Amanaganti Madhava Reddy (Died) Per L.Rs Vs The Tahsildar

1 Amanaganti IVfadhava^{Reddy (Died) Per L.Rs} Amanaganl i Rpjasekhar Reddy S /o. Amanagafrti Madhava ReddY. Aged about 36 years. Occ : Employce, R/o.9 7 337/p1, Shilpi Residencl . Mar ut hr Nagai, Champapet,^Hvderabad A. Kavitha, W,,lo. Aluka Sadanalda Reddy. Ased about 39 vears, Occ: Housewife, R7o. R.T.C. Colony, Champqpel, Hyderabad.

¶10

1. N. Praveen Kumar, S/o. N. Gowraiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o. H.No. A-9 -234, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. Petitioners AND

¶11

1. The^'lahsildar, Maheshwaram Manclal, Ranga Reddy District, At Thummalur^Village, Maheshrvaram Mandal, Ranga Redcly District

¶12

1. Kowa Ramulu, S/o. Late Kowa Jangaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o. ThummAlur Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶13

1. Kovva Srisailam, S/o. Late Kor.wa Rangaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Thummalur Village, Maheshwaram Maldal, Ranga Reddy District

¶14

/

¶15

Ko,,,va Srinivas, S/o. Late Kowa Rangaiah, Aged about 28 years,- Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Thummalur Vlllage, Maheshu,aram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶16

Kowa Lakshmaiah, S/o. Late Kowa Muthaiah, Aged about 26 years, Occ : Private Serr/ice, R/o. Thummalur Viliage, Maheshwzrram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶17

6- Kor''va Shiva Kumar, S/o. Late Kowa Muttraiai, Aged about 24 years, Occ : Private Service R/o. Thummalur Village, Maieshwaram Mandal, . Ranga Reddy District

¶18

',]

¶19

(Contd...2

¶20

Ql^,, 7. Amarlaganti Ravinder Rert.r ij:; 1T" ""^{g_, i i:."i],,li.,jar.} rttsco aDout 4g years. O".. i n7.. e r.c. .;i"lr,LIfi,.?r?irr, Shamshabad. derabad

'

l,*-ffi#,,?:#i:*xh

Manda,,

(Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 are not necessary parties to this *.:.

¶25

"",::::;"0"","

¶26

/

¶27

^,_^..^{lutition under Article226 of the} Constitutic ctrcumstances stated in trfi#ffi^{fr pi,l;'$'+i[+ru;mxs,,.h#} il.Jl,:l#Iff illlil,.".ilX?:;",;,;il;i;;"T;iy.ff :ffJ:;,ff ,".",*.ff",,:"J;l/

¶28

t.A. NO: 10F 2010(WPMP.N O: 31919 0F2010)

¶29

Petition under Section 15i GpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitton the High Courl may be pleased direct the Respondent No.1 not to dispossess or otherwise interfere with the possessi on of the Petilioners in respect of their lan ds admeasurin g Ac. 'l 5.05 Gts., in Sy.No. 29 1 of Thummalur Village, Maheshwara m Mandal, RangaReddy District

¶30

IA NO: 10F 20 19

¶31

IJCtrvccn

¶32

Ar))anaganri Madhava Reddy (Died) pcr L.Rs.

¶33

Anrarraganti Rajasek_har Reddl

¶34

),ljlI,lql,,,^{Madhava Reddy,} i.f", i.:i,-11.1::rs.^{occ : rmploli,e,} i:':.',1^{t-t.tE2./v/l/56. litar No..:r02,} ,1ll'1i1^{R*,^d".r:y.Var shati Nagar.} ( nampapet. Saidabad, I Iyderabad

¶35

l

¶36

A. Kavjtha, W/o. Aluka Sadananda kedd1,.

¶37

li"O^rlo:,^{39 years. Oec:I lousewire,} tUo. R.T.C. Colony. Champafcr. H.,rierabad.

¶38

):.flr:*.^{Kumar.S/o N. Gou,rauh,} l:"1 :9.r,32^{years.Occ : Agrieutiure,} l(^ro. I {. No. 8_9_214. Chandray-r,,g.,,", Hyderabad

¶39

PetitioncrsA'etitioners A I\I L)

¶40

I hc Tahrildar.. Maheshwaram Nlanrlal, Ranga Redd-v Districr. At Thurn, trr*.rr" *r,,"Vr;; :;rr-:H::il Jlh:::

¶41

b.ovva^{Kaltlulu-5/o. Late NOVVa JarrgalSn'} i".d ahout 5l vears,^{Occ : Agricul'urc'} ii[. rfutrn*fu^{villagc' Maheshuaraml\landal'} !t

¶42

Ranga ReddY^District Kovva^{Srisailatn, S/o- L'ate KovvaIlangaiah'} Aged about^{32 years, Occ: Agr;culture'} iii-}i-'","-J,i.^{vitiage,Maheshwararn Ivlandal'} l{anga^{ReddYDistrict} l.ovvc Srinivas.^{S/o.I ateKovvaRangaiah'} ji

¶43

,!:ed ahout^{l8 years.Occ: Agrict'lturc'} iiio. tt'',,,n*nlrt^{Village'Nlaheshwararrr lvlandal'} Ranga^{ReddYDistrict}

¶44

5 Kowa^{[,akshtnaiah,S/o' Late Kovva Muthaiah'} ,\qi,.l ah,,ut^{ltryears.Occ : Private Scrvicc'} iil, rr',rt',',,"t*^{'illage'Mehcshurrra;rrNlundul'} l<rnge^{RcdtlY l)istlict'} 1

¶45

() Kowa Shiva^{Kumar, S/o' Late KovvaMuthaiah,} Aned about^{24 years'Occ: Private liervice} ni,r. inun*utut^{village' MaheshwrrramMandal'} Ranga ReddY^District

¶46

l Amanaganti^{Ravinder Reddy,S/o Arnanaganti VenkalReddy'} eg.J ,E r,48^{years.Occ:E'O'R D' S,[amshahad'} ru-o. n.f.C.^{Colony' Champapet' H1'tlerabad}

¶47

8 A. Sumathamma,^{Wo.Late A' Cnverdhan Reddy'} Aued about^{42 years,Occ:Agricultrrrc'} ni-r. fnu,nrutu.^{Village' Maheshwlram Mandal'} Rarrga Reddy District .. ..Respondents/Respondents

¶48

9 The Slate^ofTelangana, Represented^{by its PrincipalSecretary,} Revenue^{Department, Secretariat,} i' Hyderabad. Respondent/^{Proposcd Respondcnt No'9} s:,

¶49

. petition under section^{151 cpc praying that in the circumstances statedin} / the affidavit^{fired in support of the pe^tition,in" Higncourtmay be pleasedto} ' lmplead^{the proposej-dJtpono"ntNo s.nerei;as Rispondent No'g in above Writ} petition ,no con."q=r".nity il;ili;;^{inierlocutory applications pendingthere tn}

¶50

Counsel^{for the Petitioners:SRI' M V DURGA PRASAD}

¶51

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'1: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT}

¶52

Counsel for^{the Respondent Nos'2'5&6:M/s' S' MADHAVI}

¶53

Counsel forthe^{Respondent NO'3: SRIJANARDHAN AKULA}

¶54

Counsel^{for the Respondent NO'4: SRI PONAMPELLI RAVI}

¶55

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'7&8: --}

¶56

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶57

t

¶58

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V .SHRAVAN KUMAR I IVrit Pet tion No.24973 of 20IO

¶59

ORDER:

¶60

The present writ petition is filed to call for records in File No.B/4029 /2OOB, dated 02.O8.2O10 on the file of respondent No.1 and consequently set-aside the same as iliegal, arbitrar5r, without juriSdiction, violation of principles of natural justice

¶61

2 Facts in brief,as stated are that petitioner Nos.l, 2 and 4 claims to be, the owners ald possessors of land admeasuring Ac.15.05 Gts., in Sy.No.291 of Thumma_lur Village, Maheshwaram Manda,l, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter, referred as ,s ubject propert5z). 3. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1, respondent No.7 and the husband of respondent No.g have jointly purchased the subject property under registered sale deed bearing document No.g56 6f lgZO, dated 19.10.1970 f,rom original pattedars ald possessors and out of the entire extent of Ac.15.05 Gts., the petitioner No.4 purchased Ac.2.23 Gts from petitioner no.I under registered sa-le deed, bearing document No.23O6 of 2O01, dated l2.Og.2OO1, registered

¶62

2

¶63

before Sub^{Registrar, at Maheshwaram Manda'l, Ranga reddy} District and^{subsequently, in the joint famiiypartition' the} remaining^{extent of Ac'12 '22 Gts out of the total extentof} Ac.15.05^{Gts, fell to the shareof the petitioner No'1 along with} several other^{properties,and the same was also recordedby} the respondent^{No'1 inproceedingsNo'D2 1/04' dated} l7.o|.2oo4.ThereaJter,anoralpartitiontookplacebetween petitioner^{No.1 and petitioner Nos'2 and 3' u'herein arr extent} of Ac.S.OO^{Gts out of the total Ac'12'22 Gts fell to the share of} petitioner^{No.2, while 'tLe remaining Ac'7 '22 Gts fell to the} share^{of petitioner No' 1, and several other propertiesfell to the} share of^{petitioner No'3' It is furthersubmittedthat name of} petitioner^{No.2 was mutated in the revenue recordsvide} proceedings^{No'D/97212004'dated26'07'2OO4and the name} of petitioner^{No'4 was mutatedin.the revenue records vide} proceedings^No'D I^{2760 /2001'dated 26'Og'2OOl' Therea-fter'} the revenue^{authoritiesalso issued pattedar pass books and} title deeds^{in favour of the petitionerNos' l' 2and 4' It is} submitted^{that at the instanceof respondent Nos' 2 to 6 '} respondent^{No.1 had initiatedproceedings underSection 4(1)} of the A.P. Assigned^{Lands (Prohibitionof Transfer)Act' 1977'} (hereinafter^{called as 'the ActJ and declared the sale deed}

¶64

J

¶65

bearing document No.g56 of 1970, dated 16. lO.lgZO as null arld void and also passed resumption orders in File No.B/aO29 l20Og, dated O2.Og.2OlO and the sarne was served on the petitioners on 22.Og.2OlO, which is being questioned in the present writ petition.

¶66

In the grounds urged, in the writ petition, it is submitted that the impu[rred proceedings are without jurisdiction as there is absolutely no material to show that the land in question is an assigned land and respondent No.1 failed to conduct any, enquiry, despite the petitioners having fiied detailed objections and counter denying that the lands in question are assigned lands. That the respondent No.1 having recorded a finding that the petitioners have failed to produce any evidence and no record of assignment is available, ought to have dropped the proceedings as being without jurisdiction and respondent No.l gravely erred and stating that in the absence of documentary evidence, the entries in Faisal patti can be taken as a secondar5r evidence. That, the findings of respondent No.l are perverse and illegat, the respondent No.1 ought to have ensurerl the existence of the jurisdictional fact before invoking the Act, as repeatedly held by this Court and respondent No. 1 failed to follow the judgement cited before

¶67

4

¶68

him,^{including those reportedin 2008 (5) ALD 626 and 2OO9} (4) ALT^{(DB) 1' which amountsto colourableexercise of power} and^{a fraud on power.rt is also urged that Respondent No.1} also^{failed to considerthat the land in questiondoes not fa1l} within^{the definitionof assigned land underSection 2(1) of the} Act and^{withoutdetermining the jurisdictiona'l fact based on} the material^{on record'respondentNo'1 proceededto resume} the land'^{That the respondentNo'1 also failed to see that the} land^{in questionwas computedto the holdingof the pet} itioners after^{enquiry and on the basis of the report of the Tahs} ildar^bY the Land^{Reforms Tribunal and that ttre State has} alwaYs therebY treated^{the said land as Patta land of the petitioners'} rendering^{the impugnedproceedingswithoutany juri} sdiction. That^{Respondent N o ' 1 also failed to see that the} Pattedar to the and title^{deeds werti already issued} Passbooks under^{Section6-A of the A'P'Rightsin Land and} petitioners ass^{Books Act, 1971' which shows that the subject} Pattedar^P land^{is a} Private^{patta land belongingto the petitioners and} records^{contrary torebut thestatutory} there^areno presumption'^{It is also urgedthat RespondentNo'1 failedto} see that^{no show cause notice underSection 3(2) of the Act} was issued^{as mandated by the Judgment of the Division}

¶69

)

¶70

Bench of the Hon'ble High court in w.p.No. L4T9s of20o5 and batch dated O2.OT.2OO8 (2OO8 (S) ALD 262, and that Respondent No. t has no jurisdiction to decrare the sa-le deed bearing Document No.g56 of 1920, dated 16. IO.I}ZO, as null and void. That Respondent No.1 is only a quasi_judicial authority and cannot assume the role of a Civil Court to pass such orders by invoking the 'provisions of the specilic Relief Act, particularly after a long lapse of time i.e., more than 38 years from the date of purchase by the petitioners or their predecessor.

¶71

It is submitted that petitioner No.1 died on 06.08.2010 and the property devolved on petitioner Nos.2 and 3, as such they are entitjed to question the MRO proceedings in Fiie No.B/aO29/2008, dated 02.O8.2OlO.

¶72

A Counter has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6, wherein it is stated that respondent Nos.2 to 6 are the successors of originar assignee and also their names have been entered into the revenue records and petitioners are neither the owners and possessors of the subject land nor their narnes are recorded in the revenue records and the petitioners have made unsubstantiated claim. It is further submitted that once the land is declared as assigned land, the provisions of

¶73

6

¶74

the^{A.P. Assigrred Lands (Prohibitionof Transfers) Act squarely} apply.^{Therefore,eventua'llyprayed this Court to dismiss writ} petitron

¶75

A Counter^{has beenfiled on behalf of respondent} No.1,^{wherein it is stated that the petitioner claimsthat land} bearilTg^{Sy.No'2914, measuring Ac'15'O5gts''situated at} Thurnmaloor^{Village, MaheshwaramMandal'RangaReddy} District,^{was assigned to one Sri Narsaiah underthe Speciai} Loan^{Rules, prior to the issuanceof G'O'Ms'No' 1406' Revenue} Department,^{dateQ 27'05'1958'However'the petitioner failed} to^{produceany copy of the assignment certilicatein support of} this^{claim- In the absence of such primary evidence i'e''} Assignment^{bearingNo'A3/69a8/60'relialce has been placed} 6n^{secondar5levidence,namelythe entries in the Faisal Patti} for^{theyear 1960-61' It is further submitted that as seen from} the^{said Faisa'l Patti for the year 1960-6f itis evident that} l.Kowa^{NarayanaS/o' Kowa Muthaiah 2'Kowa Jangaiah} S/o.^{Narayanaarld 3.Kovva Rangaiah S/o' Narayana' were} assigned^{an to extent of Ac'4' 15 gts', each total measuring} Ac.^{13.05. gts., in Sy.No.291of Thummaloor Village vide patta} certificateNo.6940,dated23.O1'lg6lissuedbytheTahsildar' 1516himpatnam^{and the said assignmentswere approvedby}

¶76

7

¶77

the Nazim-e-Jamabandi in the said Faisal patti as Loani Ijafa as such it is clearly evident that the subject larld was not assigned to grandfather of the petitioners but assigned to above persons during the year 1960 i.e., after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue Dated 27.05.1958 arrd that as per the pahali 1950-51 of Tummaloor Vilange, the land in Sy'No.291 admeasuring Ac. 13:05 gts., is Government larrd and classihed as^..Gairal,, Sarkari and name of one Naraya:ra was recorded under possession column and said entries continued in the patranis for the years 1952_53, Sessala Pahani for the year 1955_58. In the pahani for the year lgZO_ 77, the names of Narayana S/o pentaiah, Jalgaiah S/o Narayana and Rangaiah S/o Narayarra have been recorded as pattadars and occupants over the Sy.No.291 measuring Ac. 13.05 gts. of Tummaloor village of the.subject property. The entire pahanis clearly establishes that the assignees/ legal heirs have sord away the assigned lands in contravention to the conditions of assignment and provisions of the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, l9ZZ. (Herein referred as ActJ.

¶78

B. It is further submitted that basing on the common judgment passed by this Court in W.p.Nos.3B72 of l97B and

¶79

)

¶80

8

¶81

batch, the^{Government while taking into consideration of the} said^{judgment had issued Memo No'515OllBll78lRev'Dept''} dated. 06.03.1979,^{Memo No'2855/B1l1979-llRev'Dept''} dated 27.08.7979^{and Memo No'3576'Bll8O2-Rev(B) Dept''} datedo3.o4.lg8l,whereinitisclqarlymentionedthatallthe transactions^{made prior to the enactment of the Act'the} provisionsofsections3oftheAct,willapplyassuchthesaid provisions^{are applicableto this case also' The Government in} its G.O.Ms.No.1835^{.Revenue(Assn'I) Department dated} all the^{villages of} ll.02.2006^{inad alreadynotified that} District,^havebeen Maheshwaram^{Manda'l, Ranga ReddY} notifred under^{Clause (b) of Sub-section(1) of Section 4 of the} A.P. Assigned^{Lands (Prohibitionof TransferslAct' 1977 'for} the purpose^{of initiating action under the said Act' Similarly'} vide G.O.Ms.No.289,^{Revenue(Assn'POT)Department'dated} 08.03.2007,^{the Government has clarifred that the subject} property can^{be utilized for any public purpose'}

¶82

g. In view of^{the above, it was established beyond any} doubt that there^{has been a clearviolation of the provisionsof} Section 3(1), (2), and^{(3) of the A'P' Assigned Lands (Prohibition} of Trarrsfers) Act, 1977^{and that the Tahsildar,Maheshwaram} Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,^{had rightly initiated action}

¶83

9

¶84

i I I I

¶85

under the provisions of the said Act by issuing the necessary notices and resuming the assigned lands vide proceedings No.B/4O29/2008, dated O2.O8.2O\O. It is further submitted that petitioners herein are the illegal purchasers of the assigned iands in the contravention of the conditions of assignment and provisions of the Assigned Lands (pOT) Act, 7977, as such the Tahsildar, has rightly resumed back the subject larrds under the above Act vide said proceedings. It is further submitted that the,.subject land was assigned to (3) persons in file 6940, dated 23.0I.1961 by the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam ald the said assignments were approved by the Nazim-e-Jamabandi in the said Faisal patti as Loani Ijafa. Eventua_lly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶86

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the subject rand is part and parcel of the decraration made by Sri Madhava Reddy, who is petitioner No.l. He would further submit that the jurisdictional fact of whether the larrds are assigned lands, as defined under the provisions of the A.p. Assigned Lands (prohibition of Transfers ) Act, 19ZZ , was not established in the impugned order dated 02.0g.2010. Additionally, according to the Land Reforms Tribunal proceedirrgs dated 2Z .OI.1977 , it was declared that the

¶87

10

¶88

i I l

¶89

petitioner's^{father, Sri Madhava Reddy' was a non-surplus} holder, and^{the subjectland in Sy'No'291 was not declared as} surplus and^{the inspectionreport received from the Tahsildar'} Ibrahimpatnam,^{also confirmedthat the said lands were} declared by^{the petitioner'sfather' Learnedcounselwould} further submit^{that the said lands have been verifiedby the} Tahsildar,^{after conducting enquiryunder Rules 4 and 5 of the} Land Reforms^{Act, 1974 andsince the said property was} previously^{declaredby ihe petitioners and their fatherand was} computed^{as part qf their land' there was no occasion for the} Tahsildar^{to questionits classificationand that there is no} evidence^{indicatingthat the said lands are assigned lands'The} respondent^{No.1 had an opportunitytoverify the earlier} records considering^{the declaration made by the petitioners'} Learned^{counselfor the petitioners would further submit that} the subject^{lands are clearly assessableunder the declarant's} holdings, and^{the orders passed in the Land Reforms Tribunal} proceedings are binding^{on the Tahsildar'}

¶90

1 1 . Heard learned^{counselfor the petitioners as well} as learned counsel for the^respondents'

¶91

lt

¶92

YSIscONCLUSION:

¶93

The impugned proceedings in fiIe No.B/4029/2OO8, dated O2.OB.2O1O, are issued by the respondent No.1. The case was fiied under Section 4(l) of the Andhra pradesh Assigned Lands (prohibit. lon of Transfer) Act' 1977, by the petitic rners against the respondents (in the said proceedings) for recovery of th. possession of land in Sy.No.291 extent of Acs. 15.05 Gts., situated at Tummalur Village, Maireshwaram Mandai. The relief sought by the petitioner are that to pass orders in favour of the petitioners against respondents by declaring title ald possession over the petition schedule propert5z as null and void and to errict the respondents from the possession of schedule property ard put the petitioners on the physicat possession over the petition schedule land arrd in support of their case certain documents were relied upon the petitioner. The respondents, who are petitioners herein also filed counter with the supporting material papers. In the orders of the MRO, dated O2.Og. 2O1O, it is observed that the petitioners have failed to prove that Narsaiah grand father of the petitioners has been assigned land in Sy.No.29l extent Acs. lS.O5 Gts of Tumma-lur Village under Special Laoni Rules and had also not produced a copy of

1

t2

I li

ntentions^and the^{assignment Certificatein supportof their co} that^Narsaiah similarly,^{the respondents also failed to prove} to the was^{assignedsaid land under SpecialLaoni Rules prror} Due^to enforcement^{of the G'O'Ms'No'1406' dated 27'05' 1958} /60,^the thenonavailabilityofassignmentfileNo.A3/6948 secondarY^{evidence ofthe entries have been taken into} dated consideration^{and asPerthe GovernmentMemo} 03.04.1981,^{all the assignments made prrorto the enactment} of Andhra^{Pradesh AesignedLands(POT) Act' 1977 ttl,e} of SectiPn^{3of the Act will aPPIY'as such the} pro!'151Ons present^{casefiled by the petitionerswill also attract the} provisions^{of the Section3 of the Act and held that the petitton} frled by^{the petitionersunder Sectiona(1) of the Andhra} Pradesh^{Assigned Lands (POT) Act' L977 is not maintainable} and petitioners^{can not seek any relief and the lands in} Sy.No.291^{extent Acs'15'05gts' situated at Tumma-tur cannot} be restored to^{the petitioners' It is furtherobserved that there} is a clear violation^{of the Provisionsof Section 3(1)(2) and (3) of} the A.P.Assigned^{Land(POT) Act, 1977} '^{by the original} assignee, who^{have alienated the subject lands videRegistered} Sale Deed No.856 of^{l97O dated 16'10'L97O in favour of} A.Madhava Reddy, respondent^{No. 1 (petitioner No' thereinis}

¶98

i3

¶99

the respondent the impugned brothers a,,d ,o''^'' Proceedings) and his 3 original assignme 23'o7'196ln.."rn" :;;,;: Governmen r,,o]] ;:,:il:::* t^/tq/ ur tne Act' In the result, the petitioners case was ra.i^^. , ff^":".::# i.^{-..il:'ffi :':;} :il::I: a,, area .f he respondent Nos. i ;"# ::j:,,"^{.;;iT, :.:;-,*ed} red salg. deed No.23O6 of 2OO7, dated 12.09.2001, it vl,as held,that no person can transfer a better title what he himself has ald the respondent No.l and his brothers who have purchased the said land through the sa.le deed No'g56 0f 1g70 is vitiated by the law and decrared as nuri and void under Section 3(2) ot the A.p. Assigned Land (pOT) Act, 7927 and thereby respondent No.4 cannot acquire the title over the said property in Sy.No.29I over an extent of Acs.2.23 Gts of land and such claim of the respondent No.4 was also rejected. The Tahsildar_respondent No.1 in the writ petition, eventually held that the sale deed No.g56 of 197o was declared aS nuli and void and vitiated by law under Section 3(1)(1)(3) of A.P Assigned^{Lands(POT) Act'1977 and the Petitionersare} not entitled^{to arry reliefunder Section(1) of the A'P Assigned}

I I

14

I i

pOT)^{Act and the claim of the petitioner was rejected and} Mandal^{RevenueInspector and VillageRevenueOfficer'} T\rmmalur^{Village was authorisedto resume the land in} Sy.No.291^{extent Acs'15'05' Gts' Situated at Tammalur Village} under^{a cover of Panchanamaand to keep the sard land under} the^{safe custody of ttre Governmenttill further orders'}

¶104

13'^{In view of the submissions made by the petitioners} and^{respondentsand that there are disputed questions of the} facts^{and complex i""'""pertainingto the subject lands' this} Court^{is of consideredopinionthat the Mandal RevenueOfficer} is not^{empoweredto declare a sale deed as invalid and it is} only the^{competentCivil Court that call make such} declarationalteradetaiied.inquiryandonexaminationof evidence^{presented by the parties concernedin the Sale Deed} Document No.^{856 of 1970, dated 16'10'1970and the same} also cannot be^{done at the discretion of the Land Reforms} Tribunal proceedings, especially^{when ithas alreadybeen} established that there is no surplus land held by the petitioners.

¶105

It is pertinent to note that the Tahsildar-respondent No.l being the custodian of records without verifying the

I5

I

-_

prlmar-y evidence has decided on the issues based on the secondary evidence and even after the co r: nsiderable number of judgments of this ".,,", o"tt *o^{.-,. :'---t} Hon'ble Supreme court of India observed that mere . :ntries in revenue records does not conlirm any right a,,d title over the Iand by the person who claims the said lard arrd that h.e has to prove how he acquired the said Iand and whether the land in question is patta lald or assigned land ? However, the Tahsildar only considered the secondary evidence and couid not establish whether the lands in question are assigned lands or patta lands? The findings recorded by the respondent No.l lacks coherence ald claritv and do not offer any conclusive determination on the core issues which vr,.as under consideration while passing the impugned order.

¶110

In view of the preceding analysis, the proceedings No.B/4029 l2OO8, dated O2.Og.2OlO are hereby set aside and no useful purpose would be served to remit the matter to respondent No. 1, for further adjudication wherein the subject land is kept in the custody of the Government. Hence, this

¶111

Court,^{consrdering the} of^nature evidence^{of disputed and ttre facts and cornPlexitY lack of} the^or and proper^aPPreciation cannot^{be decidedon affrdavits} involved'^wtrictt issues

1

16

-l

deems it^{appropriate to relegate the parties to the jurisdiction} of the competent^{civil Court' whereinan effectiveand} comprehensive^{adjudication based on properevidencecan be} undertaken^{in accordancewith law'}

¶116

It^{is made clearthat this Court has not expressed} any opinion^{on the merits of the case to the extent of rights} ald^{possessionof the respective parties on the subject} property.

¶117

t7. With the^{abovedirection,this writ petition stands}

¶118

DISPOSED.

¶119

Miscellaleous,^{petitions' pending' ifany' shall} stald closed.^{However,there shalt be no order as to costs'}

¶120

//TRUE^COPY//

¶121

SD/. M.^OSMAN ALI BAIG SISTANT^REGISTRAR SECTION^OFFICER

¶122

To,