IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 17406 of 2014 BETWEEN K.Murali and another ... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Chittoor and another ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioners have approached this court complaining inaction on the part of Mandal Revenue Officer in implementing the final decree proceedings as granted by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, in I.A.No.463 of 2013 in O.S.No.92 of 2012, dated 24.01.2014.
The said final decree passed by the aforesaid court was based upon the preliminary decree earlier passed by the same court in O.S.No.92 of 2012 on 23.01.2013. By virtue of the said decree, the suit schedule property, viz., Ac.2-00 of land in Survey No.200/3 of Thirumandyam Village, Vadamalapeta Mandal, Chittoor District, was directed to be divided into three shares viz., 1/3rd to the branch of plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 each, another 1/3rd to the branch of plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 each, leaving the balance with the defendants. Subsequently, an advocate commissioner was appointed, who filed his report together with the sketch showing three shares i.e., 1/3rd each.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states, and it is recorded in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, that K.Kesavaiah, K.Chenchuramaiah and K.Chengalrayulu, would each get Ac.0-67 cents, Ac.0-67 cents and Ac.0-66 cents respectively. The distribution, accordingly, having been made by the Advocate Commissioner, the report was accepted while passing the final decree, aforesaid, dated 24.01.2014. The said decree is required to be implemented on ground by demarcating and dividing the said survey number in terms of the final decree. The present writ petition is, therefore, filed alleging inaction on part of the Mandal Revenue Officer.
4. Learned Government Pleader has received instructions, which show that in implementation of the said decree when the Mandal Surveyor visited the fields, an objection was raised by one R.Harinath, S/o.R.Mohanaiah, claiming that he has purchased an extent of Ac.0-60 cents from K.Gouravamma, W/o.Late Kesavaiah and her sons. On account of the objection, it appears that no further proceedings were carried out.
5. Evidently, the decree granted by the competent civil court has to be given effect to by implementing the final decree on the ground that even if there is any objection by transferee from one of the sharers, that would not affect the implementation of the final decree on ground and, at best, the share of such transferee will have to be adjusted in equity against his vendor’s share. However, the Mandal Revenue Officer, who is concerned with the implementation of the final decree on ground, is not concerned with the adjustment of equities among the original sharers and their tranferees. That matter is left open for the transferee to pursue and take appropriate remedies available to them.
In the circumstances, therefore, since the final decree has to be implemented, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to take all necessary effective steps expeditiously, for survey and demarcation of respective extents of the parties in terms of the decree aforesaid. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 8, 2014 LMV