WA/1338/2006 of Raman Bhai Patel, Vs The Joint Collector-II, on 22 December 2006

:: JUDGMENT ::

Counsel for the appellantsCounsel for respondents 1 to 3Counsel for respondents 4

Sri N.Ranga Rao

Government Pleader for Revenue

Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy

22.12.2006

Per Sri C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.J.

This appeal is directed against the order of the learnedSingle Judge in W.P.No.15590 of 2006 dated 25.8.2006whereby he declined to interfere with the order passed by thefirst respondent - Joint Collector – II, Ranga Reddy District inCase No.D5/3092/2002 dated 31.12.2005.

The land admeasuring Ac.4.08 guntas in Survey No.494and another piece of land admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas inSurvey No.493 situated at Turkayamjal Village of HayathnagarMandal originally belonged to one Mohammad Akbar and twoothers. The said land was sold to one T.R.Seshagiri Rao undera registered sale deed dated 30.10.1969. The appellants claimto have purchased this property from the said T.R.SeshagiriRao under a registered sale deed dated 14.4.1978 and gotmutation done in their favour. The appellants’ case is that from1982-1983 to 1990-1991, their names were shown in therevenue records as pattadars. In the year 1994, respondentNo.4 filed an application before the 3[rd] respondent – MandalRevenue Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal for mutation of his namein respect of land admeasuring Ac.6.10 gutnas in the said twosurvey numbers alleging that he purchased the said land underregistered sale deed dated 10.2.1971 from Mohammad Akbarand others. The appellants filed objections before the thirdrespondent, who after considering the same passed an orderdated 30.8.1997 rejecting the application of the fourthrespondent.

Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the fourth respondent filed an appeal before the second respondent. Afterhearing the learned counsel for the parties, the secondrespondent passed order dated 30.4.1998 whereby he allowedthe appeal filed by respondent No.4. The 2[nd] respondent in thesaid order inter alia held that the entries in the village recordsand physical possession are not tallying with each other andthat till proper resurvey and resettlement are carried out, statusquo shall be maintained in respect of physical possession andentries in the revenue record. The said order has become final. On 30.6.1999, the third respondent issued a direction to theV.A.O. to restore the entries in the pahanies for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97. Later, the second respondent passed an orderon 16.5.2000 directing deletion of the names of the appellantsin pattedar pass books and to issue pattadar pass books andtitle deeds in favour of the 4[th] respondent. Revision filed by theappellants against order dated 16.5.2000 was disposed of bythe 1[st] respondent vide his order dated 31.12.2005. He heldthat the case between the parties was essentially of titledispute, it is appropriate that the parties get this disputeadjudicated by a competent civil court.

The writ petition filed by the appellants questioning theorder of the 1[st] respondent was dismissed by the learnedSingle Judge with the observation that the remedy of civil suitavailable to the appellants under Section 8(2)of the AndhraPradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (forshort, ‘the Act’) is an effective alternative remedy.

Having heard Sri N.Ranga Rao, learned counsel for theappellants, learned Government Pleader and the learnedcounsel for the fourth respondent, we have not felt persuaded to

Conclusion

interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. It isrequired to be noted that order dated 16.5.2000 which wassubject matter of the revision before the first respondent wasonly a consequential order passed in pursuance of the earlierorder passed by the 2[nd] respondent on 30.4.1998. Admittedly,the said order dated 30.4.1998 was not challenged by theappellant. From the record, it is clear that there is seriousdispute regarding the title between the parties and each of theparties is seeking to trace his title on the strength of thesepurported documents of tile. Having regard to these contentiousclaims regarding title, it is more appropriate that the party whoseeks to establish his title may approach the Civil Court underthe provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act.

In the aforesaid premise, we do not see any reason tointerfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ appeal,W.A.M.P.No.2836 of 2006 is also dismissed.

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

G.S.SINGHVI, CJ