Chirla lUalla Reddy v. 1. The Tahsildar

Petition under Artigle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, especiAlly one in the nature gf Writ of Mandamus declaring the action gf the '1't respon{ent in passing the impugned or{er in Plqcegdings No.ROR/Mancherialll2ll0B dt. 23-12-2004 without notice and opportunity qq illegal, arbitrary, malafidy and without jurisdiction and conseqilently set aside the same as illegal in the interest of justice l.A. NO: 1 OF 200! PMP. NO: 21952 OF 2OOg Petition under- Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ unrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rra,r be pleased to suspend the imprgned order Proc.No ROR/Mancherialll2lllS dt. 23-12-2OOB passed by the 1't respondent pending disposal of the writ petilron Counsel for the P,:titioner: SRl. KOTHAPALLI SAI SRI HARSHA(NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the R,espondcnt Nos. 1&3: GB EQR BEVENUE Counsel for the Fespondent tlos, 4&5: SRI C. RUTHWIK REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2; -- The Court made the following; ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR W.P. No.16721 of 2OO9 ORDER: Questioning the order of the respondent No'1, Tahsildar, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District, passed in Proceedings No.ROR/ Mancherial/ l2ll08 d'aLed 23.12.2008, without notice and opportunity to the petitioner and thereby recording the name of the respondent No.2, Surimilla Anantha Rao, in Revenue records in respect of Ac.O.12 guntas in Sy.No.362, situated at Mancherial town, Adilabad District, petitioner fi1ed the present writ petition'

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to have purchased lands to an extent of 373.33 square yards under a registered sale deecl dated 28-06-2004 arrd another extcnt of 245 square 1,ards under a registered sale deed dated 03 03-2008 and one another to an extent of 191.66 square yards under a registered sale deed dated 03 O3-2O08. As submitted, the total extent comes to

809.66 square yards which is a contiguous plot. Out of the total extent, petitioner submits that he constructed a house to an extent of

373.66 square yards. It is further case of the petitioner that the vendor of the petitioner one Mr. M.Venkata Ramulu, earlier had purchased the said extent from one Mr. Purella Babu and Seva John on 2), -O4-2OO4 and at the time of purchase, the petitioner gave paper publication inviting objections, if any. 2 w.P, No.16721 oI2009

3. It is sr'.r rmitted that the petitioner,s vendor s v,;ndor got the properLy irL e family partition in O.S.No.343 of 1)71 vide the comprorrisr: r ccree dated 29-12-l9Zl, which was ncr,er challenged by the responc cn - No.2. Later, one Mr. purella NarayzLr a, n,ho is one of the fam 11, r.-x:mbers of the petitioner,s vendor,s ,,er dor, tried to interferc ,.1'ir-h the possession of the petitioner cl.iminq r ights over the propert]'. thc. r,he petitioner hled a suit in o.s. No.11r r f 20o6 on the file of the .-lrLrior civil Judge, Mancheriar whereir tl e trial court granted -r-r-j,:rclion in I.A. No.2o9 or 2006 date<r 20 )2 2006 against the said P. -r:r l r Narayana and others. During the sr br istcnce of the said injr.nr::rt'rr and when the petitioner was rrakirrs construction, the saicl ?L r clla Narayana tried to object tl-r,: construction, with the hr-- p .l Mancherial Municipaiity. Thereaftcr, l.ctitioner filed W.P.No.265,2:\ of 2006 against the Mancherial M r,rr icipality and Purella flarrt r.a na and this Court a11owe d the said ,,,,r t petition on 2O-12-2OOtt. 1'hereafter, the petitioner constructed lhe house to an extent of ll73.rr5 square yards and the remaining exte:1t or land is left vacant

4. It rs irr-ther submitted that the petitiont:r 1.1ot the sale transacti,rn rc'guiarized under Section 5-A of the p;rltarlar passbook Act in tht: r,<:ir r 20O4, by an order of the responrlent i{o. 1. Aggrieved by the s.eicl o:r]er the respondent No.2 filed W.p. N,t, 1768 of 2OOZ (in which t1'r e petitioner herein is the respondent No. 5) assailing Lhe procepdings :,[ the Mandal Revenue ofrrcer, Marrcherial Mandal, 3 W.P, l{o.16721 of 2OO9 Adilabad District, bearing No.RoR/Mancheriall2SlO4, dated Nil-07-2004 whereby the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial Mandal, respondent No.3 therein, exercising the powers under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land arld Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 regularised the sale transaction in favour of the respondent No.5 therein, who is petitioner herein, and sought invalidation of the said order as it was in contraventibn of the provisions of the Act. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 26-04-2007 holding that " . . . . Admittedlg, ftfth respondent purchased house site under registered sale deed, u.thich is also propertg purchased bg the petitioner under simple sale deed dated 21.10.1957, uhich utas regulaised and ceftified bg the second respondent under the Stamp Act. Tlrcrefore, the impugned order passed bg the third respondent is utithout juisdiction and also in uiolation of pinciples of naturol justice. It is brought to the notice of this Court that ftfth respondent filed O.S. No.14 of 2007 for injunction and obtoined ad interim injunction. Therefore, the petitioner herein u-tho is a partg defendant in the said suit moA approach the Court of Senior Ciuil Judge, Asifabad, for further redressal."

5. It is further submitted that the land in Sy.No.362 is not an agricultural land and the same now falls within the Municipal limits of Macherial Municipality, which is surrounded by houses and the respondent No.l passed the impugned order without issuing any r' notice a4rd no opportunity was granted to the petitioner. 4 IfvsK, J

6. The pet :i,rner earlier hled another ,.vrit p.tilion in W.P. No.38lj4 r:1 2OO7 against the orders of the resp rn,lcnt No.3, who initial ed rroceedings under Section 145 Cr F.C vide his proceedings No.l) 215/2007 dated l9-O2-20O7. This (l<,urt admitted the said r,r'ri' 1;r:r Ltion and granted interim order on 27 O2-20O7 and ultimatel5' ,\ ,:, made absolute on 16-04-2007. lr is iurther submitted thal ,,,, hen the civil suit in O.S. No.14 of 20O7' rrnrl the W.Ps. No.1768 of 2(t()7.26523 of 2006 and 3854 of 2OO7 ae pending between thr.l prar-ies, the impugned orders cannot be pz ss:d r,vithout notice and oppr>', unity to the petitioner basing on thr: or lcrs of the respondent N,r.ll ancl the order passed by the Flir1l-r Court in W.P. No.23 I82 o'2008 dated 06-i 1 2OO8.

7. It is lLrrthcr submitted that the order of the resportrlerLt No.3 has no relevancr: arr; the direction of this Court in W.P. No.23182 of 2008 dated 06 1l-iO()B is only to consider the represcntaton of the petitioner oaLte'cL .lO 09-2006. Thc representation u'as le de only in the month of flo..,,'mber 2008 after disposal of the rvrit p,:ti:jon on 06 11-2008. 'I'he r cspondents No.1 and 3, who are parties ,o :arlier writ proceedings; arc having complete knowledge abouL tl.e dispute between thr: p,511r iorr.. and the respondent No.2. Qu:s'ioning the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 5 ITVSK, J w.P. No.l672t ot2009

8. While denying the writ averments, counter affldavit has been hled by the respondent No.1, Tahsildar, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District, reiterating the orders passed by this Court and the proceedings of the Revenue authorities.

9. Today, when the matter has been taken fo1 hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleade r made submissions based on the counter and requested to pass orders based on the material made available on the record.

10. Heard and perused the material made available on the record. 1 1 . The main gricvance of the petitioner is that the impugned order

23.12.2008 has been passed by the respondent No.1, Tahsildar, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District, directing to incorporate the name of the respondent No.2 in the Revenue records in respect of land to an extent of Ac.O.12 guntas in Sy.No.362, situated at Mancherial town, Adilabad District, without any notice and opportunity to the petitioner and withou[ any basis and more so, when the lis is pending between the petitioner and the respondent No.2.

12. As far as the averments made by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has purchased the land to an extent of 809.66 square yards, which is contiguous plot and made construction in an extent of

373.66 square yards leaving the remaining extent of land as vacant. 6 NVSK, J !.P. No.16721 of 2OO9

13. A perr-u;:r of the impugned proceedings datcc '.t3.72.2008, it appears ttLa the said order has been passed lrased on the application macr by the respondent No.2, along u'itlr a ropy of the proceedings c f the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Manclre I ial bearing No.B/403,/ rli)()rr, dated 10.05.2006 and a copy of the Hiilh Court order dated 06.1 1.2lC,S passed in W.P. No.23182 of 2008

14. At this - u lcture, it is necessary to observe here t-ra - this Court had no occasirr- to peruse the proceedings dated 10.0:;.20116 stated to have beer-r lra.sscll by the Revenue Divisional Offir:cr bi sc d on which the responierrt lJo.3 passed the impugned order zrnd t}Lr: same is not filed in the ivri . f,elilion as material papers. Further, a s cc uld bc seen from the order tlrrted 06. 1 i.2008 passed in W.P. No.2Il 1E! of 2008 by this Court, it. is clear that the said writ petition rva s iled by the respondent: llo Il herein questioning the action ol hi Tahsildar, Mancl-rerial )vlanclal, in not considering his applicz tion dated 2O.O9.2OOtt anc this Court disposed of the said r,.'rit p,:tr iou without going into the nu:rits of the case and directed the Tahs lrlat to consider and dispo-. e c I t.he representation of the respondent No. 2 I rerein dated 2O.O9.2006. It ir; further noted that the petitioner herci,t I as not been made as part.[ ,o the W.P. No.23182 of 2O08 and the irnpugncd order dated 23. 12.2Ctl)B has not been marked to the petil,ion(f r'.

15. Further, erarlier the petitioner liled W.P. Nc.li8l'i4 ol 2007 challenging tlr,: lrroceedings No.D/215/2OO7 dated 79-t)2 2OO7 of the 3.d responde n ., Revenuc Divisional Ofhcer trnd Su b Divisional l i I I l, I I 7 W.P. o,1672r oI2OO9 Magistrate, therein ordering for attachment of the land to an extent of

373.33 square yards in Sy. No.362 to Government custody basing on the report of Sub Inspector of Police, Mancherial. During the pendency of the said writ petition, this Court on 27.O2.2OO7 passed interim suspension of the impugned order and thereafter, the respondent No.2 herein, who was respondent No.4 therein, filed vacate petition. This Court on 16.04.2007, dismissed the vacate petition and made the interim order of suspension passed on 2Z.O2.2OOZ as absolute. Further, from a verillcation of online status of the case, the record revealed that the said W.P. No.3854 of 2OOZ was allowed vide order dated 05 11-2013 by setting aside the impugner order dated 19 .O2.2OO7 therein.

16. None of the parties have brought to the notice of this Court about the present status of the suit in O.S. No.14 of 2OO7 arld. particularly this Court in order dated 26.04.2OOT passed in W.P. No.1768 of 2007 specifically observed that ,,.... It is brought to the notice of this Court that fifth respondent filed O.S. No.14 of 2O07 for injunction and obtained ad interim injunction. Therefore, the petitioner herein tuho is a party defendant in the said suit mag approach the Courl of Senior Ciuil Judge, Asifabad, for further redressal."

17. It is clear from the record that this case has cheqrrered history of civil dispute with respect to extent of land and its possession between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and it is also clear from the impugned order dated 23.t2.2OO8 that the same has been I I E 1 P. x..16?2r ol 2OO9 passed without l)rrlting any notice and without giving an o1'portunity of hearing ro t;-Lc petitioner. Hence, the impugned 'r' ler dated

23.1,2.2008 is, liablc to be set aside. Further, since thert: are factual disputes bet,.l.ecn he petitioner and the respondent No ! I his Court cannot decicle d-,sputed questions of facts based on t le affidavits under Articlt ll )t: ol' the Constitution of India, hence thLi:; (.ourf is of the consider cc1 o;iinion that this writ petition cat'r br: disposed of leaving it opren fir - the parties to pursue their remedie s refore the appropriate Court rf 1aw as availatlle under law. i8. Accorclin5li,, having regard to the facts and circums :tl Lces of lhe case, this r,v:it p,r,rtition is disposed of by setting aside rlLc impugned order dated ,l:l 1 .l 2008 leaving it open to thc partir:s to pt rsue their remedies as avir ila ble under law. However, it is meLdc ,:1::a:- tl-iart this Court has not r:rpressed any opinion in respect of the 1.11rd in dispute to the extenr of o'r,nership and its possession. There shtrlL be no order as to costs Asa s( (11c1, miscellaneous applications, if a ry pending, shal1 stand r;los,er,:1 To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-A. SiRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SiE(:TIONB6FICER 'l The Tahsilcar, Manchirial Mandal, Adilabad District. 2 OneCCto SRT.KOTHAPALL| SAt SRt HARSHA,AorocaerOpUCl Q One CC to .SRt C. RUTHWTK REDDy, Advoiai"'tijFUti 4' Two ccs to Gp FoR REVENUe ,High court foi tie sLid of rerangana at 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] ,r Btu BS lMrcF HIGH COURT DATED:1610412025 ORDER WP.No.167?.1 of 2009 ::-- lrtE SL tr( oT * ? 21 w' iil :5 (C,|. ,:: i ,i ...' * e.s?:::::1i;'/' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C;OSTS 4L2 4./9 //5 ft,5'