Smt. Varalakshmamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may t|€ pleased to issue any writ, order or direction preferably a writ in a nature S-. of mandamus declaring the order in proceedings of the 3'"^ respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.1647/2020/D4 dated 24.12.2022 passed by the 3 respondent in so far as directing the Tahsildar to keep the subject land in dispute register as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India apart from the same is with jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set-aside by this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the respondent No. 4 and 5 to restore the names of the petitioners in revenue records i.e. IB and Adangal in respect of the lands in Sy.No.439 an extent of Ac. 13.12 cents, Sy.No. 21-1, 2, 3B, IB extent of Ac. 8.00 cents, Sy.No.8-5-A2 an extent of Ac. 0.75 cents, Sy.No.8-1 an extent of Ac.

2.75 cents, Sy.No.20-1B an extent of Ac. 0.43 cents, Sy.No.20-26 an extent of Ac. 0.41 cents, Sy.No.124-1 an extent of Ac. 0.18 cents, Sy.No. 125-8 an extent of Ac. 0.17 cents and Sy.No. 125-3-B an extent of Ac. 0.74 cents i.e. total extent of Ac. 26.55 cents situated in Valasa Village, Amarapuram Mandal, Satya Sai District. -- lA NO: 1 OF 2024^ Petition under Section IST CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings in RC.No.1647/2020/D4 dated 24.12.2022 passed by the 3'^ respondent herein by restoring the names of the petitioners in revenue records i.e. IB operation orders and Adangal in respect of the lands in Sy.No.439 an extent of Ac. 13.12 cents, Sy.No. 21-1, 2, 3B, IB extent of Ac. 8.00 cents, Sy.No.8-5-A2 extent of Ac. 0.75 cents, Sy.No.8-1 an extent of Ac. 2.75 cents, Sy.No.20- 1B an extent of Ac. 0.43 cents, Sy.No.20-26 an extent of Ac. 0.41 cents, Sy.No.124-1 an extent of Ac. 0.18 cents, Sy.No. 125-8 an extent of Ac. 0.17 cents and Sy. No.125-3-B an extent of Ac. 0.74 cents i.e. total extent of Ac. ir‘

26.55 cents situated in Valasa Village, Amarapuram Mandal, Satya Sai District pending disposal of the instant writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. M CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents; M KARIBASAIAH^ Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (APf^ The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010084752024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3328] (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 4949/2024 Between;

1.VARALAKSHMAMMA, W/0. LATE SRI NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

2.SMT. BHUDEVAMMA,, W/0. LATE SRI NAGIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

3.SMT. VARADAMMA,, W/0. LATE YERRAGUNTAPPA, AGED ABOUT ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE VIRUPASAMUDRARN AMARAPURAM (M), SATYA SAI DISTRICT. VILLAGE, H/0. VALASA VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER(S) AND

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL VELAGAPUDI SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT., SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI.

2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SATYASAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTI.

3.THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SATYASAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTI.

4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SATYASAI DISTRICT.

5.THE TAHSILDAR, AMARAPURAM MANUAL, SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

6.NAGENDRAPPA, , S/0. YERRAGUNTAPPA, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/0. VIRUPASAMUDRARN VILLAGE, H/0. VALASA VILLAGE, AMARAPURAM MANDAL, SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 2 GRKP,J W.P.No.4949 of 2024

7.ADIMURTHY, S/0. YERRAGUNTAPPA, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/0. VIRUPASAMUDRARN VILLAGE, H/0. VALASA VILLAGE, AMARAPURAM MANDAL, SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.M CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent{S):

1.M KARIBASAIAH

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Chinnapa Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri M.Karibasaiah, Learned Counsel appearing for the Unofficial Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following prayer; “ It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction preferably a writ in a nature of mandamus declaring the order in proceedings of the 3'"'^ respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.1647/2020/D4 dated 24.12.2022 passed by the 3'”'^ respondent in so far as directing the Tahsildar to keep the subject land in dispute register as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from the same is with jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set-aside by this Hon’ble Court and consequently direct the respondent No.4 and 5 to restore the names of the petitioners in revenue records i.e., IB and Adangal in respect of the lands in Sy.No.439 an extent of Ac.13.12 cents, Sy.No.21-1, 2, 3B, IB extent of Ac. 8.00 cents Sy.No.8-5-A2 an extent of Ac.0.43 cents, Sy.No.8-1 an extent of Ac.2.75 cents, Sy.No.20-1B an extent of Ac.0.43 cents. 3 GRKP,J W.P.No.4949 of 2024 Sy.No.20-26 an extent of Ac.0.41 cents, Sy.No.124-1 an extent of Ac.0.18 cents, Sy.No.125-8 an extent of Ac.0.17 cents and Sy.No.125- 3-B an extent of Ac.0.74 cents i.e., total extent of Ac.26.55 cents situated in Valasa Village, Amarapuram Mandal, Satya Sai District and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, Learned Counsel briefed by Sri M.Chinnapa Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, has submitted that the issues which arise in the present case are two fold: (i) that the Joint Collector does not have the jurisdiction to entertain and pass the impugned Order under Section 9 of the Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’); and, (ii) that the impugned Order passed by Joint Collector dated

24.12.2022 bearing Rc.No.1647/2020/D4 has prejudiced the Writ Petitioner in as much as the Writ Petitioner has been prevented from availing crop loans.

4. From the Record, the genesis of the case appears to be that there is a Partition Suit subsisting between the Writ Petitioners and the unofficial respondents herein. Although no details have been furnished by the Writ Petitioners in respect of the Suit bearing O.S.No.39 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, in the impugned Order, at para-3 under head “Brief History of the case”, the Joint Collector has referred to the pendency of the above Suit. The Writ Petitioners have stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the Suit is pending and that in view of the Impugned Order where the Joint Collector has directed the Revenue Authorities to place the subject land in Dispute Register, the Writ Petitioners are unable to renew 4 GRKP,J W.P.No.4949 of 2024 their Crop loans within the stipulated time. In Para-9 and 10 of the Affidavit in support of the Writ Petition, it has been clearly stated that the Petitioners are unable to renew their Crop loans till the finalization of the Partition Suit bearing O.S.No.39 of 2013 and that the same has been pending adjudication for the last eleven (11) years. It is also submitted that the Petitioners have obtained the Crop loans earlier by mortgaging the subject lands with Canara Bank, Valasa, Satya Sai District and that for the current renewal, the Banker is insisting the Writ Petitioners to furnish the latest 1-B so as to enable the Bankers to renew the Crop Loan within the stipulated time and also to avail benefits i.e.. Crop Insurance and other benefits issued by the Government from time to time.

5. The instant lis between the Parties is to the effect that some of the Suit subject lands are recorded in the Revenue Records in the name of the Writ Petitioners herein and that the Writ Petitioners have obtained Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds relating to their respective shares. The Unofficial Respondents herein (Plaintiffs in the Suit) have approached the Revenue Divisional Officer by filing an Appeal bearing Rc.No.1908/2019/B seeking cancellation of the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds which were issued to the Petitioners in pursuance of the proceedings of the Tahsildar. The Sub- Collector, having considered the fact that a Suit for Partition is pending between the Parties, had rejected the Appeal with an observation that the Parties may approach the Competent Authority for necessary mutation based on the final outcome in the Suit vide Order passed by the Sub-Collector dated 5 GRKP,J W.P.No.4949 of 2024

27.12.2019 (Ex.PS). Having been aggrieved by this Order passed by the Sub- Collector dated 27.12.2019, the Unofficial Respondents herein have filed Revision Petition Section 9 Act 1971 bearing Rc.No.1647/2020/D4. The Joint Collector, having considered the observations made by the Sub-Collector in the Impugned Order therein dated 27.12.2019, pleased to uphold the observations/directions rendered by the Sub- Collector and had further directed the Tahsildar, Amarapuram to keep the subject lands in the ‘Dispute Register’ against O.S.No.39 of 2013 till the disposal of the Civil Suit. It is further observed that action shall be taken based the Civil Court Orders. The Operative portion of the Order is usefully extracted hereunder; ORDER:

1. The orders Rc.No.1908/2019/B, dt; 30.12.2019 are hereby upheld. Sub-Collector, passed Penukonda

2. The Tahsildar, Amarapuram is hereby directed to keep the subject lands in dispute register against O.S.No.39/2013 till the disposal of suit and action shall be taken based on the civil court the civil orders. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed off.”

6. Although, the Writ Petitioners are satisfied with the findings rendered by the Sub-Collector dated 27.12.2019/30.12.2019 (Ex.P3) and the Proceedings of the Joint Collector dated 24.12.2022 (Ex.P2), they were compelled to approach this Court having been aggrieved by the 2 nd direction of the Joint Collector (in the Impugned Order); directing the Tahsildar to keep the subject lands in the Dispute Register against O.S.No.39 of 2013 till the disposal of the 6 GRKP,J W.P.No.4949 of 2024 Civil Suit and that the action shall be taken based on the Civil Court Orders. The Writ Petitioners are aggrieved by this observation, because, as stated in Para Nos. 9 and 10 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, that Writ Petitioners are unable to renew the Crop loans since the subject lands are noted in the ‘Dispute Register’. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Writ Petitioners have been availing Crop loans till now because their names were mutated in the Revenue Records as well as Petitioners were in possession of the Pattadar Pass Books and the Title Deeds.

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has assailed the second direction given by the Joint Collector by contending that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Joint Collector but have issued such a direction to the Tahsildar to place the subject lands in the Dispute Register till the final decision in the Partition Suit on the ground that Section 9 of the Act, provision for Revision, does not empower the Joint Collector to issue such directions in the Non-Revisional jurisdiction. Section 9 of the Act of 1971 is usefully extracted hereunder: him, “ 9. Revision:-The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections, 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under the Section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation.” <V 7 GRKP,J W.P.No.4949 of 2024

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the following Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the proposition that when a power is conferred on an Authority, the said Authority shall either exercise the power in the manner as provided by law or does not exercise such power at all: (1) In Deepak Babaria and Another Vs, State of Gujarat and Others: 2014 3 (SCO) 502\ Para No.61 of the Judgment is usefully extracted hereunder; "61. It is well settled that where the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. This proposition of law laid down in Taylor v. Taylor^^ was first d adopted by the Judicial Committee in Nazir Ahmad V. King Emperor^^ and then followed by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh^^. This proposition was further explained in para 8 of State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh^^ by a Bench of three Judges in the following words: (AIR p. 361) "8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor^'' is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not f have been enacted." has been prescribed. This proposition has been later on reiterated in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad^^, Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka^^ and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd. (2) In T.Ravi and another Vs. B. Chinna Narasimha and others: 2017 7 see 342^ Para No.33 of the Judgment is usefully extracted hereunder; ^2014 3 (SCC) 502 ^2017 7 see 342 8 GRKP,J W.P.No.4949 of 2024 “33. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the sale was subject to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the TP Act. It was further submitted that the said provision is clear and unambiguous and the statutory explanation to the provision makes it clear that the pendency of the suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in the court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a decree or an order and complete satisfaction of order or discharge of such order or decree has been obtained or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof. Thus, the of Section 52 renders it transfer contravention subservient to the rights of the parties in litigation so that the rights would eventually be determined in a suit. Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors (P) Ltd.^^ has been relied on in which this Court has laid down thus: (SCC pp. 415-16. paras 26-29) if any made in "26. It would also be worth discussing some of the relevant laws in order to appreciate the case on hand. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property d Act speaks about the doctrine of lis pendens. Section 52 reads as under:

52. Transfer of property pending suit reiating thereto.- During the pendency in any court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in e question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under the decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force." or order and complete satisfaction final decree It is weil settled that the doctrine of lis pendens is a doctrine based on the ground that it is necessary for the administration of aIT 9 GRKPJ W.P.No.4949 of 2024 justice that the decision of a court in a suit shouid be binding not only on the litigating parties but on those who derive title pendente lite. The provision of this section does not indeed annul but to render it the conveyance or the subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation. transfer otherwise,

21. Discussing the principles of lis pendens, the Privy Council in Gouri Dutt Maharaj v. Sk. Sukur Mohammed^° observed as under: (SCC OnLine PC: lA p. 170) "... The broad purpose of Section 52 is to maintain the status quo unaffected by the act of any party to the litigation pending its determination. The applicability of the section cannot depend on matters of proof or the strength or weakness of the case on one side or the other in bona fide proceedings. To apply any such test Is to misconceive the object of the enactment and, in the view of the Board, the learned Subordinate Judge was in error in this respect in laying stress, as he did, on the fact that the agreement of 8- 6-1932, had not been registered.’

28. In Kedar Nath Lai v. Ganesh Ram^^ this Court referred the earlier decision in Samarendra Nath Sinha v. Krishna Kumar Nag^^ and observed: (Kedar Nath Lai case^\ SCC p. 792, para 17) '16 The purchaser pendente lite under this “17.... doctrine is bound by the result of the litigation on the principle that since the result must bind the party to it so title and Interest must it bind the person deriving his right, from or through him. Is well illustrated in This principle Radhamadhub Holder v. Monohur Mookerji23 where the facts were almost similar to those in the instant case. It is that Section 52 strictiy speaking does not apply to involuntary alienations such as court sales but it is well established that the principle of lis pendens applies to such alienations. Chunder Muliick24 and Moti Lai v. Karrab-ul-Din^^)" (Samarendra Nath case22, AIRp. 1445, para 16)' (See Nilakant Suresh Banerji v.

29. The aforesaid Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act again came up for consideration before this Court in Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh^^ and their Lordships with approval of the principles reiterated: (Rajender Singh case^®, SCC p. 711. para 15) laid down In Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami

15. The doctrine of lis pendens was intended to strike at 10 GRKP,J W.P.No.4949 of 2024 a court, litigation circumvent by parties its decree. or frustrate attempts in which a dispute on rights or jurisdiction of a interests in immovable property is pending by private dealings which may remove the subject-matter of litigation from the ambit of the court's power to decide a pending dispute Alienees acquiring any immovable property during a litigation over it are heid to be bound, by an application of the doctrine, by the decree passed in the suit even though they may not have been impleaded in it. The whole object of the doctrine of lis to subject parties to the litigation as well as pendens is others, who seek to acquire rights in immovable property, which are the subject-matter of a litigation, to the power and jurisdiction of the court so as to prevent the object of a pending action from being defeated. ti II

9. It is an admitted fact that the subject lands are part of the Suit Schedule Property and that there is a lis for Partition subsisting between the Writ Petitioners and the Unofficial Respondents herein. Notwithstanding the fact that the names of the Writ Petitioners are recorded in the Revenue records and that the Writ Petitioners have obtained the Pattadar Pass Books, finally the ownership shall be determined by the Civil Court in the Partition Suit and that at this stage, is beyond anyone’s comprehension as to how a Preliminary Decree and Final Decree would be passed by the Competent Civil Court. It may be a fact that the Writ Petitioners have been availing crop loans and also have been renewing the crpp loans from year to year till now. But the fact remains that the Writ Petitioners were availing such facilities by mortgaging the subject land with the Canara Bank (as stated in the Para-10 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition).

10. On perusal of the Provision, this Court is of the opinion that the Collector or the Joint Collector acting on behalf of the Collector, as in the 11 GRKP,J W.P.No.4949 of 2024 present case, has power to modify or annul or reverse or remit the matter for reconsideration after satisfying himself with regard to the facts of the case before him.

11. Having considered the above Provision, this Court is of the opinion that the Judgments cited by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would not apply to the facts of the present case in as much as the Joint Collector has acted within the powers conferred on him under Section 9 of the Act of 1971. in so far as the sudden inconvenience caused to the Writ Petitioners on amount of second direction in the Impugned Order, this Court, having noticed, the averments made by the Writ Petitioners in Para No.10 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, wherein it has been categorically stated that the Writ Petitioners were mortgaging the subject lands for availing crop loans as well as for renewal of crop loans and for the other benefits, this Court is of the opinion that the second direction issued by the Joint Collector in the Impugned Order was very much necessary for safeguarding the interests and rights of all the parties. This is because it would only ensure that the subject land shall not be put in any kind of ‘peril’ not only by the Writ Petitioners but also by the Unofficial Respondents. The effect of placing the property/land in the ‘Dispute Register’ by indicating the reason of the pendency of the Partition Suit, as in this case, it is to protect the interest of the rival parties and to ensure that the rightful owner would have the right to approach the Authorities basing on the finality in the Civil Court Orders. 12 GRKPJ W.P.No.4949 of 2024

12. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there i IS no infirmity in the Impugned Order. The Joint Collector has rightly directed the Tahsildar to keep the subject lands in the Dispute Register till the disposal of O.S.No. 39 of 2013 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit.

13. Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs, Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. RAIMESH BABU deputy registrar k SECTION OFFICER To,

1. Cne CC to Sri. M Chinnapa Reddy, Advocate [CPUC] _ Cne CC to Sri. M. Karibasaiah, Advocate [CPUC] -- Two CCs to GP for Revenue (AP), High Court Cf Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

4. Three CD Copies SS HIGH COURT DATED:19/11/2024 ORDER WP.No.4949 of 2024 O g 11| MAY 2:Ij <2 ml; coi‘i ^0 :i' DISMISSAL OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS