Allowed

Bhagyanagar Investment and Trading PVt., Ltd., Plot No. 18, v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar mandal

Telangana HC10 Feb 2009WP/10411/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the impugned order confirming land ownership. It held that the issuing authority acted beyond the scope of the Act by issuing declaratory proceedings and undertaking physical demarcation without prescribed notice and verification.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 11-12-2006 is set aside. The respondent is directed to follow prescribed forms and issue notices before passing orders.

Bhagyanagar Investment and Trading PVt., Ltd., Plot… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.10411 of 2007

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The 2^nd respondent submitted a representation dated 22-07-2006 to the 1^st respondent, stating that he held Ac.11.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.302 and Ac.6.20 guntas in Sy.No.303 of Mamidipally Village and Gram Panchayat limits, and that he sold the entire land, except to an extent of Ac.1.32 guntas. He submitted that he surrendered the pass books on an earlier occasion, but it became necessary for issuance of pass books for the remaining Ac.1.32 guntas. Acting on the representation, the

¶4

1^st respondent issued proceedings dated 11-12-2006, holding and confirming that the 2^nd respondent holds an extent of Ac.1.32 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.302 and 303, and that the said conclusion was arrived at, after the land was demarcated on the ground, physically.

¶5

The petitioners state that the 2^nd respondent has sold his entire land, so much so, that he surrendered the pass books and title deeds. It is also stated that they purchased part of the land from the transferees of the 2^nd respondent. They challenge the proceedings dated 11-12-2006, on the ground that they are not referable to any provision of law, much less they can be sustained on facts.

¶6

Heard Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and Sri M.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶7

A perusal of the representation dated 22-07-2006 discloses that the 2^nd respondent requested the 1^st respondent to issue pass books and title deeds for the extent of Ac.1.32 guntas in Sy.Nos.302 and 303 of Mamidipally Village. The application is said to be , one under

¶8

Section 4 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’.) The Act and the Rules made thereunder prescribe the forms, through which an application has to be made. Necessary particulars, as to whether the entries are to be made for the first time, or by way of mutation; are to be furnished. Further, the persons, who are to be immediately affected, either in the form of transferees or transferors, are also to be mentioned. The representation dated 22-07-2006 does not accord with the prescribed form.

¶9

Be that as it may, in case an application in the prescribed form is made, for issuance of pass books and title deeds, the same must lead to issuance of such pass books and title deeds, in case the issuing authority is satisfied about the facts pleaded before him. In the instant case, the 1^st respondent has virtually adorned the role of a Civil Court, and almost gave a declaratory decree in favour of the 2^nd respondent. It is also mentioned that he has undertaken physical demarcation of the land. This entire exercise is outside the scope and ambit of the Act and the Rules. Further, the order does not disclose that any affected parties are put on notice, much less any verification was undertaken, to know as to who is in physical possession of the land.

¶10

Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to the 2^nd respondent to submit an application in the prescribed form, duly furnishing necessary particulars. As and when such application is made, the

¶11

1^st respondent shall verify the facts, issue notices to the aggrieved parties, and pass orders, in accordance with law.

¶12

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

Dt.10-02-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶14

Bhagyanagar Investment and Trading PVt., Ltd., Plot No. 18, v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar mandal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagyanagar Investment and Trading PVt., Ltd., Plot No. 18, v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar mandal

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

Kilari Ramachandranaidu, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Chintareddy Madhusudhan Reddy, Vs Government of A.P.

T. Shekar Reddy, Vs The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator

Smt.Guda Malathi Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

M.A. Sami Khan, Vs The District Collector

S.G. Ahmed Quadri Vs The Dist. Collector