WP/26519/2006 of Metasun Telecom Pvt.Ltd., represented by its Vs State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District on 22 December 2006

ORDER:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOWRIT PETITION No.26519 OF 2006

The petitioner is a company. It has allegedly purchased theproperty admeasuring Acs.10.13 guntas in survey No.168 situated atDaira village of Keesara Mandal in Ranga Reddy District fromSmt.Lingamani under registered sale deed bearing documentNo.859/1997, dated 23.03.1997 and registered sale deed No.883/1997,dated 28.03.1997. It is the case of the petitioner that the property wasoriginally owned by M.A.Razak and Nukalagudem Nagaiah, who jointlyexecuted sale deed in favour of Lingamani on 12.03.1980. However,respondents 5 to 23 herein filed a suit being O.S.No.708 of 1996 on thefile of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District againstLingamani, for declaration of title and rectification of entries in record ofrights (RoR) and the same was decreed e x parte on 18.10.2003. Thereafter, respondents 5 to 23 filed an application before the thirdrespondent (Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO)) for grant of OccupancyRights Certificate (ORC) presumably under A.P.(Talangana Area)Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (Inams Abolition Act, for brevity). The RDOgranted ORC vide proceedings No.J/3606/1998, dated 30.12.2003. Thecontesting respondents approached the fourth respondent (MandalRevenue Officer (MRO)) for implementing ORC and issue of pattadarpass books and title deeds (PPB/TDs) duly apportioning their respective shares. The MRO conducted enquiry and also on considering theobjections raised by the petitioner issued proceedings No.B/5490/2004,dated 23.11.2006 ordering registration of respondents 5 to 23 aspattadars and possessors in RoR and issue of PPB in their favour as perthe shares allotted to four branches of their family. In the meanwhile, thepetitioner herein filed suit being O.S.No.312 of 2005 on the file of theDistrict Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for declaration of title in respect ofthe same land. Nonetheless, aggrieved by the orders of the MRO,present writ petition is filed[[1]].

It is the case of the petitioner that respondents obtained ex partedecree, dated 18.10.2003 in O.S.No.708 of 1996 against Smt.Lingamani,without impleading the petitioner herein. Subsequently, on anapplication moved by the defendant therein, e x parte decree was setaside restoring the suit. Respondents 5 to 23, subsequently, did nothowever press the suit, and therefore, the suit was dismissed as notpressed. Notwithstanding this, respondents played fraud and obtainedORC and favourable orders from the MRO. Having come to know aboutthis, the petitioner also filed O.S.No.312 of 2005 for declaration of title,which is pending. Therefore, any orders of the revenue authorities arenot binding on the petitioner. It is also contended that though the factswere brought to the notice of the Joint Collector, the second respondentherein, the revision was dismissed by non-speaking order resulting inpassing of the impugned order by the MRO. These submissions arereiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Per contra, learnedAssistant Government Pleader opposed the writ petition. He contendsthat respondents 5 to 23 obtained ORC from the RDO. Against suchORC, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 24 of the Inams AbolitionAct, which was dismissed by the Joint Collector on 03.12.2005 and it isonly thereafter the MRO issued the proceedings impugned in the writpetition. Relying on Section 8(2) of the A.P.Rights in Land and PattadarPass Books Act, 1971 (the RoR Act, for brevity), learned AssistantGovernment Pleader contends that if any person is aggrieved by RoR, byreason of alleged title, such person has to claim remedy in civil Court andas the petitioner has already filed O.S.No.312 of 2005, this writ petition iswholly misconceived. He even points out that against the order of theMRO, the petitioner has a remedy under Section 5(5) of the RoR Act.

This writ petition is wholly misconceived for reasons more thanone. There is no dispute that respondents 5 to 23 obtained ORC fromRDO and then filed application before the MRO for implementation ofORC as well as grant of PPB. There is also no dispute that the appealfiled by the petitioner under Section 24 was ultimately dismissed by theJoint Collector and the petitioner did not challenge the same but chose tofile a suit being O.S.No.312 of 2005. Be it noted that petitioner filed the said suit in October 2005, whereas the Joint Collector dismissed theappeal under Section 24 of the Inams Abolition Act on 03.12.2005 asseen from the impugned order. All this would lead to conclusion that thepetitioner cannot be said to have without remedy. As rightly pointed bythe learned Assistant Government Pleader, Section 8(2) of the RoR Actpermits a person aggrieved by the RoR to approach a civil Court. Therefore, if ultimately the petitioner succeeds before the civil Courtwhere he can raise all issues, it is only the civil Court decree, whichwould govern the RoR and PPB. The petitioner is given liberty to raiseall the grounds before the civil Court. Indeed, a perusal of the plaint inO.S.No.312 of 2005 annexed to the writ petition would show that thecontesting respondents have also alleged the petitioner of fraud andsuppression of facts.

The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordinglydismissed. No costs.

22.12.2006.

pln

______________

(V.V.S.RAO,J)

Conclusion

[1] The affidavit accompanying the writ petition is not cohesive, comprehensive andlogical. After perusing the affidavit and the impugned order, the above brief facts areculled out.