA PRASAD, S/o. CHENCHU RAMAIAH, HI N DU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/o. D.No.24-4214, SANTHI NAGAR, FATHEKHANPET, NELL O RE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶17

VOTTURU GANGADHAR, S/O YEIAMANDAIAH, HI N DU, AGED ABOUT 63 YE A RS, R/O D.NO.23/125, AKKANAVA R I STREET, FATHEKHANP E T, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DIS T RICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

2

¶20

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 of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, Calling for the records leading up to the Case No.D.Dis.7.577/2023, dated 19.10.2023 on the tile of 2nd respondent including the proceedings in Rc.3/1078/2023, dated 03.08.2023 of 3^rd respondent and D.Dis.(B)1032/2023, dated 29.05.2023 of 4th respondent and QUASH the same as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, perverse, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (AP RoR Act) and also violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.P RAJASEKHAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

2.AKKEM SRIHARIVIRAT

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The present writ petition is filed to call for the records and to quash the proceedings in Case No. D.Dis.7.577/2023 dated 19.10.2023 on the file of 2^nd respondent including the proceedings in Rc. J/1078/2023 dated 03.08.2023 of 3^rd respondent and D.Dis. (B)1032/2023 dated 29.05.2023 of 4^th respondent on the ground that both the orders are being illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction perverse unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Book Act 1971 A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 and violative of 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶30

The facts that narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the writ petitioner and his father by name late Yelamandaiah have purchased to an extent of Ac.25-00 each Ac. 12-50 cents vide two separate Registered sale deeds Document Nos. 1634/1971 and 1633/1971 the land situated in Padarupalli Village in Survey Nos. 80/2C3, 80/3C, and 80/3A respectively.

¶31

The writ petitioner and his father late Yelamandaiah have jointly executed a Registered General Power of Attorney vide document No. 209/1986 on 12.08.1986 in favour of one Pitti Chenchu Ramaiah, who is father of 5^th respondent in the writ petition to an extent of Ac.12.25

¶32

4

¶33

cents in Sy.No. 80/2C and 80/3 with certain boundaries. And the said Pitti Chenchu Ramaiah in-turn have sold the land to different purchasers. Out of the land that retained by the petitioner and his father to extent of Ac.12.75, the writ petitioner and his father sold and an extent of Ac.11-25 cents vide 18 (eighteen registered sale deeds) to different purchasers and it is not out place to state that the Pitti Chenchu Ramaiah has purchased an extent Ac. 0-50 cents of land vide document No. 4578/1986 out 18 sale deeds that was executed by the petitioner and his father late Yelamandaiah. Now the writ petitioner and his father retained an extent of Ac.1-50 cents of Ac.25-00 that they have purchased.

¶34

The National Highway Authority of India has acquired an extent of Ac.0-19 belonging to the petitioner and an extent of Ac.0-38 cents belonging to the father of the petitioner i.e., late Yelamandaiah, now the land left with the petitioner and his father is Ac.0.93 cents.

¶35

While the things stood thus, the 6^th respondent, who is the brother of writ petitioner has approached the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar for mutation of his name in the revenue records to an extent of Ac.0-71 cents, {though he is entitled for an extent of Ac. 0-93 cents applied for an extent of Ac. 0-71 cents reason was not stated in the affidavit} in Survey Nos.80/2C and 80/3. The 4^th respondent through the

¶36

5

¶37

proceedings in D. Dis.(B)1032/2023 dated 29.05.2023 has reduced to an extent of Ac.0-43 cents instead of Ac.0-73 cents.

¶38

Aggrieved by the said order in reducing the land an appeal has been preferred before the 3^rd respondent by the son of the writ petitioner on behalf of writ petitioner and his brother. The appeal was rejected vide proceedings in Rc.J/1078/2023 dated 08.08.2023 with a finding that revenue authorities have the authority to decided title and the survey authorities will decide where the total land exists on ground. The 2^nd respondent-Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate has confirmed the order of the Appellate authority vide proceedings in Case No.D.Dis.7.577/2023 dated 19.10.2023 filed under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books act 1971. Challenging the order of 2^nd respondent vide proceedings dated 19.10.2023, the present writ petition is filed.

¶39

It is known law that a writ of certiorari can lie under Art 226 of Constitution of India, Art.226- (1) For correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, us when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and

¶40

6

¶41

not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review finding of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal, even if they be erroneous. See the judgment in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others reported in AIR 1955 SC 233.

¶42

Though the grounds raised in the affidavit are factual. The petitioner’s counsel Sri P. Rajasekhar would submit that the very finding of the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in stating that the revenue authorities are only competent to decided the title is erroneous, the Apex Court has established the principle in numerous judgments that the revenue authorities are not competent to determine the title, hence prayed to set aside the orders impugned and remand back to authorities to pass an order afresh.

¶43

Learned counsel for the 5^th respondent, Sri V. Mallik for Sri Akkem Sriharivirat, would submit that there is serious title dispute is involved, the petitioner has to approach the competent civil court. Even the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, no purpose will be served by remitting the matter to the authorities.

¶44

The brother of the petitioner has submitted an application to the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar to mutate his name in the revenue records to an extent of Ac. 0-71 cents in Sy. No.80/2C and 80/3 [ see para no 10

¶45

7

¶46

of the affidavit]. The petitioner and his father has purchased total extent of Ac. 25-00 of land in three survey numbers 80/2C3, 80/3C and 80/3A but the petitioner has not provided the detail information about exact measurements linked to individual survey numbers. This makes it difficult to identify or to know the exact land. At one hand it is stated at para No.3 that the writ petitioner and his father have jointly executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of father of 5^th respondent vide document no.209/1986 on 12.08.1986 for the land in Sy. No.80/2C and 80/3, to an extent of Ac.12.25 cents and the father of the 5^th respondent has developed a lay out for the said land and on the other hand it is further stated at para No.6 that they have executed 18 sale deeds to an extent of Ac.11-25 cents in Sy.No.80/2C3, 80/3 including a sale deed vide document No. 4578/1986 for an extent of Ac. 0-50 cents in favour father of 5^th respondent. If the said statement is taken into consideration, it can be presumed that the writ petitioner is wrongly or improperly claiming the property as they have not retained the land to an extent of Ac.0-71 cents in Sy.No. 80/2C and 80/3 as they executed GPA to the father of 5^th respondent.

¶47

It is well settled law that the revenue authorities are not competent to decide title or grant any declarative relief, the Civil Court is only competent to do so. In the present case, the very finding of the 3^rd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer and confirming the same by

¶48

8

¶49

the revisional authority stating that they are only competent authority to decided the title is erroneous and unsustainable in law.

¶50

This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the orders of the authority. The findings of both the appellate and revisional authorities are unsustainable orders as they are not legally valid and they are not the competent authority to determine the title to the property. Hence, both the orders of the appellate and revisional authority are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 4^th respondent for a fresh decision. The 4^th respondent is directed to pass an order on merits in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made in this order and any observation if any made is only for disposal of the writ petition.

¶51