IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.34221 of 2013 BETWEEN Smt. Bhupelli Vajramma and another.
AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. P. LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE - R1 to R4 MR. POCHAIAH DORISHETTI – R5 & R6 The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned for the petitioners, learned counsel for the contesting respondents 5 and 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4.
2. While issuing Notice before admission on 28.11.2013, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the physical possession of the property in question. Respondents 5 and 6 have filed counter affidavit and seek to vacate the order of status quo vide WVMP.No.647 of 2014. At this stage, with the consent of all the learned counsel the writ petition itself is heard and disposed of by the present order.
3. Petitioners state that alienation in their favour with respect to Ac.0.37 guntas of land in Sy.No.138 situated at Gullakota Shivar Mandal, Adilabad District by late Lasmaiah under simple sale deed dated 24.03.1995 was recognized by the Tahsildar under his proceedings No.D/3149/2006 dated 29.08.2007 and as per the said validation of the sale deed, patta was transferred in the name of second petitioner. It is alleged that the fifth respondent agreed for the said order before the Tahsildar but later filed a representation dated 30.06.2008, before the third respondent, which was treated as an appeal and the same was allowed under his order dated 12.01.2011. By the aforesaid order, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the Tahsildar to conduct fresh enquiry in the matter and pass appropriate orders after setting aside the validation order in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Joint Collector in Case No.D1/ROR/4/2011 and by order dated 16.11.2013, the Joint Collector, on merits, agreed with the view of the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub- Collector, Mancherial and dismissed the revision. Hence, petitioners preferred the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that the Revenue Divisional Officer ought not to have entertained the representation of respondents 5 and 6, as an appeal, when the said representation do not conform to the prescribed rules relating to presentation of appeal. Learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in THRIPURAVARAM KRISHNA REDDY v. JOINT
[1]
COLLECTOR, CUDDAPAH in support of the said proposition.
Secondly, learned counsel submits that along with the reply affidavit, he has produced a copy of the report of the Tahsildar in File No.C/116/2014 dated 18.02.2014, which supports the case of the petitioners that the death certificate produced by contesting respondents 5 and 6 before the Revenue Divisional Officer was not correct and thereby, the validation proceedings of the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioners was justified.
5. Though the decision of this Court, referred to above, supports the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, it has to be appreciated that the petitioners have again re-agitated the matter by approaching the revisional authority under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. Due and adequate opportunity was granted to both parties by the Joint Collector and on merits, the said revision was dismissed. The procedural irregularity in the entertainment of the representation of respondents 5 and 6 by the Revenue Divisional Officer and treating it as an appeal, therefore, has somehow paled into insignificance in view of the said subsequent event.
6. In addition to that, there is another additional and more crucial subsequent event, which is required to be taken into consideration, that pending the present writ petition, the Tahsildar has enquired into the matter with regard to the death certificate of Lasmaiah produced by respondents 5 and 6 and under his report dated 18.02.2014, referred to above, has submitted that the said certificate issued earlier to respondents 5 and 6 does not appear to be correct. Since the said document has been filed, for the first time, before this Court along with the reply affidavit of the petitioners, I am not inclined to take that into consideration for the purpose of resting the decision thereon. However, since the matter is remitted to the Tahsildar for enquiry afresh, the petitioners are given liberty to produce the said document before the Tahsildar in the De Novo enquiry, which is proposed to be conducted.
7. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of the revisional authority as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer at this stage and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of providing due opportunity to both the contesting parties to agitate all their contentions, it is just and appropriate to direct the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry afresh in terms of the order of the Joint Collector, after giving due opportunity to both sides and pass appropriate orders within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition, therefore, is disposed of with the above directions. Since the order of status quo, granted by this Court, has been in force till now, the said status quo to be continued till the Tahsildar passes appropriate final orders, as directed above.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 8, 2014 DSK
[1] 2009 (1) ALD 248