High Court dismissed a civil revision petition seeking to summon a Tahsildar to produce records in a property declaration suit. The Court held the application was rightly dismissed by the trial court as barred by limitation.
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 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Civil Revision Petition No.888 of 2011
ORDER:
This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 16.12.2010 passed in I.A. No. 1996 of 2010 in O.S. No. 772 of 2009 by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner, plaintiff in the suit, praying the Court to summon the Tahsildar of Shamshabad Mandal to produce the record in file No. B/237/98 and for adducing his evidence.
The petitioner claiming that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having inherited the same from his ancestors, filed the suit for declaration, declaring the sada sale deed dated 20.09.1989 as null and void and not binding on him and consequently grant injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit schedule property. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement. The trial also concluded. And at that point of time, the petitioner filed the present I.A. stating that his name was recorded in the record of rights vide proceedings dated 23.06.1994 and he was also issued pattedar pass books. That he came to know about the entry of the name of the respondent in the record of rights on 24.08.2004, when he obtained pahanies for the year 2002-03, and on further enquiries, he came to know that the respondent got his name mutated in the revenue record on the basis of fabricated sale deed dated 20.09.1989. He further stated that as the name of the respondent was recorded in the revenue record, without issuing any notice to him, the entries made by the Tahsildar, mutating the name of the respondent, are not binding on him. Hence, he prayed to summon the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, to produce all documents in File No. B/237/98, and to adduce his evidence in the suit.
The respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner filed the present application after conclusion of the evidence. The amendment sought by the petitioner is not permissible under law because the Tahsildar is authority competent to make entries in the revenue records. The Tahsildar regularized the sale deed after following the
due procedure and mutated the name of the respondent in the revenue records. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders of the Tahsildar, mutating his name in the revenue record, was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner with a view to drag on the proceedings, filed the present petition, and prayed that the same be dismissed.
The Court below having considered the rival contentions, by the order under revision, dismissed the present application holding that the present application is barred by limitation.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision.
The suit is of the year 2004. The trial of the suit is over and the suit is coming up for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present application for summoning the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, as indicated above. Respondent, in fact, in the written statement filed by him on 24.01.2005 has referred to the mutation proceedings dated 25.07.1998 made by the Mandal Revenue Officer. This apart, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Further, as can be seen from the order under revision, the Court below found that the petitioner himself filed copy of sale deed dated 22.09.1989 and copy of ROR proceedings issued by the Mandal Revenue Inspector dated 23.06.1994, evidencing sale of the suit land to the respondent, and mutation of the name of the respondent as owner and possessor of the suit and issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour. After conclusion of the trial and while the matter is coming up for arguments, the petitioner filed the present application, which the Court below, by the order under revision, has rightly dismissed as having barred by limitation, and no exception can be taken thereto.
For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
There is no merit in the civil revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
April, 2011 IBL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application to summon the Tahsildar was barred by limitation.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order dismissing the application under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Petitioner
Respondent
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
