WRIT PETITION 23356 of 2004 on 1 May 1989

ORDER:

Aggrieved by the orders passed in D.Dis.No.E3/3475/2000, dated 09-10-2004 by the 1[st] respondent and the order passed in D.Dis.No.2023/96, dated 11-05-2000 passed by the 2[nd] respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and father of the 1[st] petitioner Mallu Subba Reddy were in possession and enjoyment of the land extent of Ac.8.74 cents in Survey No.2391; Ac.6.11 cents in Survey No.2392; Ac.9.69 cents in Survey No.2393, Ac.8.63 cents in Survey No.2394; Ac.12.37 cents in Survey No.2404; Ac.7.77 cents in Survey No.2405 situated in Upparapalli village, Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District in which lands the petitioners have got 1/3[rd] share each. The Mandal Revenue Officer, based on the Revenue Settlement Register, 10(1) Adangal, and after following due procedure and on verification of the revenue records, issued pattadar pass books on 01.05.1989 in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the issuance of such pattadar pass books, the respondents 3 to 6 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, for cancellation of pattadar pass books issued in favour of the petitioners. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after giving notices to the petitioners and after going through the grounds of the appeal and the contents of the counter, held that the lands are in the name of Mallu Subba Reddy as per the Revenue Settlement Register, 10(1) Adangal and also held that the interested parties covered by the appeals can seek redressal in civil court. The MGR, J W.P.No.23356 of 2004

Revenue Divisional Officer further held that the pattadar pass books are kept in abeyance till the issue is decided by the Civil Court. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondents 3 to 6 filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Kadapa and the Joint Collector, based on the unregistered sale deeds, held that the mutation of property does not vest and create right of title and mutation was considered for the purpose of land revenue collection and cancelled the pattadar pass books. Challenging the said orders, the present writ petition came to be filed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

The material papers including the order under challenge would disclose that the Joint Collector, considering the record of holdings submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Kodur, held that the said record of holdings corroborate with the copy of 10 (1) account found in the records of Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet for Fasli 1393 which were filed by the revision petitioners, who are respondents 4 to 6 herein. The Joint Collector further held that the lands purchased by the revision petitioners tally with the sales statistics issued by the Sub-Registrar, Kodur. The Joint Collector found that the claim of the respondents therein that the entry of the name of Mallu Subba Reddy was clearly entered in the RSR records is unsustainable and merits no consideration. The Joint Collector further found that copy of 10(1) Account produced before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, corroborate with the record of holdings and that on verification of 10(1) account register produced by the Mandal MGR, J

Conclusion

MGR, J

W.P.No.23356 of 2004

Revenue Officer, the only name of 1[st] respondent i.e. Mallu Subba Reddy was found for the lands under dispute and the other two respondents are his sons. Ultimately, the Joint Collector came to the conclusion that 10(1) account filed by the revision petitions in the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet is fabricated one and that the entries made in the said 10 (1) account do not tally with the entries made in the 10(1) account filed by the revision petitioners before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet. It was also found that there was variation in continuity of papers and there was no correct seriatum. The Joint Collector ultimately held that the 10(1) account was fabricated one and not the original, which did not give rise to claim right over the lands under dispute. The Joint Collector further observed that as per the orders of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2295/84, dated 07-07-1997, mutation of property does not vest or create any right of title and the same is considered only for the purpose of land revenue collection alone, the claim of the respondents based on Adangal 10 (1) entries is not valid and does not stand the test of proof of documents produced by the revision petitioners.

In view of above discussion and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this court found that the findings recorded by the Joint Collector, Cuddapah, are well justified and the same do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

MGR, J

However, the petitioners are given liberty to avail the common law remedy as per law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

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

________________

M. GANGA RAO, J

Date: 03-09-2019

Ksn