WA/2565/2005 of Akula Rajender, Vs The District Collector, on 28 December 2005

:: ORDER::

Counsel for the appellants : Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 : G.P. for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu December 28, 2005

Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ.

This appeal is a typical example of litigiousperseverance of the appellants who are constantly litigating beforevarious revenue authorities and the Courts in the matter of recordingof entries in the revenue records in respect of land bearing SurveyNos. 133 to 137 and 139 admeasuring Ac.53-00 guntas situated atKundanpally village, Keesra Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

The appellants are said to have purchased the aforementionedland from one M. Parthasaradhi and others vide registered sale deedsome time in 1999. Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandalaccepted their application and mutated their names in the revenuerecords. Respondent No.3 Velamakanni Nagavaraprasad challengedthe action of the Mandal Revenue Officer by filing revision before theJoint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, who set aside the order of theMandal Revenue Officer.

The appellants challenged the order of the JointCollector in Writ Petition No. 7194 of 2002. Respondent No.3 alsofiled Writ Petition No. 17920 of 2002 for issuance of a direction to theofficial respondents to implement orders of police aid passed in I.A.No. 1064 of 1996 in I.A. No. 161 of 1991 in O.S. No. 439 of 1987passed by the Ist Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga ReddyDistrict. By an order dated 25.8.2003, the learned Single Judgedismissed both the writ petitions on the premise that suit filed by theparties is pending before the competent Civil Court. In paragraphs 7and 8 of that order, the learned Single Judge recorded the followingobservations:

“7. On consideration of submissions made by counselappearing for petitioners in both writ petitions and onperusal of the material on record, it is quite evident thatboth the parties had already approached the Civil Courtand comprehensive suits were already filed and pendingat some stage or the other. Instead of pursuing the saidremedies before the competent Civil Courts, apparently,with a view to get over the same, the parties are taking torecourse to Record of Rights proceedings and also otherincidental proceedings, which is wholly unsustainable. It isnow well settled that proceedings under Record of Rights Act or Mutation, as such, do not either way finallyconclude a disputed question of title and possession andultimately it is only for the Civil Court to go into the saidaspects and to decide the same. The ultimate findingsgiven by the Civil Court are always binding on the revenueauthorities. It is also settled that the revenue records aremade only for the purpose of identifying a person fromwhom the revenue has to be collected and not beyondthat.

8. In the circumstances, the approach of both sidesin trying to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India is wholly misconceived. More so, when the matteris ceased by the competent Civil Court, it is not open forthis Court to interfere with the same and go into theserious disputed questions of title and possession.However, the parties are at liberty to agitate theirrespective claims before the Civil Court. The Civil Courtshall dispose of the same on its own merits, uninfluencedby any of the findings made in this petition or theproceedings initiated under Record of Rights Act”.

Writ Appeal Nos. 1750 and 2040 of 2003 filed by theappellants and respondent No.3 were dismissed by the DivisionBench on 8.1.2004. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer vide hisorder dated 10.12.2003 restored the original entries.

Arguments

The appellants could have challenged the lastmentioned order of the Mandal Revenue Officer by filing fresh appealor applied to the Civil Court for interim relief but instead of adoptingthose legally permissible courses, they again invoked the jurisdictionof this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayedfor quashing of order dated 10.12.2003.

The learned Single Judge non-suited the petitioners byobserving that during the pendency of the civil suit filed by the parties,there was no warrant for judicial interdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.

Learned counsel for the appellants advanced a novelargument justifying non-availing of effective alternative remedy ofappeal or approaching the Civil Court by his clients by saying that they could not do so because the Mandal Revenue Officer did notissue certified copy of order despite repeated requests and they hadfiled writ petition by obtaining an unauthorized copy. In our opinion, itis not possible to appreciate the conduct of the petitioners in invokingjurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution byobtaining unauthorized copy of the order of the Mandal RevenueOfficer and at the same time pleading that they could not avail otherlegal remedies due to non-supply of the certified copies.

In our view, the appellants’ conduct of obtaining anunauthorized copy of the order dated 10.12.2003 from the office ofMandal Revenue Officer is highly contumacious and this Courtcannot encourage such litigants. In any case, the justification putforward by the appellants’ counsel for non-availing of alternativeremedies cannot be accepted because the appellants could havefiled appeal on the basis of uncertified copy of order and made arequest to the appellate authority for summoning the record. Theycould have made a similar request before the competent Civil Court.

We also agree with the learned Single Judge that during thependency of the civil suit there is no warrant for issuance of a writdirecting the Mandal Revenue Officer to record the names of theappellants in the revenue records. If the appellants felt aggrieved oforder dated 10.12.2003, they could have applied for amendment ofthe pending civil suit or they could have also filed a fresh civil suit andmake a request to the competent civil court to simultaneously decideboth the suits.

For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed. However,liberty is given to the appellants to avail either of the alternativeremedies available to them for questioning the legality of order dated10.12.2003.

G.S. SINGHVI, CJ.

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

December 28, 2005.

Mvb/vtv