Telangana High Court
WP/20165/1999 of Ranga Reddy Vs THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER on 28 December 2005
B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20165 OF 1999 Dated 28-12-2005 Between : 1. Ranga Reddy, son of Ramreddy, aged 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, resident of Bhakthimalla village, Kosgi Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and others. ….Petitioners. And: 1. The District Revenue
WRIT PETITION No. 20165 OF 1999
Dated 28-12-2005
Between :
1. Ranga Reddy, son of Ramreddy, aged 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture,resident of Bhakthimalla village, Kosgi Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and others.
….Petitioners.
And:
1. The District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar District at Mahabubnagar andothers.
…Respondents.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER :
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are three in number with aprayer to call for records in case No.D1/B8/24/1990 (D1/B8/17/95) on the file of theDistrict Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar-1[st] respondent and quash the order dated31-7-1999 passed therein..
2. The petitioners claim that they are the owners of Ac.09.18 guntas comprisingSurvey No.135 and Ac.06.25 guntas comprising survey No.139 of Bhakthimallavillage of Kosgi Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The respondents 2 and 3 hereinclaiming to be the owners and possessors of Ac.09-18 guntas comprising S.No.135filed application before the District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar-1[st] respondentunder the provisions of Regulation 15 (2) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Record ofRights in Land Regulations 1358 Fasli for correction of the entries in the revenue record from the year 1961-62 onwards. The petitioners filed objections resisting theapplication of respondents 2 and 3. The District Revenue Officer by an order dated31-07-1999 allowed the application of the respondents 2 and 3 and ordered forrectification of the entries in their favour. Assailing the order, the petitioners haveapproached this Court by invoking jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.
3. 3[rd] respondent has filed counter-affidavit.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleaderfor Revenue appearing for the 1[st] respondent and learned counsel appearing for the3[rd] respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as on the date of therespondents 2 and 3 filing the application under section Regulation 15 (2) of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulations 1358 Fasli,thoseregulations were not in force being repelled by section 13 of the A. P. Rights in Landand Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. He refers section 13 of the said Act in supportof his submission apart from placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in (1)Mangali Buchanna Vs. The Additional Collector, Mahaboobnagar and another(W.P.Nos.4942 and 5132 of 1975 dated 3-8-1977), (2) Shangela Narasaiah andanother Vs. The District Revenue Officer and others (W.P. No.16203 of 1991 dated14-7-1994), (3) S. Chennaih and another Vs. Jagan Srinivas and others(W.P.No.9340 of 1991 dated 21-2-1977), (4) S.Kishan Rao and others Vs. TheDiistrict Revenue Officer and another (W.P.1363 of 1999 dated 23-6-2004).
6. It is not in dispute that A.P.(Telengana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulation,1358 Fasli have been stood repealed consequent on coming into force of theAndhra Pradesh Records of Rights in land Act, 1971. Therefore, the very filing of theapplication by the respondents 2 and 3 by invoking the provisions of repealed Act isnot legal and proper. This issue came to be for consideration in the judgments citedby the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is suffice to refer the order passed inW.P.No.1363 of 1999 and it is as follows:
“In the above referred judgments, this Court has taken the view that in viewof repeal of A.P. (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulations1358 Fasli, after enforcement of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass BookAct, 1971, the application is not maintainable and the order passed underA.P. (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulations, 1358 Fasli isof repeal of A.P. (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulations1358 Fasli, after enforcement of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass BookAct, 1971, the application is not maintainable and the order passed underA.P. (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulations, 1358 Fasli is
7. In view of the settled position of law, the order dated 31-7-1999 passed bythe District Revenue Officer in case No.D1/B8/24/1990 (D1/B8/17/95) in exercisingpowers under the provisions of Repealed Act is not legal and proper andaccordingly, the same is hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
__________________________
Justice B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Date : 28[th] December, 2005.
Dvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 20165 OF 1999
Dated 28-12-2005