HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT W.P.Nos.15365 & 19466 OF 2004
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioners are different in both the writ petitions. The petitioners assail proceedings of 1st respondent in D. Dis.(H6)14/2002 dated 30.01.2004, confirming the proceedings D.Dis.D/2680 and 2681/2001 dated 28.05.2002 of 2nd respondent, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.
The subject matter of W.P.No.15365 of 2004 is agricultural land of Ac.1-28 cents in Sy.No.496/5 of Tirupati Village and Urban Mandal. The subject matter covered by W.P.No.19466 of 2004 is Ac.1-05 cents in Sy.No.496/5 and another extent of Ac.1-26 cents in Sy.No.496/5 as covered by the sale deeds dated 15.11.1990.
At the outset, it is to be noted that petitioner in W.P.No.19466 of 2004 was not a party to the impugned proceeding before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Mandal, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati Urban Mandal and the Joint Collector, Chittoor. The writ petition is filed as a person aggrieved by the purport of order dated 30.01.2004 etc. This aspect of the matter will be considered at appropriate stage.
The averments, in brief, in W.P.No.15365 of 2004 are as follows:
The 1st petitioner is the son and the 2nd petitioner is the daughter of one K.Kamalamma, d/o Adisesha Reddy. The parties to the writ petition admit that one Adisesha Reddy was the owner and possessor of Ac.15-50 cents in Sy.No.496/2 of Tirupati Village.
The petitioners claim right and title to the property through their mother Kamalamma. It is stated that, on 15.04.1985, a family arrangement and memorandum of partition was arrived at between the family members of Adisesha Reddy. Under the family arrangement dated 15.04.1985, the said Kamalamma was allotted Ac.1-28 cents of land in Sy.No.496/5 of Tirupati Village and had exclusive possession and enjoyment of property allotted to her under the family arrangement dated 15.04.1985. The petitioners claim to be successors-in-interest of Kamalamma and the 1st petitioner was allotted Ac.0-78 cents in Sy.No.496/5 and 2nd petitioner was allotted Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No.496/5. In the year 1994, the said Kamalamma died. Thereafter, on the application filed by the petitioners for mutation etc., the 3rd respondent issued proceedings PTR (II)/7/96 dated 12.07.1996 effecting transfer of patta in the name of petitioners herein. The mutation is further given effect to by incorporating the names of the petitioners in 10(1) Account and No.3 Adangal. By reference to the above circumstances, the petitioners claim exclusive right, title, interest and possession of Ac.1-28 cents in Sy.No.496/5 of Tirupati Village and Urban Mandal.
The petitioners filed O.S.No.62 of 1999 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Tirupati for declaration of title and for permanent injunction for the suit schedule property. The 4th respondent is one of the defendants in O.S.No.62 of 1999. It is further stated that the 4th respondent, during the pendency of O.S.No.62 of 1999, filed appeal before the 2nd respondent questioning the proceedings dated 12.07.1996 of 3rd respondent. Through order dated 28.05.2002, the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal filed by the 4th respondent. Consequently, the mutation effected through proceedings PTR 6(II)/7/96 dated 12.07.1996 was set aside. The petitioners preferred revision before the 1st respondent. The revision filed by the petitioners is taken on file in Case No.D.Dis.(H6)14/2002. The 1st respondent through impugned order dated 30.01.2004 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition.
The petitioners assail the orders of 1st and 2nd respondents on several legal and factual contentions.
The primary objection against the impugned orders dated 28.05.2002 and 30.01.2004 is that the 1st and 2nd respondents ought not to have proceeded to consider the grievance under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’), inasmuch as the competent Civil Court was seized of the matter in O.S.No.62 of 1999. It is further assailed that the orders of 1st and 2nd respondents did not take note of enjoyment of the petitioners for more than 15 years; mutation of their names in revenue records; and the reasons for continuing the mutation effected through proceeding dated 12.07.1996.
The petitioners complain that the order of 1st respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice, for no valid and reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioners to canvass their grievance before the 1st respondent. The petitioners pray for setting aside the orders of 1st and 2nd respondents dated 30.01.2004 and 28.05.2002 and at the time of hearing inter alia the learned counsel for the petitioners persuades this Court that the matter should be remanded to 1st respondent for fresh consideration and disposal.
The 4th respondent opposes the writ petition on all fours. The case of 4th respondent is that on 25.12.1945 Adisesha Reddy died leaving behind his sons T.Venkatamuni Reddy and T.Devanarayana Reddy as his heirs/successors-in-interest to the properties including land in Sy.No.496/2. On 23.09.1981, the 4th respondent entered into agreement of sale with T.Venkatamuni Reddy. The 4th respondent claims to have paid the consideration under the said agreement of sale. He was put in possession of Ac.4-00 of land covered by the agreement dated 23.09.1981. The 4th respondent further states that a house is also constructed and a separate road for ingress and egress is provided. Due to change in attitude of T.Venkatamuni Reddy, it is stated that 4th respondent was compelled to file O.S.No.201 of 1985 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, against his vendor for specific performance and perpetual injunction. The matter went up to the Apex Court and ended in favour of 4th respondent, resulting in a decree for specific performance and perpetual injunction. I am not considering the minor details of litigation in O.S.No.79 of 1985 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The short of the matter is that the suit decreed by the trial Court was confirmed by the Apex Court with the dismissal of special leave petition on 06.11.1998. The 4th respondent claims that the decree was put to execution and the learned Senior Civil Judge executed the registered sale deed dated 09.04.1999 in his favour. On merits, it is submitted that the endorsement dated 12.07.1996 is per se illegal and manipulated and the 3rd respondent without putting on notice any of the stake holders in the same survey number and without examining whether the so called mutation effected through proceedings dated 12.07.1996 satisfies either Section 4 or Section 5 of the Act ordered mutation. The proceedings dated 12.07.1996 change patta number from 120 to 392. The further submission of 4th respondent is that the 2nd respondent has examined the record of 3rd respondent in proceedings dated 12.07.1996 and the findings recorded are categorical enough to conclude that the 3rd respondent exercised the jurisdiction under the Act erroneously and the sub- divisions carved out are not in accordance with the practice of sub-dividing the survey numbers. The 4th respondent to emphasise that the findings recorded by the 1st and 2nd respondents need no interference by the Court, relies upon the findings recorded by the 1st respondent as well.
As regards violation of principles of natural justice, it is stated that the order impugned refers to the date of hearing as 17.01.2004. The revision was filed in the year 2002 and the matter has undergone many adjournments. The petitioners having not been diligent in appearing before the 1st respondent cannot complain violation of principles of natural justice, for an order on merits is passed. The main objections of the 4th respondent for consideration of any of the grievances of the petitioner vis-à-vis the orders dated 30.01.2004 and 28.05.2002 are that the writ petitioners filed O.S.No.62 of 1999 for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction against respondent No.4 and it was dismissed. Secondly, O.S.No.79 of 1985 filed by respondent No.4 for specific performance and perpetual injunction was decreed. Therefore, the record of right is kept corrected in line with the adjudication of civil Court and no exception can be stated. The learned IV-Additional District Judge, Tirupati through judgment and decree dated 20.11.2006 dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners. It is in this context the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent relies upon Section 8(2) of the Act and also the decisions reported in B.PUSHPAMMA AND OTHERS V. JOINT COLLECTOR, R.R. DISTRICT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS, K.PRATAP REDDY AND OTHERS V. JOINT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS and BONUS REDDY V. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS.
The proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that independent of the exercise undertaken by the parties before the revenue authorities, the matter attains conclusiveness only with the decision of the Civil Court. In the case on hand, the case of writ petitioners is rejected by the trial Court through judgment and decree dated 20.11.2006. Through proceedings dated 28.08.2004, the 3rd respondent has issued further sub-divisions to Sy.No.496/2 as Sy.No.496/2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 2E in respect of Sy.Nos.496/1, 2, 5, 4 and 3. It is lastly contended that all the efforts of parties before the revenue authorities are certainly subject to the decision of this Court in A.S.No.431 of 2007.
The averments in W.P.No.19466 of 2004, in brief, are that on 15.11.1990 A.V.Sridhar Reddy, the petitioner herein, and another purchased an extent of Ac.1- 05 cents and Ac.1-26 cents in Sy.No.496/5 of Tirupati Town from T.Veeramma, w/o Venkatesam Reddy and P.Laxmi Devi, d/o T.Veeramma. The petitioner claims to be in physical and actual possession of the property purchased by him through the sale deeds referred to above. The petitioner filed O.S.No.213 of 1999 (re-numbered as O.S.No.38 of 2002) in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati for the relief of perpetual injunction. The 4th respondent is arrayed as defendant No.3 in O.S.No.38 of 2002. As already noted, the petitioner herein was not a party either before the 1st respondent or the 2nd and 3rd respondents when steps either for mutation were taken up or those proceedings were set aside by the 2nd respondent.
The petitioner refers to filing of appeal by the 4th respondent; the outcome thereof; and also the alleged erroneous dismissal of revision filed by Umapathi Reddy and another.
The grievance of petitioner primarily is two fold – that the 1st and 2nd respondents have exercised the appellate jurisdiction erroneously and passed a comprehensive order against mutation in favour of K.Uttam Reddy and T.Vijayabushanamma and set aside sub-division. According to the petitioner, the sub-division is one aspect of the matter and mutation of names of persons claiming under any of the provisions of the Act is a different situation. At any rate, the direction issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer for changing the mutation of Sy.No.496 is adversely affecting the right of petitioner. Hence, he is an aggrieved person and filed the writ petition.
The 4th respondent while reiterating what has been canvassed against the case of K.Umapathi Reddy and another submits that at any rate the petitioner herein does not have right and title to the property, secondly, the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.213 of 1999 (re-numbered as O.S.No.38 of 2002) was dismissed by the learned IV-Additional District Judge, Tirupati through judgment and decree dated 26.02.2009 and in view of the findings recorded by the trial Court, the petitioner ought not to have any merit to canvass in the present writ petition. The 4th respondent submits that the sub-division at the first instance while acquiring for ring road is not authoritative or authorised. It was an unauthorised effort of the Land Acquisition Officer and the revenue department at the instance of the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest.
Before considering the legal grounds urged against the orders impugned, I propose to consider the findings recorded by the 1st and 2nd respondents in the orders impugned.
The 2nd respondent has taken note of the decree and judgment dated 31.12.1990 in O.S.No.201 of 1985 filed by the 4th respondent for specific performance and as confirmed by the Apex Court. With the execution of sale deed by the Court on 09.04.1999, it is held that the 4th respondent has title to the property covered by the suit O.S.No.201 of 1985. The 2nd respondent keeping in view the adjudication and how the 4th respondent has got title to the property, examined the legality of mutation proceedings dated 12.07.1996. The findings about the erroneous sub-division is that the 3rd respondent through proceedings dated 12.07.1996 is considering the land covered by Sy.No.496/2 and while giving further sub-division instead of giving sub- division numbers 496/2, 2A, 2B etc., it is found that separate number is carved out as Sy.No.496/5. The sub-division as well as mutation of names of Umapathi Reddy and another is found to be erroneous. The change of patta number is held to be illegal. From the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, it is noted that the 2nd respondent considered the mode and manner of issuance of proceedings dated 12.07.1996. Through the order dated 28.05.2002, on being satisfied that it bristles with illegalities, the 2nd respondent had set aside the order of 3rd respondent.
The 2nd respondent has noted the pendency of suit between parties in O.S.No.62 of 1999. The 1st respondent more or less has reiterated the findings recorded by the 2nd respondent.
The issue primarily arises under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and incidentally under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. The scope of judicial review is limited to the extent of examining the decision making process of respondents. In the case on hand, the findings of decree and judgment in O.S.No.79 of 1985 for specific performance and perpetual injunction, as confirmed by the Apex Court, and the dismissal of suits filed by petitioners in O.S.No.62 of 1999 and O.S.No.213 of 1999, are certainly relevant circumstances on the core issue between parties in these proceedings. On the above premise, it is noticed that the 4th respondent is successful in O.S.No.201of 1985 and the reliefs granted to him are for specific performance and perpetual injunction. The Apex Court confirmed these findings. On the other hand, the petitioners instituted suits in O.S.No.62 of 1999 and O.S.No.213 of 1999 against 4th respondent for the very property and are unsuccessful in full-fledged trial. The claim/documents relied upon by the petitioners are considered in full-fledged trial and rejected. The petitioners in the backdrop of these findings will hardly have any ground to canvass against the impugned proceedings.
Section 8(2) of the Act reads as follows:-
“If any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act,1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.”
The view taken by this Court in the above reported decisions is that the entries/mutation under the provisions of the Act is subject to the adjudication of competent civil Court.
Apart from the fact that there is no prima facie illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the 1st and 2nd respondents, this Court while deciding the writ petition cannot re-appreciate the controversy and decide the dispute to examine the legality of orders impugned. There is no error of law or fact for consideration by this Court. For either reasons viz., that the petitioners are unsuccessful before the competent Civil Court and that the original proceeding dated 12.07.1996 was without notice to any person interested in the property and it was rightly set aside on appeal.
I see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned and the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
It is made clear that the petitioner in W.P.No.19466 of 2004 is not a party before respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner, no doubt, has filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction against respondent No.4. If the petitioner has any independent grievance or cause, it is always open to the petitioner to canvass the same in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
S.V. BHATT, J 17th October, 2014 Stp/Lrkm