Partly allowed

M/s. Cyrus Investments Ltd. v. The Joint Collector - I

Telangana HC8 Apr 2011WP/28272/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside revenue orders confirming the deletion of names from land records and the incorporation of new names. The court held that orders passed against dead persons and without proper written notice to existing entries violate natural justice and are nullities. The revenue authority's jurisdiction was also questioned due to the land's non-agricultural character.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 22.05.2007 and 24.03.2008 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer were set aside. The writ petitions questioning these orders were allowed, while the writ seeking implementation of t

M/s. Cyrus Investments Ltd. Vs The Joint Collector - I — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

W.P. No. 24506, 24525 and 28272 of 2008

¶3

Common order:

¶4

M/s. Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, and the legal heirs of late Sri. Ganesh Pershad and late Sri. Jagadish Pershad, filed W.P. Nos. 24506 and 24525 of 2008 respectively, praying for the following relief:

¶5

To issue an appropriate writ or order, more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1^st respondent in R.P. No. D5/2437/2008 and D5/2437/1/2008, confirming the orders of the 2^nd respondent in File No. C/3668/2006, dated 22.05.2007 and 24.03.2008 passed against dead persons, directing deletion of entries in the pahanies from 1983-84 onwards, and quash the same, as being illegal, without jurisdiction and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and to pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶6

While M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited, represented by their General Power of Attorney, Dr. P.S. Prasad, filed W.P. No. 28272 of 2008, praying for the following relief:

¶7

To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the order of the 1^st respondent in File No.D5/2437/08, dated 18.10.2008 and consequently direct the implementation of the appellate order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, in File No. C/3668/2006, dated 22.05.2007 and further direct the revenue authority/appellate authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of mutation over the subject land admeasuring Acs. 7.09 cents in Sy. No.1 of Darga Hussain Shahwali village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, based on the orders passed in C.S. No. 14 of 1958 and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶8

As these three writ petitions are interconnected, and there are inter se disputes among the petitioners in the writ petitions and the unofficial respondents, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶9

The brief facts of the case, as can culled out from the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 24506, 24525 and W.P. No. 28272 of 2008 and the counters filed therein, is that one Smt. Chandini Begum w/o. late Sri. Mohammed Khan, was the owner of land admeasuring Acs. 7.15 guntas in Sy. No. 1 of Darga Hussain Shawali, Acs. 2.14 guntas in Sy. No. 332, Ac. 0.38 guntas in Sy. No.333 of Shaikpet village and Acs. 1.13 guntas in Sy. No. 10 of Raidurga village. That she divested her title and rights

¶10

over the land in favour of Smt. Jahandarunissa Begum, the fourth daughter of late Nizam V and W/o. Nawab Iqbal ud-Doulah @ Vikar Ul Umar, popularly known as lady vicar, by executing document No. 93/1217 Fasli (1907 AD) dated 13^th Amarded 1317 Fasli. After the death of Smt. Jahandarunissa Begum, the land is said to have fallen to the share of her son Sri. Nawab Sultan Ul Mulk. Thereafter, the Government, in exercise of powers conferred on them by Section 53(d) of the Hyderabad Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasli, vide orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 341, Revenue, dated 17.02.1959, released the property in question as Jahandar Bagh in favour of the children of late Sri. Nawab Sultan Ul-Mulk. That Jahandar Bagh is situated adjacent to Darga Hussain Shawali village. Consequent upon partition among the legal heirs of late Sri. Nawab Sultan Ul-Mulk, the property in question, vide registered document

¶11

No. 1852/64, dated 22.05.1964, fell to the share of Sri. Nawab Mohammed Mistauddin Khan S/o. late Sri. Nawab M. Abdul Fateh Khan Bahadur. That the said individual sold the property in question to Sri. Suraj Bhan S/o. Sri. Budh Ram, under registered document No. 2490/1964, dated 02.09.1964. That the name of Sri. Suraj Bhan, was mutated in the revenue records, as is evident from the pahanies from 1964-65. After the death of Sri. Suraj Bhan on 12.09.1973, the names of his children Sri. Ganesh Pershad,

¶12

Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Mahaveer Pershad were mutated in the revenue records. Subsequently, Sri. Ganesh Pershad and Sri. Jagadish Pershad died on 20.03.1987 and 15.03.1988 respectively. Subsequent to their death, the legal heirs of late Sri. Ganesh Pershad and Sri. Jagadish Pershad, namely Sri. Om Prakash, Sri. Deepak Kumar, Sri. Rajender Kumar, Sri Vikas Kumar, Sri. Mahender Kumar, Sri. Pavan Kumar, Sri. Anil Kumar, Sri. Sunil Kumar and Sri. Manish Kumar (hereinafter referred to as successorsin-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan), inherited the property, and the competent authority also mutated their names in the revenue records, vide proceedings dated 10.01.1994. They having inherited the property, entered into development agreements with the petitioner in W.P. No. 24506 of 2008, for development of the land in question.

¶13

While so, respondent Nos. 4 to 8, denying the claim of the petitioner, in W.P. No. 24506 of 2008 and the petitioners in W.P.

¶14

No. 24525 of 2008, as recorded above, and claiming that Smt. Bahadurunissa Begum, is the owner of the land in question, that after her death on 24.09.1972, the property devolved upon her daughter, namely Smt. Azeezunissa Begum, and that after her death, they being her legal heirs, succeeded to the property and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same, filed appeal under Section 5(5) of the RoR Act, before respondent No.2, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, against Sri. Ganesh Pershad,

¶15

Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, seeking deletion of their names from the revenue records and incorporation of their names.

¶16

Respondent No. 2, vide orders dated 22.05.2007, set the respondents therein, namely Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, ex parte, and allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8, directing deletion of the names of Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and

¶17

Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, from the revenue records and incorporation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 therein.

¶18

Seeking to set aside the said ex parte order dated 22.05.2007, the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, filed petition under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. read with Section 10 of the RoR Act and Rule 28 of the Rules made thereunder, stating that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 filed the appeal against dead persons by mentioning their wrong addresses, and that even though their names, were mutated in the record of rights, as far back as on 10.01.1994, they were not made party-respondents in the appeal, and without making them partyrespondents and without issuing any notice, they obtained the said order, and therefore, it has to be set aside.

¶19

While the matters stood thus, respondent No.9, namely Sri. Nawab Mohammed Naseeruddin Khan, represented by his General Power of Attorney, Sri. Mohd. Javeed, filed application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, implead him as partyrespondent in the appeal and permit him to contest the appeal. Respondent No.9, in the affidavit, filed in support of the set aside and implead application, denied that Smt. Chandini Begum, is the owner of the land in question and that she divested her title in favour of Smt. Jahandarunissa Begum. He, however, contended that Smt. Jahandarunissa Begum, is the original owner of the land in question,

¶20

having purchased the same in the court auction vide letter No. 6972, dated 17 Bahman 1319 Fasli; that after her death, her son Sri. Nawab Sultan Ul-Mulk, enjoyed the property as her legal heir, that after his death, his son Sri. Nawab Farced Nawaz Jung Bahadur, enjoyed the property as its absolute owner; that after his death, his only daughter Smt. Asmathunissa Begum Saheba, became the absolute owner, and after her demise, her sons Sri. Md. Nawab Zaheeruddin Khan and Sri. Md. Nawab Naseeruddin Khan, enjoyed the property as absolute owners; that as Sri. Md. Nawab Zaheeruddin Khan died issueless, he became the absolute owner of the property in question, and that his name was also shown as defendant No. 60 in the preliminary decree passed in the civil suit. He thus got impleaded as party-respondent in the appeal proceedings before respondent No.2.

¶21

Respondent No.2, having entertained the applications filed by the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan and respondent No.9, issued notices to all concerned, including respondent Nos. 4 to 8, and vide orders dated 24.03.2008, dismissed the application filed by the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, stating that he has no jurisdiction to re-open the appeal proceedings and granted liberty to them to file appeals before the competent authorities.

¶22

Questioning the above said orders dated 22.05.2007 and 24.03.3008, the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, filed revision, before respondent No.1, namely the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, while M/s. Cyrus Investments Ltd., also filed separate revision, contending that they as defendant No. 206 in C.S. No. 14 of 1958, purchased the decretal rights in the preliminary decree from defendant No.32, namely Bahadurunissa Begum, who is the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, and as they have interest in the property in question, they are aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2, and as such, entitled to question the said order. Respondent No.1, having clubbed the above two revisions, vide common order dated 18.10.2008, disposed them of by confirming the orders dated 22.05.2007 and 24.03.2008 passed by respondent No.2, and directed the parties to approach the competent civil Court and get their title dispute resolved and then approach the revenue authorities for appropriate relief.

¶23

Questioning the above common order dated 18.10.2008 passed by respondent No.1, M/s. Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited filed W.P. No. 24506 of 2008, inter alia, contending that they have entered into

¶24

development agreements with the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, with respect to the property in question, and that if the order passed by respondent No.1, which confirmed the order of respondent No.2, is given effect, it will affect their interest in the property, and therefore, they are entitled to question the same. While the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, questioning the very same order of respondent No.1, filed W.P. No. 24525 of 2008. While M/s. Cyrus Investments Ltd., filed

¶25

W.P. No. 28272 of 2008, contending that they purchased the suit schedule property from HEH NIzam, who purchased the same from the original owner, Smt. Bahadarunissa, and that respondent No.1, having confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2, ordering deletion of the names of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 and incorporation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, ought not to have directed the parties to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of their title dispute, and prayed that the official respondents be directed to give effect to the order dated 22.05.2005, passed by respondent No.2.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 24506 of 2008 and the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, submitted that the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 before respondent No.2, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, under Section 5(5) of the RoR Act, for correction/rectification of entries in the pahanies from the years 198384 onwards, are wholly without jurisdiction, because firstly, pahanies are not record of rights, and secondly, the correction/rectification of entries in records of rights, cannot be done in an appeal filed under Section 5 of the RoR Act, but can be done only in an application filed under Section 3 of the RoR Act, and that too by the recording authority, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer. They further submitted that since the Revenue Divisional Officer, is not the recording authority, prescribed under Section 3 of the RoR Act, the appeal filed by respondent

¶27

Nos. 4 to 8, before respondent No.2, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, for correction/rectification of entries in the pahanies, was not maintainable, and more so when pahanies are not record of rights. Hence, they contended that the orders dated 22.05.2007, passed by respondent No.2 allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.2 and ordering deletion of the names of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 and incorporation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, as

¶28

confirmed by respondent No.1, namely the Joint Collector, vide the impugned orders dated 18.10.2008, are wholly without jurisdiction and not maintainable in law. In support of this argument, they placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Velupadas Veeraswamy v. State of A.P .^[1] .

¶29

They further submitted as against the order passed by the recording authority, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal under Section 5(5) of RoR Act, would lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer, within 60 days from the date of communication of the said order, and the decision of the appellate authority thereon be subject to provisions of Section 9 of the RoR Act, shall be final. It is their contention that even though the then Mandal Revenue Officer, passed orders, mutating the names of the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, way back on 10.01.1984 and 24.05.1985, and even though respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and 9, are aware of the said mutation orders, for the reasons best known to them, they did not file within time, but filed the appeal after lapse of 21 years and that too without any condone delay application. In support of their arguments, that appeal under Section 5(5) of the RoR Act, filed beyond period of limitation, cannot be entertained, placed reliance on the judgments of M.B. Ratnam v. Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R. Distric t^[2] and Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy v. Joint Collector, Cuddapah^[3] .

¶30

They further submitted that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 filed the appeal against dead persons by mentioning wrong addresses, and that even though the names of successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, are mutated in the record of rights, they were not made parties to the appeal, and obviously, as no notice was served on them, they could not enter their appearance to contest the matter, and in such circumstances, respondent No.2, passed ex parte orders dated 22.05.200, and such orders, the learned counsel contended, are a nullity, ab initio void and non est in the eye of law. In support of this argument, they placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Konkana Ravinder Goud v. Bhavanarishi Co-op. Housing Building Society^[4] . They further submitted that respondent No.2 passed ex parte orders dated 22.05.2007 against dead persons and without personal notice to the affected parties, and in support of their

¶31

contention that when an order amending the record of rights is passed, prior notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or to be affected by the amendment, should be issued, and service of notice by way of publication in news papers, is not sufficient, placed reliance on the judgments in Chatru v. Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar Distric t^[5] and Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Office r^[6] .

¶32

They submitted that since respondent No.1 in the impugned order dated 18.10.2008, while confirming the order dated 22.05.2007 of respondent No.2, held that the land in question, is no longer capable of being used for agriculture, the RoR Act, having regard to the provisions of Section 2(4) thereof, is not applicable, and therefore, the appeal proceedings initiated by respondent Nos. 4 to 8, for correction/rectification of record, before respondent No. 2, are not maintainable, and as such, the order passed by respondent No.2, as confirmed by respondent No.1, are liable to be set aside. They further submitted that respondent No.2, having entertained the application to set aside the ex parte order dated 22.05.2007, and having re-opened the proceedings and having allowed the parties to file their pleadings, written documents, committed a grave error in passing orders dated 24.03.2008, holding that he had no power to re-open the appeal proceedings, and in support of their argument that even in absence of any express provision, courts will have power to set aside ex parte decree, placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in

¶33

Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commissione r^[7] .

¶34

They further submitted that the orders of mutation passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in favour of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, having not been challenged by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in the appeal, the entries in pahanies, as per the provisions of the RoR Act, cannot be found fault with. They thus prayed that the impugned order dated 18.10.2008, passed by respondent No. 1, confirming the orders dated 22.05.2007 passed by respondent No.2, entertaining and allowing the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8, and the orders dated 24.03.2008, passed by him, having entertained applications and refusing to re-open the appeal proceedings, be set aside, and the writ petitions be allowed.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 28272 of 2008, namely M/s. Cyrus Investments, submitted that

¶36

Smt. Bahadurunnissa Begum, is the original owner of the land in question. She as defendant No. 32 in C.S. No. 14 of 1958, sold her decretal rights in the preliminary decree in favour of HEH Nizam by executing registered sale deed dated 26.04.1964. M/s. Cyrus Investments, having purchased the property in question from HEH Nizam, got impleaded themselves as defendant No. 206 in the civil suit. He further submitted that since M/s. Cyrus Investments, purchased the property in question from the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, their name should be incorporated in the record of rights. Inasmuch as respondent No.2, allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 by order dated 22.05.2007, and directed deletion of the names of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 and incorporation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, M/s. Cyrus Investments filed revision before respondent No.1, seeking to mutate their name in the record of rights. However, it is the grievance of M/s. Cyrus Investments that when the primary authority and appellate authority have exercised their power as to who is entitled to mutation, respondent No.1 committed an error in passing the impugned order dated 18,10,2008, directed the parties to approach the competent civil Court, for adjudication of their title and then approach the revenue authorities for mutation.

¶37

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of the official respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that as the then Mandal Revenue Officer, recorded the names of the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, without following the procedure contemplated under the RoR Act, respondent No.2, vide orders dated 22.05.2007, has allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8, and ordered deletion of the names of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 and incorporation of their names, and as there is title dispute in relation to the land in question, respondent No.1, vide orders dated 18.10.2008, while confirming the orders of respondent No.2, directed the parties to approach the competent civil court for resolution of their title dispute and then approach the revenue authorities, and no interference therewith is warranted by this Court.

¶38

The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 submitted that as the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, in collusion with the then Mandal Revenue Officer, have got their names fraudulently incorporated in the records of rights, respondent Nos. 4 to 8, immediately upon coming to know of the same, filed

¶39

appeal before respondent No.2, who considering the fact that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, mutated the names of the successors-ininterest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, without following the procedure prescribed by law and without issuing notice to the affected parties, set aside the mutation orders, and passed orders dated 22.05.2007, allowing the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8, and directing deletion of the names of the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan and incorporation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in the record of rights, which was rightly confirmed by respondent No.1, by the impugned orders dated 18.10.2008, dismissing the revisions filed by the successors-in-interest of late

¶40

Sri. Suraj Bhan, and directing the parties to approach the competent civil court, for adjudication of their title etc, and no interference is called for therewith.

¶41

He submitted that if at the instance of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 or any of the other petitioners, the impugned order dated 28.10.2008, passed by respondent No.1, which confirmed the order of respondent No.2, is set aside, it would amount to reviving and resurrecting an illegal and fraudulent order passed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, mutating the names of the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, which cannot be permitted. In support of this argument that no order can be passed, if it has the effect of reviving or resurrecting an illegal order, he placed reliance on the judgments in Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P .^[8] , Mohammad Swalleh v. III Addl. District Judge, Meeru t^[9] , Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Biha r^[10] and and C. Sreedhar Naidu v. S.R. Niranjan^[11] . In support of his argument that an order obtained by playing fraud can be set aside at any point of time, and the rule that suo motu revisional power should be exercised within a reasonable time, has no application in such a case, placed reliance on the judgment in Habeeb Yahiya v. Government of A.P .^[12] .

¶42

Sri. Anup Kumar Roy and Mohd. Mustafa, claiming to be GPA holders of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, vide GPA dated 22.12.2006, (hereinafter referred to as “GPA holders of respondent Nos. 4 to 8”) filed W.P.M.P. Nos. 11059 and 11517 of 2010 seeking to implead themselves as respondents in W.P. Nos. 24506 and 24525 of 2008.

¶43

The learned counsel appearing on their behalf, while reiterating

¶44

the petition averments submitted that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 executed agreement of sale-cum-GPA in favour of the GPA holders, agreeing to sell the property in question for Rs.1.75 crores and that pursuant thereto, they paid an advance of Rs. 2.33 lakhs. That respondent Nos. 4 to 8 under the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, have authorized them to appear and act in all courts on their behalf, appoint Advocates and sell the property in question and execute sale deeds, and file applications before revenue authorities, for succession and corrections of records.

¶45

However, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 approached the Joint Sub Registrar for cancellation of the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, by executing deed of cancellation dated 01.01.2009, but the same, having regard to the proceedings dated 25.08.2008, issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, was refused registration. Questioning such action of the Joint Sub Registrar, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 filed writ petition in W.P. No. 1757 of 2009, but the same by orders dated 04.02.2009, was dismissed by this Court holding that GPA holders have derived right as vendees in the property.

¶46

Respondent Nos. 10 and 11, who got impleaded in the writ petitions, stating that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 executed agreement of sale-cum-GPA, Memorandum of Understanding and Supplemental Deed of Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA, in their favour, coupled with interest, submitted that respondent Nos. 4 to 8, are trying to defeat their interest, and therefore, they should be permitted to defend their interest. In support of their argument that an agent can sue on his own if he has interest in the contract, placed reliance on the judgments in Subrahmania Pattar v. Narayanan Naya r^[13] , Coorla Mills v. Vallabhdas^[14] , Firm Hardaya Mal v. Firm Kishan Gopa l^[15] and Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P .^[16] .

¶47

The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 10 and 11, while reiterating the averments made by respondent Nos. 10 to 11 in the counter filed by them on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, submitted that late Sri. Suraj Bhan, is not the owner of the land in question, but Smt. Bahadurunissa Begum, is the original owner; that she died on 24.09.1972 leaving behind her daughter

¶48

Smt. Azeezunissa Begum, who died on 18.11.1981, leaving behind respondent Nos. 4 to 8. He submitted that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 upon coming to know that the names of the predecessors-in-interest of

¶49

late Sri. Suraj Bhan, were mutated in the record of rights, by then Mandal Revenue Officer, vide his proceedings dated 10.01.1984 and 24.05.1985, without following the procedure prescribed by law, they filed appeal under Section 5(5) of the RoR Act, before respondent No. 2 by making the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, namely Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, as party-respondents. Thereafter, respondent No.2 after issuing notices to them and after publication of notice in the news paper on 24.04.2007, and as there was no response from the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, passed ex parte orders on 22.05.2007, directing deletion of the names of the predecessors-ininterest of the petitioners from the record of rights and incorporation of the names of respondent

¶50

Nos. 4 to 8.

¶51

While so, the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan and respondent No.9, namely Sri. Nawab Mohammed Naseeruddin Khan, represented by his GPA, filed petitions, praying to set aside the ex parte orders, and respondent No.2, after issuing notice to all concerned, by orders dated 24.03.2008, dismissed the said petitions, refusing to re-open the matter. The successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, did not question this order. Even though the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan and M/s. Cyrus Investments, questioning the order dated 22.05.2007, passed by respondent No.2, allowing the appeal of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, filed revisions, but respondent No.1, vide the impugned order dated 18.10.2008, while confirming the orders of respondent No.2, directed the parties to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of their rights, and no exception can be taken thereto.

¶52

He denied the contention of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24506 and 24525 of 2008 that the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 under Section 5(5) of the RoR Act is not maintainable. He submitted that the as per Section 4 of the RoR Act, a person acquiring right or interest in the land, has to get his name mutated in the revenue records, within 90 days, but the successors-in-interest got their name mutated in the records after lapse of 19 years without notice to any persons. In fact, the successors-in-interest got their names mutated in the records by manipulating the name of Smt. Bahadurunissa Begum into Smt. Jahandarunissa Begum. Since the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners got their names mutated in the record of rights by

¶53

playing fraud and in collusion with the then Mandal Revenue Officer, who passed orders dated 24.05.1985, without following the procedure prescribed by law, there can be no limitation for preferring the appeal and it can be filed at any point of time. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment in State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma^[17] and Meenakshi Ammal v. Somasundara Nada r^[18] .

¶54

He submitted that respondent No.2, before passing the ex parte order dated 22.05.2007, allowing the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8, issued notices to the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, and they were sent to the addresses found in the revenue record, and as there was no response from them, the notice was published in the newspaper, however, none of the successors–ininterest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan nor his son, namely Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, who was alive, entered their appearance. In support of this argument, that once notice is sent, it should be deemed to have been served, and substituted service is valid service, he placed reliance on the judgments in Basant Singh v. Roman Catholic Mission^[19] .

¶55

He submitted that even though the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, namely Sri. Ganesh Pershand and Sri. Jagadish Pershad, died, the fact remains, Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, another son of late Sri. Suraj Bhan was alive, and he ought to have brought about the death of his brothers to the notice of respondent No.2, and at any rate, since the lis can be continued against the legal heirs of the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, the order passed by respondent No.2, which was carried in revision by the successors-ininterest, before respondent No.1, who dismissed the same by reason of the impugned order, cannot be said to be ab initio void. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgments in Karuppaswamy v. C. Ramamurthy^[20] and Khaia Begum v. Guilam Mohiuddin^[21] .

¶56

He submitted that the name of Smt. Bahadarunissa Begum, finds place in the sethwar, and that itself is sufficient to say, that she has title to the property. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the judgments in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Prameela Mod i^[22] and S. Lingamaiah v. State of A.P .^[23] . Therefore, he submitted that no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 28.10.2008,

¶57

passed by respondent No.1, confirming the order dated 22.05.2007, passed by respondent No.2, allowing the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8, and ordering deletion of the names of successors-ininterest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan and incorporation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and directing the parties to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of their dispute relating to title. He thus prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed.

¶58

Sri. Rajendra Prasad, the learned counsel in support of his arguments that entries in sethwar are not mere revenue entries for collection of land revenue and that sethwar recognizing a person as pattadar, is evidence of title of such person, relied on the judgments of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Prameela Mod i^[24] , S. Lingamaiah v. State of A.P .^[25] . He also relied on the judgments in Karuppaswamy v. C. Ramamurthy^[26] , Basant Singh v. Roman Catholic Mission^[27] , Khaja Begum v. Gulam Mohiuddin^[28] , State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma^[29] , Meenakshi Ammal v. Somasundara Nada r^[30] and Habeeb Yahiya v. Government of A.P .^[31] . judgment in W.P. No. 1757 of 2009, dated 04.02.2009.

¶59

The learned counsel for respondent No.9 submitted that Smt. Jahandarunissa Begum is the original pattadar and owner of the land in question, but Smt. Bahadurunissa fraudulently got her name inserted in the revenue records for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85, and taking advantage of such fraudulent entries, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 claiming that the land in question belongs to them, filed appeal before respondent No.2, and got their names incorporated in the revenue records. He submitted that after the death of Smt. Jahandarunissa Begum, the property in question devolved upon her son Sri. Nawab Sultan-Ul-Mulk. He submitted that Sri. Nawab Md. Miftauddin Khan, from whom late Sri. Suraj Bhan, is said to have purchased the land in question, had no right whatsoever over the land, much less to execute sale deed 02.09.1964. Therefore, the predecessors-in-title, have no right whatsoever to claim title over the property in question. He submitted that after the death of Sri. Nawab Sultan-ul-Mulk, his son Sri. Nawab Farced Nawaz Jung Bahadur, succeeded to the property, and after his death, his sole daughter, Smt. Asmathunissa Begum Saheba, became the owner of the property as per the preliminary decree. After her death, her sons Sri. Mohd.

¶60

Zahjeeruddin Khan and Sri. Md. Naseeruddin Khab, enjoyed the property as absolute owners. As Sri. Mohd. Nawab Zaheeruddin Khan died issueless, respondent No.9 became the owner of the property in question. In fact, the name of respondent No. 9 is arrayed as defendant No. 60 in the preliminary decree in the civil suit. That he being the successor-in-interest of Smt. Jahandarunissa Begum, except himself, no person, much less late Sri. Suraj Bhan or his successorsin-interest or respondent Nos. 4 to 8 or their predecessor-in-title, Smt. Bahadarunissa Begum, are entitled to mutation of their names in the revenue records. He thus prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed.

¶61

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 24506, 24525 and 28272 of 2008, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 8, the learned counsel for respondent No.9 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 10 and 11.

¶62

Though the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and respondent Nos. 10 and 11, based on certain entries in the revenue records and copies of the pahanies for different years, which reflected inconsistent entries, disputed the stand taken by the successors-ininterest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, that the property in question belonged to Smt. Jahandarunissa Begum, and contended that it belonged to Smt. Bahadurunissa Begum, and likewise, respondent No. 9, who claims that he succeeded to the property through Smt. Jahandarunissa Begum, contends that Mohd. Mistauddin Khan, his predecessor-in-title, did not sell the property to late Sri. Suraj Bhan, and that he was only a cultivating tenant, having regard to the nature of dispute raised in the writ petitions, which relates to the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the revenue authorities in relation to the mutation or correction/rectification of the names of the persons in the record of rights, I am not inclined to go into disputes as to ownership and give a finding as to who the owner of the property in question is, for such questions, do not come within the purview of this Court, for decision.

¶63

Even though respondent Nos. 10 and 11, having got impleaded themselves in the writ petitions contended that they having been given Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA by respondent Nos. 4 to 8, which is coupled with interest, should be permitted to defend their case because respondent Nos. 4 to 8 have made futile attempts to cancel the Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA and frustrate their interests having taken some money, but having regard to the scope of enquiry in the writ petitions, I am not inclined to go into the question as to the rights and liabilities of the parties arising out of the Agreement of Sale-GPA, except to consider the arguments advanced by the counsel for respondent Nos. 10 and 11 along with other counsel, because they filed appeal on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 before respondent

¶64

No.2 and also contested the revision before respondent No.1.

¶65

The case of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24506 and 24525 of 2008 is that late Sri. Suraj Bhan, during his lifetime, had purchased the property in question from Sri. Nawab Mohammed Mistauddin Khan, vide registered sale deed dated 02.09.1964. That he died on 12.09.1973, leaving behind his three sons namely, Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, and they having succeeded to the property, their names were also recorded in the record of rights, by the then Mandal Revenue Officer. That Sri. Ganesh Pershand and Sri. Jagadish Pershad, died on 15.03.1988 and 20.03.1987 respectively. That after their death, the names of their legal heirs (petitioners in W.P. No.24525 of 2008), were mutated in the record of rights, vide proceedings dated 10.01.1994. That the said legal heirs, entered into development agreements with M/s. Aditya Homes, under registered documents dated 15.12.2005 and 23.06.2005.

¶66

While so, they state that respondent Nos. 4 to 8, through their GPA holders, namely respondent Nos. 10 and 11, filed appeal in the year 2006 before respondent No.2, against Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, questioning the mutation of their names in the record of rights by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, on the ground that the land in question belongs to Bahadurunissa Begum, and that they succeeded to the said property, being her legal heirs, and that Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, got their names mutated in the record of rights, in collusion with the then Mandal Revenue Officer, without any notices to them, and therefore, their names should be deleted from the record of rights and in their places, their names should be entered.

¶67

Thereupon, respondent No. 2, issued notices to the respondents therein, namely Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad. As the notices sent to them, were not served, respondent No.2, allowed the application of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 for substituted service of notice by way of paper publication, and accordingly, respondent Nos. 4 to 8, took out notice by way of paper publication in Andhra Jyothi Telugu daily news paper, Hyderabad edition on 28.04.2007.

¶68

As in spite of service of notice, none appeared for Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad,

¶69

respondent No.2 passed ex parte orders dated 22.05.2007, ordering deletion of the names of Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad and mutation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in the record of rights.

¶70

Immediately, the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, praying to set aside the above ex parte order dated 22.05.2007, filed petition before respondent No.2, stating that the order has been passed against dead persons and without issuing notices to them. In the said appeal, respondent No.9 got impleaded as party-respondent, contending that he is the owner of the land in question, having succeeded to the same, and that his name should be recorded in the record of rights. Respondent No.2, having allowed the parties to putforth their respective cases, by order dated 24.03.2008, dismissed the petition stating that he has no jurisdiction to re-open the case after passing final orders under Section 5(5) of the RoR Act, and granted liberty to the parties, to prefer appeals before the competent authorities.

¶71

Questioning the above order, the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 filed revision before respondent No.1, while M/s. Cyrus Investments (petitioner in W.P. No. 28272 of 2008, filed another revision, stating that they purchased the property in question from HEH Nizam V, who in fact, purchased the same from

¶72

Smt. Bahadurunissa Begum. Respondent No.1, after issuing notices to all concerned, vide orders dated 18.10.2008, while upholding the order dated 22.05.2007 of respondent No.2, relegated the parties to approach the competent civil court, for getting the title dispute resolved and then approach the revenue authorities for appropriate relief under the RoR Act.

¶73

As noticed above, it is these orders of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which are under challenge.

¶74

Though respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 11 contend that late Sri. Suraj Bhan is not the owner, the fact remains, after his death, the names of his three sons, namely

¶75

Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, were mutated in the revenue records. As is evident from the death certificates, Sri. Ganesh Pershad and Sri. Jagadish Pershad, died on 20.03.1987 and 15.03.1988 respectively. After their death, the names of their legal heirs, petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, were recorded in the record of rights on 10.01.1994. Admittedly, respondent

¶76

Nos. 4 to 8 filed appeal before respondent No.2 on 18.11.2006. Even though as on that date, the names of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, were recorded in the record of rights, the fact remains, respondent Nos. 4 to 8, filed the appeal against Sri. Ganesh Pershad and Sri. Jagadish Pershad, who are no more, and even though Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, was alive, the fact remains, his address was wrongly mentioned, and in fact, the notices were taken to the wrong addresses. Since respondent

¶77

Nos. 4 to 8 filed appeal against dead persons, namely late Sri. Ganesh Pershad and late Sri. Jagadish Pershad, the order dated 22.05.2007, passed by respondent No.2, setting them ex parte and allowing the appeal, is non est in the eye of law. In Mullapudi Satyam and Others v. Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist .^[32] , a Division Bench of this Court held that an order passed against dead persons is non est in the eye of law, as follows:

¶78

As many as five vendors were dead on the date when the applications were filed by the Society and when order was passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Rule 22 of the Rules required the Mandal Revenue Officer to issue notice to the alienor or transferor in Form XI specifying therein the date on which and the time on which he proposes to enquire into the application. No such notice was issued to the vendors. Notice was stated to have been published for information of the general public. It was a different notice in Form No. XII, which is required to be issued for the information of the General Public. Separate notice in Form XI was required to be issued to the vendors. Failure to issue such notice for which a finding of fact has been recorded by the Joint Collector also vitiates the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer being in violation of the principles of natural justice. The order was passed against those who were dead on that day and was passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer having no jurisdiction in the matter. Such an order is without jurisdiction and a nullity. It is a fundamental principle of law that a defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary, territorial or in respect of subject-matter, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree or order and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. A decree or order passed by a Court or authority without jurisdiction is a nullity and its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. Reference in this regard be made to the decision of the Supreme Court

¶79

i n Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan^[33] . The Joint Collector was thus justified in having set aside the said order of the Mandal Revenue Officer and with such order of the Joint Collector no interference was called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The setting aside of the order of the Joint Collector has resulted in springing into action an order of Mandal Revenue Officer, which is nullity, without jurisdiction and is in violation of principles of natural justice and thus cannot be sustained.

¶80

As the order dated 22.05.2007, passed by respondent No.2, is against two dead persons, the same is a nullity and non est in the eye of law, and as such, the said order, which stood confirmed by order

¶81

dated 18.10.2008 of respondent No.1 in revision, having regard to the settled law, being a nullity and non est in the eye of law, is liable to be set aside.

¶82

Even though it is contended that Sri. Mahaveer Pershad was alive, the fact remains, as noted above, the notices were taken to the wrong addresses. No doubt, Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, was alive, and as there was no response, the notice was taken to him, by way of paper publication in Andhra Jyothi of Hyderabad edition, but that by itself, having regard to a judgment of this Court in Chatru v. Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, cannot be treated as effective and valid service of notice.

¶83

Admittedly, the names of petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 were already mutated in the record of rights by the time, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 through their GPA holders namely respondent Nos. 10 and 11 filed appeal before respondent No.2. As any order to be passed in the appeal, by respondent No.2, would affect the interests of petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, it was incumbent upon respondent Nos. 4 to 8 to make them as party-respondents in the appeal, and any proceedings initiated without making them as necessary and proper parties, would render the proceedings void, because any order passed against a person, who is not a party, cannot be enforced. In fact, the law is well settled that when an order affecting the rights of a persons, whose names are recorded in the record of rights, is passed, they should be issued notices. I n Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, a Full Bench of this Court, considered the question whether before amendment of record of rights is effected, notice is required to be given to the person whose name is recorded in the record of rights, and if not, what would be the effect of the amendment, in the light of the case law governing principles of natural justice, and held as under:

¶84

If an application is made for amendment of the existing entries in the Record of Rights, the person whose name already exists in such record is entitled to contest the proposed amendment. He can do so only if a notice regarding the proposed amendment is given to him by the recording authority. An order passed against a person whose name already exists in the Record of Rights without giving him notice of the proposed amendment and effective opportunity of hearing is liable to be declared nullity on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem, which as mentioned above, represent the most important facet of the rules of natural justice. It needs no emphasis that the rules of natural justice are applicable in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The rule of hearing is also applicable in purely administrative proceedings and actions where any public authority passes an order affecting the rights of any individual. The applicability of the rules of natural justice to

¶85

purely administrative actions has been recognized by the Supreme Court in the State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 and has been reiterated in various judgments including those of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of Undia, AIR 1970 SC 150, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 567, S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136, Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.

¶86

Further, the Full Bench, in the light of the above discussion, observed that requirement of issuance of notice to persons whose names are recorded in the Record of Rights is mandatory and that publication of notice in newspaper, cannot be said to be an effective substitute to a notice in writing to all the affected parties, and held as under:

¶87

The requirement of issuing notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment is independent of the requirement of publication of notice in accordance with the second part of Section 5(3) read with Rules 19 and 5(2) of the Rules. The language of Form-VIII in which the notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of the substantive provision contained in Section 5(3), which, as mentioned above, casts a duty on the recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment.

¶88

In the instant case, as noted above, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 neither made the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 as partyrespondents nor respondent No.2 issued notice to them, even though their names were recorded in the record of rights. The publication of notice in the newspaper after the notices sent to the dead persons returned unserved, as held by the Full Bench of this Court, in the above referred case, cannot be treated as effective and valid service of notice on the persons whose names are recorded in the Record of Rights. That being so, the order dated 22.05.2007 passed by respondent No.2, as confirmed by respondent No.1, vide orders dated 18.10.2008, passed in revision, directing deletion of the names of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 and directing mutation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, being an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and a nullity, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶89

There can be no dispute on the proposition of law that an order passed setting aside an invalid order or passed without jurisdiction, cannot be interfered with because any interference therewith, would amount to reviving or resurrecting an invalid order. In the case on hand, the names of successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, namely Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, were recorded way back in the years

¶90

1975-76, and after their death, the names of their legal heirs, namely petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, were recorded in the revenue records. Even though, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and respondent Nos. 10 and 11 contend that the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan and subsequently after their death, their legal heirs got their names recorded in the Record of Rights, in collusion with the then Mandal Revenue Officer, without issuing notice to others, the fact remains, the record produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, does not contain the proceedings relating to the mutation effected long back.

¶91

However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 merely sought to justify the order of respondent No.2 dated 22.05.2007, which was confirmed in revision by respondent No. 1 by order dated 18.03.2008, stating that it has set aside an illegal order. In the absence of any record, to show that the names of the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan were recorded in the record of rights by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, illegally and without following the procedure, no exception can be taken to the recording of the names of the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan. In M.B. Ratnam v. Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R. Dist., a Division Bench of this Court held:

¶92

The entries in the record of rights are made after holding public enquiries. The entries made in the record of rights carry with them a great evidentiary value, sometimes they constitute the only evidence available in order to establish one’s title to the lands. The record of rights is thus prepared, maintained and updated by the public servants in discharge of their official duties. It would be impossible to accept that the entries made in the record of rights in the instant case which remained in the record of rights for a period of over 10 years have not been notified by the respondents until they have preferred the appeals before the appellate authority. The vague expression offered by the respondents about the entries and the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, is totally unacceptable.

¶93

In the case on hand, the names of the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, were said to have been recorded in the record of rights about 43 years back, and while respondent Nos. 4 to 8 filed appeal before respondent No.2, without explaining the long and inordinate delay in filing the appeal properly, except stating that the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, got their names recorded in the record of rights, illegally in collusion with the then Mandal Revenue Officer, and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

¶94

Be that as it may, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and respondent Nos. 10 and 11, as already noted above, in the appeal filed before respondent No.2, merely sought rectification of the entries in the record of rights. They filed the appeal only against the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, namely Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad. By the time, they filed appeal before respondent No.2, already the names of the

¶95

petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, were recorded in the record of rights, vide proceedings dated 10.01.1994 of the then Mandal Revenue Officer. However, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 neither made them parties to the appeal nor sought setting aside the order dated 10.01.1994, passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, mutating the names of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 in the record of rights, except stating that they did not question, because the said order was not served on them, and that in spite of their best efforts, they could not obtain a copy of the same. In that view of the matter, the order dated 22.05.2007, passed by respondent No.2, which was confirmed by respondent No.1, vide orders dated 18.10.2008, passed in revision, is not binding on the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, because it was passed without notice to them.

¶96

In view of the above, there is no need to go into the questions whether the petitioner in W.P. No. 24506 of 2008, which entered into development agreements with the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 or the petitioner in W.P. No. 28272 of 2008, who filed the same claiming that they have purchased the suit schedule property, from HEH Nizam, who is said to have purchased the same from Smt. Bahadurunissa Begum, which filed W.P. No. 28272 of 2008, is entitled to incorporation of their names in the Record of Rights, because whatever rights their title-holders get in the land, will flow to them. Since the order dated 22.05.2007, passed by respondent No.2, as confirmed by respondent No.1, is against dead persons and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the same cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. However, the setting of the impugned orders, does not preclude the parties to agitate their rights before the appropriate authorities/forum.

¶97

For all the foregoing reasons, the order dated 22.05.2007, passed by respondent No.2, as confirmed by respondent No.1, vide orders dated 18.10.208, passed in revision, are set aside. Consequently, W.P. Nos. 24506 and 24525 of 2008, which questioned the said orders, are allowed. Since the order dated 22.05.2007 passed by respondent No.2, as confirmed by respondent No.1, vide orders dated 18.10.2008, passed in revision, are set aside, the order dated 24.03.2008, passed by respondent No.2, refusing to set aside the ex parte order dated 22.05.2007, which merged with order dated 18.10.2008 of respondent No.1 in revision, is also set aside. As a result thereof, the writ petition in W.P. No. 28272 of 2008, which sought implementation of the order dated 22.05.2007, passed by respondent No.2, is liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶98

N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶99

Dated: April, 2011

¶100

Note: Mark LR copy. (B/o) KSR

¶101

The A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 2(4) of the Act defines “land” as which is capable of being used for purposes of agriculture, including horticulture, but does not include land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes. Thus, from the definition of land, as defined in Section 2(4) of the Act, it is clear that the provisions of the Act, can be made applicable to lands which are capable of being used for purposes of agriculture, including horticulture, and does include land used exclusively for nonagricultural purpose. In the case on hand, respondent No.1, in the impugned order, held that “the suit land is no longer agricultural land”. When the land in question, has lost its character as “agricultural land”, obviously, the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable to it. Since the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the land in question, the appeal proceedings initiated by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 before respondent No.2, and the order passed by him therein, which

¶102

stood confirmed by order dated 18.10.2008 of respondent No.1, in revision, are without jurisdiction, and therefore, not maintainable.

¶103

[1] 2007 (1) ALD 435 [2] 2003 (1) ALT 688 (DB) [3] 2009 (1) ALD 248 [4] 2003 (5) ALD 654 [5] 2007 (2) ALT 374 [6] AIR 2008 AP 15 (FB) [7] (2008) 7 SCC 663 [8] AIR 1966SC 828 [9] AIR 1988 SC 94 [10] (1999) 8 SCC 16 [11] 2009 (5) ALD 520 (DB) [12] 2003 (5) ALD 215 [13] ILR (Vol. XXIV) Madras Series 130 [14] AIR 1925 Bombay 547 [15] AIR 1938 Lahore 673 [16] AIR 1966 SC 828 [17] 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249 [18] AIR 1970 MADRAS 242 [19] (2002) 7 SCC 531 [20] AIR 1993 SC 2324 [21] AIR 1976 AP 65 [22] 2005 (3) ALT 379 (DB) [23] 2004 (2) ALD 837 [24] 3005 (3) ALT 379 (DB) [25] 2004 (3) ALT 276 [26] AIR 1993 SC 2324 [27] (2002) 7 SCC 531 [28] AIR 1976 AP 65 [29] 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249 [30] AIR 1970 Madras 242 [31] 2003 (5) ALD 215 [32] 2003 (5) ALD 654 (DB) [33] AIR 1954 SC 340

M/s. Cyrus Investments Ltd. v. The Joint Collector - I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Cyrus Investments Ltd. v. The Joint Collector - I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Y.S.N.Reddy Vs The Union of India, represented by its Secretary

Reddanna, Vs T.Swaroop

Sri M.V. Krishna Rao, Vs Sri P. Seena Reddy

Ganesh Pershad (died per L.Rs.) Vs The Joint Collector -I

Smt. R. Sarojana Vs Sri Satyanarayana

M/s. Padmavathi Transport Company, Vs The Singareni Colleries Co.Ltd.