CRP/4910/2010 of Pothula Lingamma Vs The Joint Collector on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

This revision is directed against the order dated 22.8.2010passed in File No.D1/80/A/2006 on the file of the Joint Collector,Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereunder, the stay applicationfiled by the petitioner pending disposal of the revision underSection 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,1971 assailing the order passed by the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Nagarkurnool in File No.K/ROR/76/2006, dated 16.11.2006ended in dismissal.

2. The petitioner is the mother of the 4[th] respondent. She filedpetition before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nagarkurnool formutation of her name in the revenue records in respect of Ac.8.05guntas in Survey No.270 of Ganyagula village of NagarkurnoolMandal. She claimed that her husband P.Venkat Reddy purchased Ac.8.05 guntas under a simple sale deed on 20.5.1965out of her stridhana property from Smt. Chinna Rathnamma W/oChinna Lakshma Reddy. The Mandal Revenue Officer entertainedher application and mutated her name in the revenue records asper proceedings in ROR/7036/05, dt.14.12.2005. The 4[th]respondent herein filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool assailing the orders passed by the MandalRevenue Officer. According to him, he purchased Ac.8.05 guntasin the name of his father P.Venkat Reddy under simple sale deeddated 6.5.1960 from Pothula Chinna Lakshma Reddy anddeveloped the land by spending few lakhs of rupees. He alsopleaded before the Revenue Divisional Officer that his motherfiled maintenance case against him on the ground of her notbeing in possession of any of the properties. Pending appealbefore the Revenue Divisional Officer, B.Chinnamma and fiveothers filed petitions seeking their impleadment on the ground thatthe petitioner herein executed registered gift deeds in their favour. The Revenue Divisional Officer called for the records from theMandal Revenue Officer and found that mutation in the name ofthe petitioner herein came to be effected without putting on noticeto the 4[th] respondent herein and the original owners. He alsorecorded a finding that the proposed parties are not necessary fordisposal of the appeal. With these findings, the appellate authorityset aside the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer anddirected to enter the name of the petitioner herein as pattadar. Forbetter appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the orderpassed by the appellate authority and it is thus:- “ It is clear from the documents produced that Smt.P.Llingamma, respondent has claimed maintenance allowance from appellant renouncing her claim over thefamily properly including the land in question i.e, Sy.No.270 ext. 8-05 and subsequently by claiming,which is a violation of agreement and not appropriate inthe light of ruling of Supreme Court of India i.e., in caseof Venkata Subbamma vs. Ratnamma(T) 1987 SCC1775 affirming 1973 AP 226, it was held that“Renunciation with a condition to pay maintenance to him is also valid”. Further in case of Guru Swamy vs.

Marappa 1950 Madras 140(1949) 2 MLJ 525 : 62 MLW773, Madras High Court held that “such renunciation canbe effected by an expression of an intention to that effectand no formality is necessary”. Further, Madras HighCourt in case of Guru Swamy v. Marappa ILR 1950 Mad665- 1949 2 MLJ 525 , 529 it was held that “ Arenunciation of his rights by a father after agreeing toreceive maintenance would be valid.

The appellant comes within the definition under sub-section 6 & 6-a of Section 2 of A.P.Rights in land andPattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 but the same has notbeen observed while taking action under Section 5-A ofthe Act.

The mutation in the name of P.Lingamma is having nolocus standi and consequently, as a result subsequentgift deeds executed by P.Lingamma in favour ofB.Chinnamma and five others i.e., petitioners forimpleading, are also not having any locus standi andaccordingly their petitions for impleading them are alsonot maintainable”.

3. Assailing the order of the appellate authority, thepetitioner filed revision before the Joint Collector. She also movedstay application pending disposal of the revision. When her stayapplication was not being taken up by the revisional authority, sheapproached this Court by filing writ petition 22996 of 2007 . Thesaid writ petition came to be disposed of on 01.11.2007 directingthe revisional authority to consider and dispose of stayapplication.

“ Having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase, without expressing any opinion on the merits ofthe case, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper todirect the Joint Collector to consider and dispose of thestay application pending in Revision CaseNo.D1/80/A/06.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the3[rd] respondent to consider and dispose of the stay application pending in Revision Case No.D1/80/A/06.Pending disposal of stay application, status-quoobtaining as on today with regard to the entries in therevenue records shall be maintained. There shall be noorder as to costs”.

4. For completion of narration of facts, I deem it appropriate torefer C.R.P.No.6421 of 2006 filed by the proposed parties, i.e., B.Chinnamma and five others assailing the order dated16.11.2006 passed in Appeal No.K/ROR/76/2006. In the saidrevision, Chinnamma and others questioned the dismissal ofthe application seeking their impleadment in the appeal filed by 4[th]respondent herein before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The saidrevision ended in dismissal on 11.10.2007. It is trite to note therelevant portion of the order passed in the above-referred revision, which reads as hereunder:- “ It is no doubt true that this Court by virtue of Article227 of the Constitution of India can correct any errors committed by the subordinate courts or tribunalssubordinate to it. Since I find no irregularity in the orderdismissing the petition of petitioners, I see no grounds to interfere with the order of dismissal of the petition filedby the petitioners.

D.Sreenivasulu Reddy (2[nd] supra) relied on by thepetitioners has no application to the facts of this case,as the facts in that case are entirely different. In that casethe suit for mandatory injunction was filed seeking adirection to the defendants to provide pipe culverts across road to draw water from an irrigation tank. Application filed by the revision petitioners, owninglands on the either side of the road, to come on recordas parties to the suit was dismissed by the trial Court as belated. That order was set aside in the revision. De hors the gift deeds executed by the second respondent revision petitioners have no other right in the land inSy.No.270, which is the subject matter of theproceedings before the authorities under the Act. So,they cannot be said to be either necessary or properparties to the proceedings under the Act”.

5. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court in WritPetition No.22996 of 2007, the revisional authority took up thestay application and proceeded to dismiss the same on28.8.2010. The said order is assailed in this revision.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the4[th] respondent-party in person.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits thatthe revisional authority-1[st] respondent dismissed the stayapplication without giving an opportunity to the petitioner andtherefore, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be setaside. Learned counsel refers the docket sheet maintained inRevision Case No.D1/80/B/2006. The said docket sheet relates tothe revision filed by B.Chinnamma and five others.

8. The 4[th] respondent-party in person contends that on thestay application, the counsel representing the petitioner submittedarguments on 24.8.2010. He also contends that the revision filedby the petitioner came to be clubbed with the revision filed by Chinnamma and others and proceedings sheet has beenmaintained in the revision case No.D1/80/B/2006. He also placedon record the docket sheet in Revision Case No.D1/80/B/2006.The docket proceeding dated 24.8.2010 indicates that the counsel for the petitioner herein appeared before the revisional authority and submitted arguments.

9. The material on record indicates that the dispute betweenthe petitioner and the 4[th] respondent, who are no other than themother and son, has been pending since quite a long time. Thepetitioner initiated maintenance case against the 4[th] respondent onthe ground that she has no income of her own. The 4[th]respondent has been paying amounts, pursuant to the orderspassed by the Civil Court and proceedings initiated by thepetitioner. The petitioner having pleaded that she had no incomeof her own, executed gift deeds pending the proceedings beforevarious authorities including the civil Court. Since the mainrevision is still pending with the 1[st] respondent, I deem itappropriate not to record any finding on the rights of the partiesover the lands in dispute. The revision is of the year 2006. In thatview of the matter, I deem it appropriate to direct the JointCollector, Mahabubnagar to dispose of the revision filed by thepetitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within twomonths from the date of receipt of this order. Pending disposal ofthe revision, there shall be status quo existing as on this day withregard to the entries appearing in the revenue records in respectof Ac.8-05 guntas comprised in Survey No.270 situated at Ganyagula village, Nagarkurool Mandal.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.No costs.

_____________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

Dt.31-12-2010RAR

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Civil Revision Petition No.4910 of 2010

(Dated : 31-12-2010)