TheCourtdirectedtheTahsildartoholdadetailedenquiryintothediscrepancyinsurveynumbersregardingthelandassignedtothepetitioner’shusband,toenableadecisiononmutations.
Petitioner permitted to file authentic documents; Respondent to hold enquiry and pass speaking order within two months.
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 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.19693 of 2013
Dated 1 1 th September, 2013
Between: Smt.Hashmath Bee and The Tahsildar, Adilabad Mandal, Adilabad District and others
…Petitioner
…Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The inaction of respondent No.1 in taking a decision on the petitioner’s representation for mutation of her name in the revenue records in respect of Acs.5.10 guntas of land in Survey No.72/33 of Battisawargoan Village, Adilabad Mandal and District (for short ‘the subject land’) is questioned in this writ petition.
It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that her husband Syed Khasim was assigned the subject land by the erstwhile Nizam State and in recognition thereof, pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in his favour by the then Tahsildar of Adilabad Mandal under the provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder, which was counter signed by respondent No.2. The petitioner’s husband died on 29.11.1995. The petitioner claims that she has succeeded to the said property left by her husband. Her grievance is that her request for mutation of her name in the pahanies and the relevant revenue records is not being considered.
Having regard to the grievance expressed by the petitioner, this Court has called upon the respondents to submit their response. In obedience to the notice issued by the Court, respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit, wherein he has inter alia stated that the petitioner’s husband was granted assignment after formation of State of Andhra Pradesh for Acs.5.00 in Survey No.72/47. The counter affidavit denied grant of assignment to the petitioner’s husband in Survey No.72/33. It is further averred that in the year 1990-91, the assigned lands were resumed due to violation of the assignment condition that the land should be brought under cultivation and thereafter the said land is declared as kharij khata and recorded as such in the pahanies for the year 1990-91 till date.
On 05.09.2013, this Court has directed respondent No.1 to be personally present in the Court as to the basis on which he has averred that the assignment was granted in respect of land in Survey No.72/47 and not in survey No.72/33. Today, respondent No.1 is personally present at the hearing.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the file vide which the petitioner’s husband was granted assignment was found missing, but the entry in faisal patti shows that the assignment was made in favour of the petitioner’s husband in respect of Survey No.72/47. He further submitted that the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner’s husband contain over writings and therefore the same cannot be relied upon.
Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that during the life time of the petitioner’s husband, he was granted pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of Acs.5.10 guntas in Survey No.72/33 and that the supplementary sethwar issued on 31.03.1972 contains the name of the petitioner’s husband. The learned counsel also placed reliance on proceedings bearing No.E/200/88, dated 24.08.1993, issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Adilabad which shows that the petitioner’s husband is the assignee in respect of Acs.5.10 guntas of land in Survey No.72/33, even though Survey No.72/47 is mentioned in sethwar.
From the rival pleadings of the parties and the documents referred to above, it is evident that there is serious dispute as to the survey number in which the petitioner’s husband was granted assignment. Unless a thorough
enquiry is held by respondent No.1, this dispute cannot be resolved. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to file the authentic documents on which she is seeking to place reliance before respondent No.1. On such filing, respondent No.1 shall hold a detailed enquiry and pass a speaking order within two months therefrom.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.24132 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th September, 2013 VGB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to mutation of her name in revenue records regarding land assigned to her deceased husband.
Whether the Tahsildar conducted a proper enquiry to resolve the discrepancy in survey numbers of the granted assignment.
Smt. Hashmath Bee
The Tahsildar, Adilabad Mandal
Others
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
