Allowed

Ch.Madhusudna Rao v. The Commissioner and Diretor of Settlements

Telangana HC19 Nov 2010WP/1532/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged revenue orders denying patta, asserting ownership via a court auction sale certificate. Court held sale certificate established ownership, voiding the revenue authorities' refusal to record petitioner as pattadar.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order of respondent No.1 remanded; direction to record petitioner as pattadar in revenue records.

Ch.Madhusudna Rao Vs The Commissioner and Diretor of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO : 1532 of 2005

¶3

Dated: 19.11.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Ch. Madhusudhan Rao

¶6

PETITIONERS

¶7

AND

¶8

1 The Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

.....RESPONDENTS

¶10

The Court made the following :

¶11

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO : 1532 of 2005

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed challenging the order in RP No.43/2003A1 dated 18.12.2004 passed by the 1^st respondent-Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Hyderabad, under Section 5(2) of the E.A. Act, 1948, wherein the order passed by the 2^nd respondent-Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna, in SR No.11(b)/2/85, dated 24.5.2003 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, was confirmed.

¶15

The facts are not in dispute. It appears originally one Damera Parthasaradhi was granted patta against the land in an extent of Ac.15.00 in R.S.No.328 of Royyuru village, Krishna District, in patta No.15 under Estate Abolition Act, 1948. Thereafter, the said Parthasaradhi seems to have sold the entire land of Ac.15.00 in favour of one Bommadevara Krishna Murthy in the year 1947 under a registered sale deed with some conditions. Since the said Bommadevara Krishna Murthy did not satisfy the conditions, the original pattadar-Damera Parthasaradhi filed O.S.No.208 of 1961 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vijayawada. The suit was decreed as prayed for and in execution of the said decree in E.P.No.73/71, on 15.11.1971, the suit schedule property i.e.., Ac.15.00 in R.S.No.328 was put to public auction and the petitioner was declared as successful bidder and the same was confirmed in his

¶16

favour and ultimately the Principal District Munsif issued a sale certificate engrossed on non-judicial stamps worth Rs.337-50 ps., on 15.11.1971. According to the petitioner, he was also put in possession of the same and he has been enjoying the said land. The same was reflected in the revenue records.

¶17

As per the evidence of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the land under claim is Padugai land and the petitioner is not in possession of the land since 1.7.1939 and he is not having right to get patta under Section 11(b) of the Act 26/1948 and the petitioner is a mere encroacher in the said land, but as from 10(1) account of Royyuru village as on 1.7.1939 the old survey No.67 consisting of an extent of Ac.15.00 is in the name of Damera Parthasaradhi Rao with patta No.15 as Bhukthadar and the name of the Krayadar is Bommadevara Krishna Murthy Naidu. The Assistant Village Karanam who was examined as P.W.4 has stated that the occupation of the subject land by the petitioner is treated as unobjectionable and the occupations are being booked for the land under claim and ‘B’ memo charges have been collected because of the subject land is a Government land.

¶18

It appears this was the reason why the petitioner was advised to go before the revenue authorities under the Estate Abolition Act for issuance of patta. But the fact shows that in suit O.S.No.208 of 1961 in pursuance of the auction conducted by the Principal District Munsif Court, Vijayawada, the petitioner purchased the same and the sale certificate was also issued in his favour. Merely because the petitioner was not in possession though the name of Damera Parthasaradhi was recorded as Pattadar with patta No.15 under the Estate Abolition Act, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled to hold the land. The petitioner is a third party to all the proceedings before the Court as well as before the authorities under the Estates Abolition Act i.e., respondents 1 and 2 herein. He purchased the land in an auction conducted by the Court. May be that he wanted to see that there will not be any future litigation. Therefore, he approached the authorities

¶19

under the Estate Abolition Act for the purpose of issuance of patta, which is refused by both the authorities.

¶20

The sale certificate issued by the Court is not in dispute. The entries made in favour of Damera Parthasaradhi as pattadar No.15 to an extent of Ac.15.00 in Royyuru village, Krishna District is also not in dispute. If that is so, the mere entries somewhere reflected in the revenue records prior to the entry will not have any effect or bearing about the title of the petitioner herein. In fact, there was no necessity for the petitioner to go before the 2^nd respondent or the 1^st respondent for the purpose of issuance of any patta. On the issuance of patta No.15 in favour of Damera Parthasaradhi Rao against Ac.15.00 of land Royyuru village, Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District, the said Damera Parthasaradhi became the owner and that entry is not in disputed. Therefore, the suit filed by him in O.S.No.208 of 1961 also cannot be disputed.

¶21

Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that firstly, there is no necessity for the petitioner to approach respondent No.2 or further respondent No.1 herein and that the petitioner is entitled to hold the land as per the sale certificate issued by the Principal District Munsif, Vijayawada against Ac.15.00 of land in Survey No.328 of Royyuru village, Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District automatically and thus, he became the owner, possessor and enjoyer for all the purposes over the property in question. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by respondent No.1 in his proceedings R.P.No.43/2003-A1, dated 18.12.2004 confirming the order passed by the respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside.

¶22

The revenue authorities are directed to record the name of the petitioner as pattadar against the land in an extent of Ac.15.00 in R.S.No.328 of Royyuru village, Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District, forthwith.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶24

______________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu Dated:19.11.2010 Nn.

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO : 1532 of 2005

¶27

19.11.2010

Ch.Madhusudna Rao v. The Commissioner and Diretor of Settlements

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Madhusudna Rao v. The Commissioner and Diretor of Settlements

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

Sri Dega Yerraiah Vs The District Collector

Challa Harinath, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Gorre Laxmi Vs The District Collector, Khammam.

M/s. Ratna Cable Network Through its proprietor, Vs The Post Master, Peddapalli, H.O

N.T.R.Nagar Phase-Ii Weaker Section Welfare Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

M Laxmaiah Vs Sri Prasad Rao