THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.29813 of 2013 Between: N.Manohar And Dated 21st January, 2014 …Petitioner The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Gaddam Srinivas Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri Durga Prasad Sadam The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed feeling aggrieved by proceedings bearing No.A/151/2011, dated 30.07.2011, of respondent No.4, whereby he has ordered change of entries in the record of rights registered in respect of Ac.0.11 cents of land in Survey Nos.49, 187 and 221 of Bahadhurpally Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
I have heard Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Durga Prasad Sadam, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that the name of respondent No.5 has been entered in the ROR register in the place of the petitioner and others based on a preliminary decree, dated 06.11.1998, in O.S.No.9 of 1997, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.
In my opinion, a preliminary decree in a partition suit merely declares the right of a person to a share in the property and unless a final decree is passed, no person can claim right over a specific parcel of the property. Unless the land is identified by metes and bounds in pursuance of the final decree, no entry in the record of rights can be made in favour of a person holding the preliminary decree.
The learned counsel for respondent No.5 strenuously contended that his client being one of the five brothers is entitled to 1/5th share in the family properties and that therefore, respondent No.4 is justified in ordering mutation in his favour.
This submission is not supported by the order of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 has not considered the right of respondent No.5 for mutation de hors the preliminary decree. If the petitioner has any right over the property, notwithstanding the preliminary decree, he shall be free to make a fresh application before respondent No.4 for considering his claim independent of the preliminary decree. In such event, respondent No.4 shall hold a fresh enquiry under Section 5(3) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, wherein he shall issue notices to the petitioner, respondent No.5 and other persons who are interested in the land and pass a fresh order. It is however made clear that if respondent No.4 chooses to wait till passing of the final decree, he shall be entitled to seek change of entries in the record of rights based on the final decree.
Subject to the liberty given to respondent No.5 and the direction given to respondent No.4 as above, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.37019 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st January, 2014
VGB