THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.31089 of 1998 Dated : 08.04.2015 Between:
Nalla Venkataiah S/o.Basanna @ Basappa, Aged about 40 yrs, Occu: Agriculture, R/o.Ainapur Village, Doma Mandal, Ranga Reddy District & others .. Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad & others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.31089 of 1998 ORDER :
The petitioners claim to be the owners of land to an extent of Ac.2.18 guntas in Sy.No 494 of Ainapur Village, Doma Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The names of the petitioners are recorded in the revenue records from 1960-61 onwards. On thorough enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Doma Mandal, issued pattedar pass books in respect of the above extent of land in the above survey number along with other survey numbers. The petitioners claim to have been cultivating the said lands. It is the further case of the petitioners that Kistaiah S/o.Laxmaiah died leaving behind three sons namely Laxmaiah, Yellanna and Muchulaiah. Laxmaiah died leaving behind the grand father of respondents 3 to 8 and Yellanna died leaving behind Venkanna, grand father of petitioners and Muchulaiah died leaving behind Hanumaiah, Ramulu, Venkaiah, Narasimlu and Papamma as the legal heirs being the grand children. The petitioners contend that in the family partition the above extent of land has fallen to their share.
2. The party-respondents( respondents 3 to 8) herein, filed appeal before the Joint Collector under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1358-F. Since the said Act was repealed, as per Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land & Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act 1971’), the said appeal was treated as revision petition under Section 9 of the Act 1971 and the same was considered by the Joint Collector. By the order dated 27.07.1998 the Joint Collector set aside the entries made in the revenue records in favour of various persons including the petitioners and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Doma to grant succession as per the shares shown in the Sesala Pahani of 1955-56 to 1957-58. Aggrieved thereby this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard Smt K. Rajasri, learned counsel representing Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 14.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the Joint Collector in entertaining said revision after long lapse of time of more than 40 years and passing orders setting aside the entries made by the original authority is ex- facie illegal and the order of the Joint Collector is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Learned counsel further submits that though Section 9 of the Act, 1971 does not prescribe any time limit to undertake Revision, said power should be exercised within reasonable time. In the instant case, the Revision was not exercised within reasonable time and there was inordinate delay. In support of her contention that there is inordinate delay and the revision ought to have been dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay, she relied on decision of this Court in
D. Narsing Rao & Others Vs State of A.P.,.
5. The revenue records were corrected long ago and since the year 1960-61 the names of the petitioners and their ancestors were reflected. The petitioners are in possession and enjoyment all along and at no point of time the party respondents have challenged their possession and the entitlement to own the land of the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel further contends that the order is also liable to be set aside on the ground that the direction issued by the Joint Collector, directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, Doma to grant succession as per the shares shown in the Sesala Pahani is ex-facie illegal. No such direction can be issued to subordinate revenue authority. The Mandal Revenue Officer cannot grant succession to any party.
7. Learned counsel further submits that as recorded by the Joint Collector, before the Mandal Revenue Officer the respondents herein have categorically admitted the respective shares of various family members including the shares allotted to petitioners in Survey No.494. They have also admitted the possession and enjoyment of respective parties including the petitioners herein. Having noticed the same, there was no justification for the Joint Collector to set aside the entries made in the revenue records long ago and directing to issue succession certificates in accordance with the entries made in Sesala Pahani of 1955-56 to 1957-58.
8. Learned counsel Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, appearing for respondents 3 to 8 submits that wrong entries were made in the revenue records and they came to know of such entries only when they applied for issuance of pattedar pass books. He contends that the petitioners are no way concerned with the family of Nalla Kistaiah and therefore, they are not entitled for any share. Against illegal orders passed by the revenue authorities reflecting the names of the petitioners in the revenue records the party respondents have filed application before the Joint Collector. It is within the competence of the Joint Collector to entertain revision under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. No time limit is prescribed to exercise power under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. The Joint Collector having found that illegally wrong entries were made in the revenue records, the orders passed by the lower authority were set aside and appropriate directions were issued.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the party respondents have never admitted before the Mandal Revenue Officer regarding the entitlement of petitioners. Due to their ignorance and illiteracy wrong statements were recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer and no reliance can be placed on such statements, as they were not obtained with full knowledge of facts and their illiteracy and ignorance was exploited to record wrong statements. As the petitioners are no way concerned with their family, the petitioners are not entitled to any share and therefore, the orders are validly passed. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners are not in possession and enjoyment of property and no material is brought on record to show that they are the successors to Nalla Kistaiah and that they are in possession and enjoyment and that partition has taken place in the family where under the subject property is apportioned to the petitioners. In the absence of such material brought on record, it cannot be said that the decision of the Joint Collector is erroneous warranting interference by this Court.
10. The revision petition is filed after long lapse of time. However holding that no time limit is prescribed in Section 9 of the Act, 1971, the Joint Collector entertained the revision and considered the matter on merits.
11. Section 9 of Act, 1971 does not prescribe time limit to entertain revision. However, it is well settled principle of law that even in the absence of time limit prescribed for entertaining the revision, such revision ought to have been preferred within reasonable time. What is reasonable time depends on facts of a given case. In the instant case, as averred by the petitioners, they are in possession and enjoyment of the subject property for a long time. According to them, in the revenue records, from the year 1960-61 onwards their names are reflected and claim to be in possession and enjoyment. This stand of the petitioners is not controverted. On the contrary, as recorded by the Joint Collector in the order impugned in this writ petition, before the Mandal Revenue Officer, on applications filed by them, statements of party respondents were recorded. In their statements, the respondents have categorically deposed the entitlement of various family members to the extent of land mentioned against each of them. In the said statements names of petitioners/ancestors of petitioners is reflected against Survey No.494. They have also deposed before the Mandal Revenue Officer, that they have no objection for apportionment and that statements were given with free will and pleasure. In view of categorical admission by party respondents appropriate orders were passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. No reasons are assigned as to why the party respondents kept quiet even though, according to them, wrong entries were made in the revenue records long ago and as recorded by the revisional authority, they have allowed possession and enjoyment of the land by the petitioners. It cannot be said that party respondents were not aware of cultivation and enjoyment of subject property by petitioners when all of them belong to same village. As per the original revenue records from 1955-56 against various survey numbers the name of Kishtappa is shown. There is no dispute that Nalla Kishtappa is the head of the family and therefore, his name was reflected. The party respondents except making vague assertion that petitioners do not belong to their family, no material is shown in support of such contention. On the contrary they admitted before Mandal Revenue Officer, the entitlement of petitioners to share in the ancestral property.
12. Thus, the Joint Collector erred in entertaining the revision filed after long lapse of time and setting aside the order passed by the recording authority, more particularly when he has conquered with the Mandal Revenue Officer on the claim of the petitioners that they are also the successors of Kishtappa.
13. The Joint Collector order is also not sustainable for one another reason. He cannot direct the Mandal Revenue Officer to grant succession, when no such power is vested in the Mandal Revenue Officer.
14. Thus, the order of the Joint Collector is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.
15. The writ petition is allowed. It is made clear that this order does not come in the way of parties agitating their claim of succession to the ancestral property, if they are otherwise, entitled to. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO,J 8th April, 2015
Rds