THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.22921 0f 2008 Between:
A. Khader Nawaz Khan PETITIONER AND
1. The Tahsildar (M.R.O), Kadapa, Kadapa District, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition is directed against the order D.Dis. (E2)/3024/07, dated 30.08.2008, passed by the Joint Collector, Kadapa, the 3rd respondent herein, setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, the 2nd respondent, issued vide proceedings Ref.E/1119/2006, dated 30.06.2007.
2. Heard Sri K. Sudharshan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is as follows:
i) Petitioner’s grandfather, one Mr. Yousuf Khan, purchased agricultural land in S.No.475/A1, admeasuring Ac.0.13 cents and Sy.No.475/A5, admeasuring Ac.0.37 cents situated at Gudur Village, Alankhanapalli, Kadapa Town, by way of a Registered sale deed bearing Document No.2130/1927, dated 17.10.1927 from one Mr.Abdul Razak. Petitioner’s father, Gaffor Khan had good relations with respondents 4 and 5 who are land owners of the adjacent lands in Sy.Nos.475/A5. Petitioner’s father leased out the land of Ac.0.13 cents in Sy.No.475/A1 and Ac.0.37 cents in Sy.No.475/A5 to the 4th and 5th respondents on condition of giving ‘8’ bags for every year and believing them the petitioner’s father never entered into the land either to check the boundaries or to verify the irrigation facilities for the land. On an application made by the petitioner’s father, the 1st respondent- Tahsildar, Kadapa, issued pattadar passbook bearing No.360 and Title deed No.36955. Taking advantage of the death of the petitioner’s father, respondents 4 and 5 decreased the “gutta” from 8 bags to 6 bags and later to 3 bags. Complaining manipulation of entries in Revenue Records, petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent-Tahsildar on 01.07.2006 to survey the lands in Sy.Nos.475/A1 and 475/A5 and to fix the boundaries while enclosing the pattadar passbook and title deed.
ii) The 1st respondent-Tahsildar after personally inspecting the lands and verifying the documents, came to a conclusion that the petitioner is the absolute owner of Ac.0.13 cents in Sy.No.475/A1 and Ac.0.37 cents in Sy.No.475/A5 and by virtue of proceedings Ref.No.C/638/2006, dated 26.10.2006, recommended deletion of the said lands from pattadar passbook and title deeds of respondents 4 and 5 and inclusion of the same in the pattadar passbook and title deed of the petitioner. The said orders were given effect to by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa-the 2nd respondent by virtue of the order in proceedings Ref.E/1119/2006, dated 30.06.2007.
iii) Aggrieved by the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer Respondents 4 and 5 filed a revision before the 3rd respondent- Joint Collector under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971, (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The Joint Collector, by way of an order vide proceedings D.Dis.(E.2)/3024/07, dated 30.08.2008, allowed the said revision, setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 30.06.2007.
iv) Assailing the validity of the said order passed by the Joint Collector dated 30.08.2008, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. This Court, while issuing Rule Nisi 21.10.2008, in W.P.M.P.No.29851 of 2008 granted status quo. W.V.M.P.No1476 of 2014, supported by a counter affidavit, has been filed by respondents 4 and 5, seeking vacation of the interim order dated 21.10.2008. The counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 and 5 denies all the averments and allegations made in the writ affidavit and justifies the impugned order passed by the Joint Collector.
5. Contentions of Sri K. Sudharshan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner –
i) The order passed by the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971.
ii) Since the Revenue Divisional Officer after thoroughly considering all the aspects passed the order dated 30.06.2007, the Joint Collector grossly erred in disturbing the same.
iii) The Joint Collector erred in conferring title on respondents 4 and 5, which is beyond his jurisdiction.
iv) The Joint Collector did not properly consider the material on record from proper perspective.
6. Contentions of Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 -
i) The order of the Joint Collector is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
ii) Since the Joint Collector assigned cogent and convincing reasons, the said order does not warrant any interference of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
iii) This writ petition, in the absence of any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order, is not maintainable.
7. In the light of the pleadings, submissions and contentions, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are -
1. Whether the order passed by the Joint Collector, setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, is sustainable and tenable?
2. Whether the petitioner is successful in making out a case, warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
8. Obviously with an intention and object to safeguard the interests of the agriculturists, who are the backbone of our Indian economy, and to get over the practical difficulties at the ground level, the Government of Andhra Pradesh enacted the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. In the present case, on an application made by the petitioner, the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar by virtue of proceedings vide Ref.No.C/638/2006, dated 26.10.2006 made recommendations to the Revenue Divisional Officer for deletion of lands standing in the name of respondents 4 and 5 and for inclusion of the same in the name of the petitioner. Basing on the said report of the Tahsildar, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders dated 30.06.2007, giving effect to the recommendations of the Tahsildar.
9. From a reading of the said order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer based on the recommendations of the Tahsildar, it would manifestly evident and crystal clear that the Tahsildar had undertaken roaving enquiry into the title and basing on the report of the Tahsildar, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders in favour of the petitioner. It may be appropriate to note at this juncture that the Revenue Divisional Officer relied upon the alleged Encumbrance Certificate and made the same as one of the grounds for holding in favour of the petitioner. The said document is placed on record by the petitioner along with the writ petition. A perusal of the same shows that it is only a mortgage deed but not Encumbrance Certificate, as observed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the order dated 30.06.2007. Respondents 4 and 5, felt aggrieved by the said order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, filed a revision before the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the Act. A perusal of the order passed by the Joint Collector clearly and categorically shows that the Joint Collector exceeded his jurisdiction under the Act, and attempted to confer title on respondents 4 and 5, which is impermissible and opposed to the very spirit, object and provisions of the enactment.
10. Another significant aspect, which needs mention at this juncture is that pending the present writ petition before this Court, the petitioner instituted a suit, being O.S.No.226 of 2014, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, seeking declaration and for injunction in respect of the self same property. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner filed I.A.No.742 of 2014 and the learned Senior Civil Judge granted injunction in favour of the petitioner. A perusal of the papers pertaining to the suit filed before this Court make it manifest that pendency of the present writ petition and the status quo order granted by this Court as long back as on 21.10.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.29851 of 2008, were obviously not brought to the notice of the learned Senior Civil Judge.
11. The facts and circumstances and the tenor of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector drive this Court towards an irresistible conclusion that the authorities exceeded the jurisdiction conferred on them under the statute. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said aspect is totally one without jurisdiction. It is also relevant to note at this juncture that Section 8 (2) of the Act also authorises the person aggrieved, to institute a suit for declaration of his right. The said provision of law also obligates the authorities to correct the entries in the revenue records in accordance with the decree in the suit. In view of the above reasons, the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 30.06.2007 and the order of the Joint Collector dated 30.08.2008 cannot stand for judicial scrutiny.
12. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and keeping in view the suit instituted by the petitioner herein pending the present writ petition, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the proceedings Ref.E/1119/2006, dated 30.06.2007 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, the 2nd respondent, and the proceedings D.Dis.(E2)/3024/07, dated 30.08.2008, issued by the Joint Collector, Kadapa. However, it is made clear that the parties to the present writ petition including the governmental authorities shall abide by the decree in O.S.No.226 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa. It is also made clear that the interim order granted by this Court on 21.10.2008 shall continue to operate pending disposal of the suit. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
28th July, 2014 Js.