High Court dismissed writ petition challenging mutation of land in respondent's name without a de novo enquiry. Court held suit is pending in Civil Court with injunction decree in respondent's favor; Article 226 not appropriate remedy.
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 M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
Writ Petition No.16545 of 2015
ORDER:
This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners requesting to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent - Tahasildar, Sangam Mandal, in issuing proceedings in Rc.No.B/ 1362/ 2014, dated 16.02.2015, canceling the pattadar pass books and title deed documents issued in favour of the petitioners and in mutating the properties in the name of the 4th respondent by showing him in the pahanies concerned as pattadar and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.7.17 guntas at Krishna Nagar, chinthalapalli Village, Sangam Mandal, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the Articles of the Constitution of India and contrary to the orders of the 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, in proceedings, dated 29.07.2013, in Rc.No.A/ 4877/ 2010.
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri T. Dayananda Rao, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 3; and of Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. I have perused the material record.
3. The case of the petitioners and the submissions made on their behalf, in brief, are as follows:
One Vangam Mallamma, 4th respondent, filed OS.No.1221 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, for perpetual injunction simpliciter against Gopathi Kattaiah and six others, who are the agnates of the petitioners. In the said suit, she claimed that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.7.17 guntas at Krishnanagar, having acquired the same from her deceased father, Gopathi
MSRM, J WP.No.16545 _2015
2
Uppalaiah and that the defendants in the said suit attempted to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property taking advantage that she is all alone. The defendants therein filed written statement and resisted the suit stating that one Chintalapally Gangadhar of Krishna Nagar village intended to sell away his landed properties admeasuring about Ac.78.00 guntas in different survey numbers to meet his and his family needs; that some of the villagers came forward to purchase the lands; that a document was executed in the name of late Gopathi Sanna Mallaiah, he being the elder of the village; that subsequently the said Mallaiah allotted the land to the purchasers including the defendants in the said suit or their respective fathers as the case may be by dividing the property by metes and bounds according to the capital investments made by the purchasers; that this happened 100 years back; that accordingly, names of the purchasers, who were in possession of the respective properties, are recorded in the revenue records. The said suit is pending. While so, the 4th respondent, who was the plaintiff in the said suit, reiterating the very same allegations in her plaint, filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deed books issued in favour of the petitioners herein and others in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.7.17 guntas at Krishna Nagar, Chintalapalli village. The petitioners and others made claims in respect of the extents of lands, which are in possession of the respective parties, and stated their defence. However, the 2nd respondent, after receiving report from the 3rd respondent to the effect that there are no entries made in the pahanies and 1(B) register and amendment register and having noted that the petitioners and others who made claims failed to submit any documentary evidence connected to issuance of pattadar pass books and title deed books, cancelled the same and remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent directing to conduct de novo enquiry duly issuing notices to the parties in the said proceedings. Thereafter,
MSRM, J WP.No.16545 _2015
3
the 3rd respondent, without appreciating any aspect of the matter and without conducting any enquiry, simply directed the Revenue Inspector, Chintalapally village, to mutate the property in the name of the 4th respondent by entering her name in pattedar and possessor columns from the year 2010 onwards on the ground that the 2nd respondent passed orders canceling pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners and others in respect of the land being claimed by her. The 2nd respondent, in his orders, dated 29.07.2013, directed the 3rd respondent to conduct de novo enquiry and pass appropriate orders as per ROR Act. However, 3rd respondent misunderstood the orders and passed the impugned orders by simply receiving the documents and gave direction to the Revenue Inspector as stated above without conducting any enquiry. As such, the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent are unsustainable. Hence, the writ petition is filed.
4. The 4th respondent, while not disputing the filing of the suit by her and the contest raised by the defendants in the said suit and the pendency of the said suit and the further events that lead to the issuance of the impugned proceedings in her favour, contends as follows: ‘The 2nd respondent after issuing notices to all concerned and conducting due enquiry has passed orders clearly holding that the petitioners have no title and that their names are not recorded in form 1(B). He, thus, rejected their contentions and accordingly cancelled the pattadar passbooks, which were fraudulently obtained. However, he remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders for incorporation of the name of this respondent in revenue records as the third respondent is the competent authority for doing so. The 3rd respondent thereupon issued notices to the petitioners calling upon them to submit their objections. The petitioners appeared, but, failed to substantiate any of their claims and merely stated that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in their favour were canceled and that the orders of the 2nd
MSRM, J WP.No.16545 _2015
4
respondent were obtained fraudulently without any entitlement. The orders of the 3rd respondent are, therefore, valid. The 3rd respondent is not required to conduct a de novo enquiry by issuing due notices. The contention that the 3rd respondent failed to comply with the directions of the 2nd respondent is misconceived. The 3rd respondent clearly observed in his order that after issuance of notices, the matter was posted to 31.01.2015 and that the petitioners have not placed any material on record. The 3rd respondent has passed the impugned orders duly complying with the directions in the orders of the 2nd respondent. The petitioners are misleading the Court.’
5. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, by judgment, dated 15.09.2014, decreed the suit, OS.No.1221 of 2008, filed by the 4th respondent against G. Kattaiah and six others and that a decree for perpetual injunction was granted in her favour in respect of the subject land.
6. Having regard to the contention that the 2nd respondent by his orders remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent for a de novo enquiry, it is necessary to refer to the said order, which is brief and which reads as under:
“ On perusal of the contents of the appeal and the counter filed by the respondents it is observed that both the appellant and respondents are claiming the land in Sy.No.68 to an extent of Ac.7-17 gts as their ancestral property, but the Tahsildar, Sangem has reported that there are no entries made in the pahani and in the 1B register and amendment register. The respondents have also failed to submit any documentary evidence connected to issuance of Pattedar passbooks/Title Deeds.
In view of the above the pattedar pass books/title deeds issued in favour of respondents 1. Sri Mekala kattaih S/oBuchaiah, 2. Gopathi Mallaiah S/o.Dudaiah, 3. Sri Duddu Komuraiah, S/o.Komuraiah, 4. mekala Gattaiah, 5. Gopathi Dudaia S/o.Ailaiah, 6. Mekala Komuraiah S/o.Iylaiah, 7. mekala Komuraiah S/o.Chinna Mallaiah 8. Immadi Iylaiah S/o.Rajakomuraiah and 9. Kavati Sammaiah, S/o.Rajamallu in respect of Sy.No.68 to an extent of Ac.7.17 gts of Chinthalapalli village of Sangem mandal are cancelled and the matter is remanded to the Tahsildar, Sangem Mandal, to conduct denova enquiry, duly issuing notices to the appellant and respondents and dispose the matter as per ROR Act.”
MSRM, J WP.No.16545 _2015
5
7. Now it is pertinent to refer to the order, dated 16.02.2015, of the Tahasildar, which is passed as a sequel to the order of the RDO. The operative portion of the said order, which is in Telugu, is to the following effect: - ‘As per the orders of the RDO, memos are issued to both parties directing them to appear, on 30.01.2015, along with respective documents related to the subject land, if any, with them showing their right, title and interest over the same. The answering respondents appeared on the said date and submitted pattadar passbooks.’ Therefore, orders for mutating the property in the name of the 4th respondent and entering her name in pattedar and possessor columns of the pahanies from 2010 onwards upto date and further directing the VRO to carry out the said exercise accordingly were issued by him. Thus, a perusal of the order of the 3rd respondent does not either indicate that he failed to follow the directions in the order of remand and or that he failed to conduct the necessary enquiry. In-fact his order indicates that he issued notices and called for objections. However, the petitioners produced only pattadar passbooks and no other document showing their entitlement for issuance of such passbooks. Admittedly, 4th respondent is claiming property by succession from her father. Indeed, the case of the petitioners is that one Chintalapally Gangadhar of Krishna Nagar intended to sell away his properties in a total extent of Ac.78.00 guntas and that since several persons came forward to purchase the property, he executed a document in favour of late G. Sanna Mallaiah who was an elder in the village and that subsequently the said Mallaiah allotted lands to various purchasers as per the capital investments made by them by dividing the property by metes and bounds about 100 years back. The 3rd respondent noted that the petitioners herein and others, who made claims, could not establish their claims by producing any documentary evidence. Hence, confirming the order of cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners herein, he passed consequential orders for mutation of the
MSRM, J WP.No.16545 _2015
6
properties in the name of the 4th respondent and for entering her name in the revenue records both in possessor and pattedar columns. Further, the suit filed by the 4th respondent for perpetual injunction was also decreed in her favour as is evident from a copy of the judgment in the said suit, which is placed of record. The said judgment has become final is not in dispute. Even otherwise the said decree granted by the Civil Court will have its primacy until the said decree is set aside in any appeal preferred by the petitioners against the said decree of the trial Court.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary/ equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioners from establishing their rights in an appropriate civil proceeding before a competent civil forum as entries in revenue records do not confer title or take away existing title, if any.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J
16.07.2018 Vjl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 226 writ jurisdiction is appropriate to grant relief in a pending civil dispute over land titles where revenue entries were mutated without conducting a de novo enquiry as directed.
Whether a decree for perpetual injunction granted by a civil court has primacy over revenue entries pending its modification or set aside by a higher court.
Mekala Kattai Gattu & Ors.
Mekala Gattaiah
Tahasildar, Sangam Mandal
Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal
M. Seetharama Murti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
