WRIT PETITION 2525 of 2019 on 4 June 1991

ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“... to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in updating the online entries in respect of Ac.1.35 cents out of Ac.4.38 Cents in Sy.No.96 of Pedda Devalapuram Village fields, Bandi Aatmakuru Mandal, Kurnool District in favour of the respondents No.5 to7 which is owned and possessed by the petitioners as per manual records that too without putting the petitioners on notice as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and contrary to the well established legal principles and voilative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.4 to update the on-line revenue records in respect of the said lands as per the revenue records mutated and the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds issued in the petitioners favour…”

2. The case of the petitioners is that they jointly purchased the land to an extent of Ac.4.38 Cents in Sy.No.96 of Pedda Devalapuram Village fields, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District, through registered sale deed, dated 04.06.1991 vide registered document No.2030 of 1991 from one Smt.Kanthamma and her sons Pedda Babayya and Chinna Babayya and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The revenue authorities also issued pattadar passbook and title deed in their favour.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that, in the year, 2018, when the respondents 5 to 7 tried to interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of their land basing on online revenue records the petitioners secured online 1-B and Adangal through Mee-Bhoomi Website, wherein the 1[st]petitioner’s name was shown as pattadar and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.3.03 cents out of Ac.4.38 cents and the respondents 5 to 7 are shown as the pattadars and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac.6.17 cents and the name of the 2[nd] petitioner is not uploaded as the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents through the pattadar pass books were issued in her favour for the said extent. As such, against the interference of the respondent 5 to 7, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.628 of 2018 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District and an exparte ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners in I.A.No.2281 of 2018 vide its order, dated 19.12.2018 and the said suit is pending for disposal.

4. It is also the further case of the petitioners that, while digitalizing the revenue records by the 4[th] respondent, the 1[st]petitioner’s name was wrongly uploaded as owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.3.03 cents as against the actual extent of Ac.2.38 cents and the 2[nd] petitioner’s name was not uploaded as owner and possessor, even though they are the owners and possessors of the land an extent of Ac.4.38 cents. In view of the wrong updation of the names of the respondents 5 to 7 in online as the owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac.6.17 cents, they are trying to interfere with their possession and enjoyment, even though there is no scrap of paper to substantiate their ownership and when they are not at all in the possession of the subject land. Hence, they filed the present writ petition.

5. The 4[th] respondent/Tahsildar filed counter contending that the petitioners have got entries in the manual IB/ROR register to the effect that they have been issued pattadar passbooks for an extent of Ac.2.38 cents in the name of the 1[st] petitioner and to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in the name of

the 2[nd] petitioner and the said total extent of Ac.4.38 cents in survey No.96 of Pedda Devalapuram Village is the self acquired property of the petitioners but by mistake the said property is noted as hereditary. Further it is stated in the counter that, one Malireddy Ramakrishna Reddy and Smt.Malireddy Lakshmi Devi got the land measured by Mandal Surveyors on 07.05.2016 in the presence of all the stakeholders of the land and obtained e-pattadar passbooks for an extent of Ac.2.06 cents (Ac.1.50 cents in survey No.96 and Ac.0.56 cents in survey No.96/1) and Ac.1.32 cents vide Khata No.626 and 718 respectively as per the web land adangal of Pedda Devalapuram village basing on the enjoyment report of the Mandal Surveyor. The gist of the facts and figures of the land in an extent of Ac.8.76 cents in survey No.96 of Pedda Devalapuram Village was arrived with reference to the old ROR, registered documents produced by the parties and enjoyment report of the mandal surveyor, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in the writ petition.

6. The 5[th] respondent filed his counter denying the allegations inter alia contending that, he is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.96 and Ac.0.56 Cents in Sy.No.96-1 of Pedda Devulapuram Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District, apart from other lands and the 4[th] respondent did not update any online entries in his favour in respect of any land of the petitioner as alleged by the petitioners and he further contended that the revenue records clearly shows that the 4[th]respondent entered actual extent owned by him and not even a single cent of the petitioners was updated in his favour and also further contended that the petitioners herein filed the suit in OS.No.628 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal against him and respondents 6 and 7 and instead of seeking redressal of their grievance in the said suit, the petitioners filed the present writ petition, hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

7. The 6[th] respondent filed her counter denying the allegations inter alia contending that, she is the owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in survey No.96 and after due enquiry her name was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook was also issued in her favour but in the revenue records due to inadvertence the extent is wrongly shown as Ac.1.32 cents in Sy.No.96 instead of Ac.1.50 cents. It is further contended that, when the petitioners tried to trespass into her land, she got surveyed the land in survey No.96 and as per the report and plan, the petitioners got only Ac.3.47 cents and even though an ex parte injunction was granted in O.S.No.628 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, the petitioners are not entitled for mutation of records in their favour as the said suit was filed only for bare injunction but not for declaration hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

8. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4, Sri Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent and Sri S.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent. None appeared for the 7[th]respondent.

9. On perusal of record, it is the grievance of the petitioners that though they are the owners of the land in an extent of Ac.4.38 cents purchased through registered sale deed bearing document No.2030 of 199, dated 04.06.1991, in online the 1[st] petitioner name was shown as pattadar and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.3.03 cents instead of

Ac.2.38 cents out of Ac.4.38 cents and in so far as the 2[nd]petitioner concerned, her name was not uploaded as the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents. No doubt, the petitioners have approached the concerned authorities before the knocking the doors of this Court. Admittedly no notice has been served on the petitioners before entering names of the respondents 5 to 7 in online and particularly when it is admitted that the petitioners’ names are found place in the manual records. The revenue authorities have categorically admitted in their counter at para-6 that the petitioners’ property is their self acquired property and their names were also mutated in the manual revenue records. Though the names of the petitioners are mentioned as owners of the respective extents in the manual records and they were accordingly granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the said extents, in the online records their names and extents were wrongly shown. Inspite of repeated requests, the authorities did not rectify the online records.

10. In view of the above, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

i) The entries made in favour of the respondents 5 and 6 in online with regard to the land in extent of Ac.1.59 cents and Ac.1.82 cents in survey No.96 of Pedda Devalapuram Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District are hereby set aside;

ii) The 4[th] respondent/Tahsildar is hereby directed to pass appropriate and reasoned order for rectification of online revenue records in respect of the land of the petitioners in survey No.96 of Pedda Devalapuram Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District, after hearing the petitioners as well as the respondents 5 to 7, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners.

It is made clear that by uninfluencing the observations made in this writ petition the 4[th] respondent/Tahsildar is directed to pass reasoned order independently after verifying the records.

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

________________________

JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

Date: 26.12.2022

SPP/PNS

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION No.2525 of 2019

Date: 26.12.2022

SPP/PNS