WP/38444/2012 of Y.Sujatha Vs The State of A.P. on 28 December 2012

Conclusion

ORDER:

The action of the respondents, in not considering the petitioner’sclaim for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds on the groundthat dots were shown in the RSR in respect of Survey Nos.977/2 for anextent of Acs.2.91 cents, in Sy.No. 978/2 for an extent of Ac.0.62 cents,and in Sy.No.979 for an extent of Acs.4.88 cents of Rapur Village andMandal in SPSR Nellore District, is questioned in this Writ Petition asbeing arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner seeks a consequentialdirection to the third respondent to consider her claim for issuance ofpattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the subject lands.

In his counter affidavit the third respondent – Tahsildar admits thatthe permanent register of diglot was recorded with “dots” instead ofmentioning patta/poramboke/AW(dry)/ wet” etc; instructions are to beissued as to whether these lands are to be treated as Government landsin all subsequent cases, or whether the correct nature of the land shouldbe ascertained by the revenue authorities on the basis of 10(1) adangals;and specific instructions were sought, vide letter dated 26.06.2012, fromthe Special Chief Secretary to the Government.

In several judgments, this Court has rejected the contention thatthe dots in the RSR/TSLR are conclusive proof that the said landsbelong to the Government. In Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v Collector, Hyderabad District[[1]], this Court observed as under:- “……It is thus clear that an entry in TSLR itself cannot be theconclusive proof of title or lack of it, and the decision either to grant or refusepermission cannot be taken solely on the basis of an entry made in theTSLR. It may be one of the factors that may have to be taken intoconsideration along with the other material available on record. An entrymade in TSLR per se could not create any doubt or cloud on the right, titleand interest of a person in respect of any land……”

held:-

Again in Shaik Ali v District Collector, Chittoor[[2]] this Court “…….This court in P.Suresh and A.P.State and others[[3]], K.M.Kamulla Basha v District Collector, Chittoor[[4]], Meda Subbarayuduv Sub-Registrar, Rayachoty[[5]]and S.Zakhir v District Collector,Anantapur[[6]]held that mere entries in R.S.R. do not constitute conclusiveproof of title. In a recent Judgment in Shaik Dudekula Pyari Jan @ Lal Bi and others v The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli[[7]], this courtreiterated this position following the above mentioned Judgments of thiscourt……...

……..As held by this Court, as noted above, mere entries in R.S.R.or A-Register will not offer conclusive proof of ownership of the land……..”

The endorsement, which the third respondent issued to thepetitioner on 02.12.2012 rejecting his request for grant of pattadar passbooks, is, in the light of the aforementioned judgments, liable to be andis, accordingly, set aside. Following the law laid down in the aforesaidjudgments, that mere dots in the RSR is not conclusive proof of title, thethird respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s claim forissuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds, in accordance with law,without being influenced solely by the dots in the RSR.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneouspetitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be noorder as to costs.

______________________________

(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)

28.12.2012

vs

[1]2001 (3) ALD 6002001 (3) ALD 600

[2]2011 (1) ALT 4742011 (1) ALT 474

[3]2009 (3) ALT 419 : 2009 (3) ALD 8022009 (3) ALT 419 : 2009 (3) ALD 802

[4]W.P.No.27249 and 28393 of 2007, dated 16.02.2009W.P.No.27249 and 28393 of 2007, dated 16.02.2009

[5]W.P.No.11675 of 2008, dated 30.07.2008W.P.No.11675 of 2008, dated 30.07.2008

[6]W.P.No.19419 of 2008, dated 16.02.2009W.P.No.19419 of 2008, dated 16.02.2009

[7]W.P.No.6016 of 2010, dated 02.07.2010W.P.No.6016 of 2010, dated 02.07.2010