Allowed

K. Gopal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC17 Apr 2017WP/2740/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes revenue orders directing the petitioner to approach Civil Court regarding land ownership. The court held that the Revenue authorities illegally deleted joint owners' names from records without challenge and directed them to restore prior entries.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition allowed. Impugned proceeding dated 06.10.2012 and Memo dated 07.01.2013 set aside. Respondents directed to restore status quo ante in pahanies. Respondents to pay costs Rs.2

K. Gopal Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No.2740 of 2013

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in removing the names of the petitioner and others as joint owners of agricultural land in survey No.92/E, 92/EE, 93/E, 93/EE, 127/E, 128/E, 128/EE, 129/E, 129/EE and 145/E totally admeasuring Acres 18.32 guntas situated at Mudimyal Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and only noting the name of the 3^rd respondent in the revenue records and issuing order dt.06.10.2012 by the 1^st respondent and consequential memo dt.07.01.2013 by the 2^nd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

Petitioner, 3^rd respondent and six others jointly purchased the above lands from one Gowdicharla Narsimulu and two others under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1554/1996 dt.03.10.1996. Thereafter, they applied in 1996 jointly to the 2^nd respondent to mutate their names in the Record of Rights.

¶5

The 2^nd respondent after conducting regular enquiry issued proceeding ROR/22/96 dt.28.11.1996 mutating the names of petitioner, 3^rd respondent along with other coowners as pattadars and possessors of the said land.

¶6

¶7

Thereafter, according to the petitioner, all the purchasers were in joint possession and enjoyment of the land and mutation has been continued in the revenue records upto 1998-99. But after 1999, without giving any notice and opportunity to the other co-owners including the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent started mentioning only the name of 3^rd respondent as sole pattadar and possessor of the above agricultural land.

¶8

Realizing this mistake in 2011, petitioner applied to the 2^nd respondent to continue the names of all the purchasers of the land as pattadars and possessors including the petitioner and 3^rd respondent. The 2^nd respondent submitted a letter dt.16.07.2012 to the 1^st respondent for the purpose of correction of entries in the ROR as sought by the petitioner.

¶9

But the 1^st respondent issued impugned proceeding dt.06.10.2012 rejecting the petitioner’s plea to continue the names of all joint owners as pattadars and possessors of the above agriculture land and directed to approach the Civil Court for necessary relief. Consequently, vide impugned memo dt.07.01.2013, the 2^nd respondent advised the petitioner to act according to the directions of the 1^st respondent on the ground that execution of sale deed and conformation of title, is not under his purview.

¶10

Assailing the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶11

¶12

Though notice was served on the 3^rd respondent Aruna Jyothi, there is no representation on her behalf.

¶13

Counter affidavit was filed by the 2^nd respondent on his behalf as well as that of the 1^st respondent admitting that there was a proceeding in ROR/22/96 dt.28.11.1996 sanctioned in favour of the 3^rd respondent and seven others including the petitioner, that this was implemented in the pahanies for the years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 mentioning in the pahanies “Aruna Jyothi and others”, that thereafter only the name of 3^rd respondent, Aruna Jyothi, was being shown in the pahanies. He contended that when petitioner approached the respondents seeking correction in pahanies for more than 15 years, notices were issued to 3^rd respondent and others, and that the 3^rd respondent filed counter affidavit objecting to the inclusion of the names of the petitioner and others stating that the sale deed itself is to be rectified. It is stated that since there is a dispute between the petitioner and 3^rd respondent and others, and since confirmation of title is not under the purview of Revenue Department, petitioner was directed to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of his civil rights.

¶14

Admittedly petitioner was a party to the sale deed dt.03.10.1996 obtained by the 3^rd respondent along with others for purchase of the subject land. Application under Section 3(3) of the A.P. Rights in land and Pattadar Pass

¶15

¶16

Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) was made by the 3^rd respondent along with the petitioner and other co-owners for incorporation of their names as pattadars and possessors of the above land. In fact, the sale deed dt.03.10.1996 relied upon by the petitioner was produced in the enquiry before the 2^nd respondent. It was found genuine and on that basis, the 2^nd respondent passed order in ROR/22/96, dt.28.11.1996 including the names of the petitioner, 3^rd respondent and six others in the Record of Rights register of the said village for the above survey numbers. This order was also implemented admittedly in the pahanies for 1996-97, 1997-98 and 199899.

¶17

Only after 1999-2000 an alteration was made by the respondents 1 and 2 by noting only the name of the 3^rd respondent and deleting the names of petitioner and other coowners.

¶18

No notice was given by the 2^nd respondent before doing so.

¶19

It is also not the case of respondents 1 and 2 that the 3^rd respondent challenged under Section Sub-Clause(5) of Clause(5) of the Act the order dt.28.11.1996 of the 2^nd respondent within the period of 60 days from the date of said order or that a she had filed any Revision under Section 9 of the Act.

¶20

¶21

Therefore the deletion of the names of petitioner and others from the pahanies by only mentioning the name of 3^rd respondent is illegal and contrary to the Act. The respondents 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to do so without there being any objection or challenge by 3^rd respondent to the order dt.28.11.1996 passed by the 2^nd respondent

¶22

Merely because the petitioner realized the same and made an application in 2011 to include his name as well as that of the 3^rd respondent in the revenue records and at that time, the 3^rd respondent objected to the correction of the ROR, respondents 1 and 2 cannot direct the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. This is because, the 3^rd respondent without challenging the order dt.28.11.1996 or its implementation in the pahanies from 1996-97 to 1998-99 has no locus to file any objection to the petitioner’s application for restoration of the status quo ante as on 1996-97 immediately after order dt.28.11.1996 was passed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶23

It is clear that some mischief was done by the 3^rd respondent in collusion with the then officials holding the office of the 2^nd respondent in 1999-2000 to mention only her name by deleting the words “and others” in the pahanies for the subsequent years.

¶24

For the wrong committed by the 2^nd respondent, petitioner cannot be punished by being asked to approach the

¶25

¶26

Civil Court when there was a sale deed dt.03.10.1996 already filed before the 2^nd respondent showing that he is one of the co-owners of the subject land and which sale deed was accepted as genuine and acted upon by the 2^nd respondent in his order dt.28.11.1996 and in the pahanies up to 1998-99.

¶27

Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed; the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in asking the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, vide proceeding dt.06.10.2012 and Memo dt.07.01.2013, respectively, are both side aside; and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to restore status quo ante in the pahanies subsequent to 1998-99, as per the entries recorded in the pahanies for the year 1996-97. The respondents 1 and 2 shall also personally pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner.

¶28

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶29

_____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶30

17^th April, 2017. gra

K. Gopal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Gopal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

T.Narasimha Vs Mr.B.Janardhan Reddy IAS

G.Varalaxmi Vs Smt.Ranjeev R.Acharya,I.a.S

B. Tarun Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh,. Rep. by the Secretary

Bathina Srinivas, Vs a. Kalyana Chakravarthi

Ch. Chinna Kotha Rayudu Vs The District Collector

B.J.Satyanarayana, Vs The District Collector