Petitioners challenged mutation of land records in their favor. Court held remedy lies in revision under Andhra Pradesh land revenue statutes, provided documentary support which was made available. Petition disposed of.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.8958 of 2008
ORDER:
The first petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 are the daughters of late G.Ram Reddy. He held an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas of land in survey No.16/A and Acs.1.03 guntas of land in survey No.17 of Uppal Bhagath Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He is said to have died in the year 1990. The petitioners state that they are the exclusive legal heirs of late Ram Reddy. Their grievance is that without knowledge to them, the third respondent had mutated the name of the fourth respondent in the revenue records and issued a pattadar pass book and when they applied for copies of necessary documents, they were informed that the file concerned is missing. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare the action of the third respondent in entering the name of the fourth respondent in the revenue records with reference to the said survey numbers, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.
After the writ petition is filed, the petitioners came to know that the fourth respondent is no more and accordingly W.P.M.P.No.19727 of 2008 is filed to implead the legal representatives of the deceased fourth respondent and the same was accordingly ordered.
Heard Sri C.Damodhar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri V.Tulasi Reddy, the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8.
The grievance of the petitioners is vis-à-vis the entries made in the revenue records in relation to the land in survey Nos.16/A and 17. Even according to the petitioners, it took place in the year 1990. However, their efforts to obtain copies of the proceedings concerned did not fructify.
While the leanred counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged order of validation is legally untenable and factually incorrect, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8 submits that the validation was taken into account by the Civil Court in O.S.No.135 of 1986. The petitioners have remedy by way of revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Record of Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) or Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act. It is, no doubt, true that there is enormous delay. However, if what is stated by the petitioners that they have not been furnished the copies of the proceedings concerned is true, the same needs to be taken into account.
Across the Bar, the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8 had made available a xerox copy of the proceedings issued under Section 5-A of the Act to the learned counsel for the petitioners. With the help of that, a revision can be presented before the Joint Collector under the relevant provisions. It is, however, left open to the contesting respondents to raise objection not only as to the delay but also on merits. The Joint Collector, in turn, shall entertain the revision on the strength of the xerox copy without insisting on filing of original, subject, however, to the objections that may be raised by respondents 5 to 8.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
L.NARASIMHA
REDDY,J Dt: 05.02.2009 JSU/KDL
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.8958 of 2008
Date: 05.02.2009
JSU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding mutation of land records should be disposed of given alternative statutory remedies.
What relief to grant when the petitioner is directed to pursue revision under relevant land revenue statutes.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
The First Petitioner and Petitioners 2 to 4
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
Respondents 5 to 8
L.Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
