Allowed

Chinthalaphani Pavani v. The Joint Collector

Telangana HC18 Sept 2012WA/1176/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Apex Court of Andhra Pradesh modified a single judge's order in a writ appeal, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to decide the land title matter afresh while allowing the appellant's existing passbooks to remain valid during the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The matter remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer for fresh consideration and disposal; notice to be served upon parties; appeal allowed against revisional order.

Chinthalaphani Pavani Vs The Joint Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

W.A. NO. 1176 of 2012

¶3

Date of Judgment: 18.9.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Chinthalaphani Pavani

¶6

…Appellant

¶7

and

¶8

The Joint Collector, Warangal District and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶12

W.A. NO. 1176 OF 2012

¶13

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose, ACJ)

¶14

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 21.8.2012 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 24794 of 2012.

¶15

The appellant/writ petitioner has filed the writ petition praying the Court to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order in RC.No.E5/2382/2008 dated 07.07.2012 passed by the 1^st

¶16

respondent under Section 9 of A.P. Records of Rights Act confirming the order of the 2^nd respondent in File No.A/526/2007 dt.17.3.2008 setting aside the order of the 3rd Respondent in Rc.No.B1/662/2006 dt.22.3.2006 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶17

Facts of the case, briefly, are that the writ petitioner is the daughter of one Chinthalaphani Sudheer Reddy who was the original owner of the land in question in different survey numbers of Madipalli village of Hasanparthy Mandal. By an unregistered document dated 10.1.1968, the said Chinthalaphani Sudheer Reddy is said to have sold about Ac.30.00 cents of land in Survey Nos. 698 etc in favour of one Mohammad Ali. The transferor and the transferee disclosed the said sale transaction in their respective declarations submitted by them under the A.P. Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act. It appears that Mohammad Ali re-conveyed the land to an extent of about Ac.17.50 cents in Sy.Nos. 699 and 701 under an unregistered document dated 15.9.1981 to Chinthalaphani Sudheer Reddy, who in turn, executed a registered gift deed dated 30.1.2006 in favour of his daughter, the writ petitioner. Based on the said gift deed, the writ petitioner filed an application before the Tahsildar, Hasanparthy Mandal-3^rd respondent with a request to enter her name in revenue records and issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The Tahsildar, after verifying the same, by order dated 22.3.2006, directed that the name of the petitioner be entered in revenue

¶18

records and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in her favour. Aggrieved by the same, the unofficial respondents 4 to 13 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal-2^nd respondent. The appeal was allowed by an order dated 17.3.2008. Then the writ petitioner challenged the said order by way of revision before the Joint Collector-1^st respondent under Section 9 of the A.P. Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act. The said revision was dismissed by the 1^st respondent by his order dated 7.7.2012. In these circumstances, the writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner.

¶19

Upon hearing the parties, the Hon’ble single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition modifying the order dated 17.3.2008 passed by the 2^nd respondent and confirmed by the 1^st respondent through his order dated 7.7.2012, set aside the patadar passbooks and title deeds issued to the petitioner and the matter was directed to be remanded back to the 3^rd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal, after issuing notice to the petitioner and unofficial respondents 4 to 13.

¶20

We have considered the facts and also having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that it would be proper for us at this stage to set aside the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer2^nd respondent and confirmed by the 1^st respondent and remand the matter back to the Revenue Divisional Officer-

¶21

2^nd respondent who shall hear out the matter afresh after giving a chance of being heard to the writ petitioner as well as to the unofficial respondents 4 to 13 and shall thereafter pass a reasoned order in the matter within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. We make it clear that notice should be served on the parties at least before the date fixed so that the matter can be heard out in their presence. We further make it clear that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued to the writ petitioner shall continue until the matter is finally decided by the Revenue Divisional Officer-2^nd respondent.

¶22

The writ appeal is thus disposed of in the manner as stated in the preceding paragraph. The order of the learned single Judge is accordingly modified. No costs.

¶23

_____________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶24

___________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶25

Dt. 18.9.2012 KR

Chinthalaphani Pavani v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinthalaphani Pavani v. The Joint Collector

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

Mahabubnagar District Palamoori Migrant Labour Union Vs The Union of India., rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of

Banjara Welfare Association Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep., by its Principal

Migrants Rights Council, Affiliated to Migrant forum in Vs The Union of India

Garigipati Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Vs Sri T.Chandrasekhara Naidu

Katakam Rajeshwar Vs The State Bank of India

Bramha Devi Mastanamma Vs District Collector