WP/18529/2004 of M/s. Manjira Agriculrtural Company, a regd firm vide Vs The Joint Collector, Medak District on 31 December 2004

Order:

In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to invoke the Certiorari jurisdiction to call for therecords relating to the orders of Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy—1[st]respondent in File No.F3/5008/2004-F3/24/ROR/2004 dated 04-10-2004 and toquash the same.

It is stated that one Mr. Veera Reddy purchased Ac.14.08 gts. of land in Sy.No.970of Beeramguda h/o Ameenpur village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District under aregistered sale deed dated 13-01-1958 from the father of the respondents 4 to 6herein and he was in possession of the land from the date of sale. The name ofVeerareddy’s brother’s son Madhusudhan Reddy has been recorded in the revenuerecords till the partition took place in the year 1982 in which property was allotted tothe share of two brothers of said Veera Reddy P.Srinivas Reddy and P.Ram Reddy.On such allotment their names were mutated in the revenue records from 1982onwards in turn P.Srinivas Reddy and Ram Reddy executed General Power ofAttorney dated 09-07-1990 in favour of V.Narayan Rao authorizing him to sell theland. Petitioner herein purchased the said land from GPA under a registered sale

deed vide document No.1272/97 dated 04-03-1997 and since from the date ofpurchase petitioner is in possession of the property and the 3[rd] respondent by orderdated 22-06-1998 mutated the name of the petitioner over the suit land after dueenquiry and accordingly issued pattadar pass books and title deeds duly attested bythe 2[nd] respondent. While so, when the respondents 4 to 6 who are legalrepresentatives of the original Pattadar—Venkaiah tried to interfere with thepossession of the petitioner, it filed O.S.No.209 of 1999 before the Principal JuniorCivil Judge, Sangareddy for perpetual injunction restraining them from interferingwith the possession over the land in Sy.No.970. Meanwhile respondents 4 to 6caused an inspection and MRO after inspecting the land passed an order deletingthe name of the petitioner and ordered for mutation of respondent’s names.Challenging the same petitioner filed an appeal before the RDO, who allowed thesame and ordered for mutation of petitioner’s name in the revenue records. Againstthe same respondents 4 to 6 filed a revision under Section 9 of A.P. Record ofRights in Land and Pattadar pass books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) before theJoint Collector which is impugned in the present writ petition.

It is stated that on receipt of summons in the suit filed by the petitioner, respondents4 to 6 approached the MRO and realized the fraud that has been played againstthem in fabricating the documents and tampering the records in deleting their namesin the revenue records without their knowledge. The suit filed by the petitioner wasdismissed on 07-05-2004 and against which it filed appeal—A.S.No.35 of 2004before the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy which was also dismissedon 29-06-2004 observing that the claim of the petitioner herein is false and based onfabricated documents and tampering the records with a specific finding that thepetitioner or its vendors were never cultivated the schedule land or they producedany document that they are in possession of the schedule land. Apart from the samethe Joint Collector also observed that respondents 4 to 6 herein are in possession ofthe land and the appeal filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as no orders werepassed by the MRO, Patancheru and the RDO erroneously allowed the appeal andordered for deletion of their names in the year 1999-200 by inserting the name of thepetitioner. While observing the same the Joint Collector held that RDO entertainedthe appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act r/w 21 of the Rules without their being anyorder number or date of MRO or without being enclosed a certified copy of the order

challenged under appeal as contemplated under sub-Rule (1) of Rule 21 of the A.P.Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (herein after referred to as ‘theRules’) and admitting the appeal by condoning the delay, petitioner cannot have anygrievance in recording the names of respondents 4 to 6 for the year 1999-2000 andalso held that petitioner or its vendors were never in possession of the scheduleland. Since the respondents 4 to 6 are legal heirs and they are in continuouspossession over the schedule land without any interruption, the order passed by theRDO cannot be sustained and accordingly set aside the same. In view of settingaside the order the present writ petition is filed contending that no notice ofintimation was given to the petitioner as reflected under Section 5(3) of the Act andRules 15 and 16 of the Rules and petitioner came to know about the same onlywhen the said pahani was sought to be tendered in evidence in the pending suit—O.S.No.209 of 1999. The order of amendment made by the recording authority mustbe preceded by a notice issued by the interested parties, and the appeal can be filedwithin 60 days from the date of communication of the said order. Though there is nocommunication petitioner filed the appeal within 60 days, which was rightlyentertained by the RDO. The Joint Collector erred in exercising the jurisdiction inallowing the revision. The Joint Collector cannot adjudicate the disputed questionsof fact while considering the revision filed by the respondents 4 to 6. His jurisdictionis limited only to verify the correctness of the procedure adopted by the RDO. Oncethe petitioner’s name was duly recorded in the revenue records pursuant to mutationorder dated 22-06-1998 based upon the registered sale deed dated 04-03-1997, 3[rd]respondent—M.R.O. cannot made amendment incorporating the names of therespondents without intimation to the petitioner which is in contravention ofprocedure contemplated under Rule 16 and 17 of the Rules. The appellate authorityrightly exercised the jurisdiction in ordering deletion of their names. The 1[st]respondent—Joint Collector cannot adjudicate the rights of the respondents 4 to 6for which they have to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil court. The 1[st] respondenthas committed a grave error in holding that the petitioner has no right in view ofconsistent manner in which the entries made in the revenue records right from theyear 1965 onwards. The finding arrived at by the Joint Collector that the petitionerhas no right over the suit schedule land is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

per Section 4 (7) of the Act notice has to be given to all the persons interested beforeeffecting mutation. The 3[rd] respondent without issuing any notice to the respondents4 to 6 amended the records in the year 1998 incorporating the name of the petitioner,therefore, RDO rightly stayed the proceedings. It is stated that respondents 4 to 6were in continuous possession over the schedule land which is evident from therecord submitted by the MRO and for the first time petitioner’s name was recordedduring the year 1989 that too without giving any notice to the respondents 4 to 6 whowere in possession of the property, which was rightly rectified by the 3[rd] respondent.When the respondents’ names were recorded in the year 1999-2000 and in view offinding arrived at by the Court below that the petitioner or its vendors were never inpossession of the schedule property, its name ought not to have been recorded inthe possession column. The order passed by the Joint Collector is justified andprayed for dismissal of the writ petiton.

Arguments

Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the submissions made in theaffidavit filed in support of the writ petition contended that once the petitioner’s namewas recorded in the revenue records as per the sale deed executed in its favour, theMRO cannot alter the same without notice to the petitioner. In view of the same,RDO rightly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner against such alternation. TheJoint Collector has exceeded his jurisdiction in going into the merits of the case,which is the function of the civil court.

It is not in dispute that father of the respondents 4 to 6 was the pattadar andpossessor of the property. The memo issued by the M.R.O. dated 11-06-2004 onwhich reliance was placed by the Joint Collector reveals that there are no recordsand the reasons for changing the names in the year 1961-62, 1981-82 forincorporating the name of Mr. Madhusudhan Reddy and thereafter, Mr.Ram Reddyand Srinivas Reddy and how the name of the petitioner herein was incorporated inthe year 1989-90 in the ROR when the petitioner purchased the land first time in theyear 1997 and petitioner’s name was recorded as pattadar in the year 1989-90 and1997-98 onwards. As observed by the RDO from year 1990-97 the names ofSrinivas Reddy & Ram Reddy were shown as pattadar by leaving the possessioncolumn blank. The Panchanama dated 09-07-1998 prepared by the MRO, Patancheru after inspecting the suit schedule property also discloses that therespondents 4 to 6 have cultivated the schedule land by raising rabi crops viz.,Pacha Jona, Sun Flower and Gongura. The Report called for during the pendency ofthe proceedings of MRO also discloses physical possession of the respondents 4 to6. Apart from the same, finding of the civil court was that the petitioner was not inpossession of the suit schedule property and the same was recorded bymanipulating the records and documents.

It is incumbent on the M.R.O. to follow the procedure for altering the revenue recordbased on the sale deeds. The facts reveal no notice whatsoever was issued to therespondents 4 to 6 for alteration and the same was taken place behind their back.When the petitioner’s right to claim possession basing upon the revenue record wasnegatived by the Civil Court holding that the respondents are in possession of theproperty, the M.R.O. rightly restored the status quo ante in the name of therespondents, which was affirmed by the Joint Collector in the impugned order whilesetting aside the order passed by the R.D.O. In the absence of procedure beingfollowed by the M.R.O. in mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenuerecords, if the order passed by the Joint Collector is set aside, it will amount torestoring an illegal order. In view of the same, it is not a fit case where this Court canexercise Certiorari jurisdiction against the said order. If the petitioner claims any rightover the suit schedule property it is open for it to file a comprehensive suit fordeclaration of title and can seek amendment of the records as per the declaration soobtained. Basing upon such declaration, if any, it is always open for the petitioner toapproach the revenue officials for mutation as contemplated under Section 8(2) ofthe Act.

With the observation, as above, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

_________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J.

31-12-2004

Murthy