Erukqla Urna v. Goaerntnent of Andhra Pradesh and another

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court rnay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Joint Collector in interfering with the orders of the original and appellate authorities without having any rational basis as illegal arid unconstitutional and consequently set aside the orders of the Joint Collector dated 27 .12.2O1 7 in Case No. D1 /3733/20 1 4, D1 137 41201 6. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 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 orders passed by the Joint Collector daled 27.12.2017 in Case No. D1 /3733/20 1 4, D1 I 37 41201 6. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 8: SRI Y. ASHOK RAJ The Court made the following: ORDER 1 SK,.) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.919O OF 2018 ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is hled questioning the orders dated 27.I2.2017 passed by the respondent No.2/Joint Collector in Case No.Dl/373312014 and Dl137412016, whereby the orders passed by the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisiona-l Officer in No.82187812013 dated lO.O2.2Ol4 and the orders passed by the respondent No.4/Tahsildar in No. B I 15499 12009 date d 24.01.2O l3 were set aside.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents and the learned Counsel for the unofhcial respondents and perused the record.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally the subject lands situated at 2 SK, J Pedabonkur \/illage, Peddapalli Mandal and District, belongs to one Surya Prakash ald consequent on his death the same u,ere partitioned among his sons namely Nalsirnhachari, Eswaraiah and others. In the year, 1985. mutation was done as per succession. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the unollicial respondents Nos. 5 to 8, who are the legal heirs of Eshwaraiah, have filed appeal before the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Olficer alld the appellate authority pirssed orders on 07.O2.2Oll directing to conduct de nouo enquiry afresh. Being aggrieved by the said orders. the unofficial respondents liled a revision before the respondent No.2 under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 197 l. Meanwhile, one Miyapuram Laxminarayana, respondent No.6 withdrawn the revls10n petition. Accordingly, the Joint Collector, Karimangar disposed of the Revision Petition and directed to l'ahsildar, Peddapalli to process necessary ,action on the subject matter as per the orders passed 3 SK, J the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide Proc.No.D1l3044l20II dated 09.06.2012. In pursuance of the said orders, the Tahsildar, conducted de nouo enquiry by issuing notice dated 2.06.2012 in File No.B/ 15499 l2OO9 and passed orders stating that there is no land for the Legal Heirs of Late Eswaraiah as they have already sold way. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of the late Eshwaraiah hled appeal before the Revenue Divisiona-l Olficer in File No.Bl2878l2O13 and the said appeal was dismissed on 1O.O2.20 14 confirming the orders passed by the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the 1ega1 heirs of the deceased-Eshwariah filed Revision before the respondent No.2 and through impugned orders, the respondent No.2 has set aside the orders passed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the ground that a Civil Suit in OS Nos.67 of 2OO7 and O.S.No.83 of 2OO7 (correct number is O.S.No.44 of 2OO7l a-re baending on the hle of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli 4 St(, J and Junior Civil Judge, Peddapally, respectively and further the Nletndal Revenue Officer is not competent to record the partition in the revenue recbrds

4. The lcar-ned Counsel for the petitioners wouid further submit that the O.S.No.67 of 2OO7 r,r.as already closed one ),ear prior to passing of impugnecl orders bv the responcler-it No.2 ald another O.S.No.83 of 2OO7 (correct No.44 of 2007) has nothing to do with the subject prollerty. By virtue of the impugned orders, the revenue eruthorities wants to change all lhe entries and this would give a cloud over the properties and alienations will be started by the unofficial respondents and requested to set aside the impugr-red order passed lty the respondent No.2 by allowing the writ petition.

5. The learneci Counsel lor the petitioners rn support of his contentions relied on the following Judgments: 5 sK,.i 7, Ddelweiss Asset Constntctions Cotnpang Ltd., Vs., R.Perumqlswqmg and others 1

2. Erukqla Urna Vs. Goaerntnent of Andhra Pradesh and another 2

3. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddg Vs. D.Narsing Rao and others 3

4. Kutchi Lql Rameshwqr Ashro,m Trust Vs. Collector, Haridwar and other*

6. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents would submit that the respondent No.2 rightly allowed the revision filed by the respondent Nos.5 to 8. The father of the petitioners No.1 and 2, with an ill intention, created a lake partition deed dated 02.O8.1976 in respect o[ properties of Miyapuram Rajeeru including the self-acquired properties of Miyapuram Eswaraiah i.e. lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.26 in Sy.No.675/1, an extent of AC.2.25 guntas in Sy.No.65 /8, an extent 1(2021) | 1 SCC 98 , 20t4 (2) ALD 228 (DB) r (201s) 3 scc 695 a (2017) 16 SCC 418 1 6 SI\. .J of Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy.No.678, an extent of Ac.O.i0 guntas in Sy.No.63llD, an extent of Ac.O.37 guntas in Sy.No.632/8, an extent of Ac.3.03 guntas in Sy.No.46, an extent of Ac.3.01 guntas in Sy.No.457 and an extent of r\c. 1. I 1 guntas 1n Sy.No.303 situated at Peddabonkur Village of Peddapalli Mandal zrnd obtained partition proceedings Proc.No.ROR/21O I 1994, dated 17. 10. 1997 from the Mandal Revcnue Oflicer and the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer, without any jurisdiction and basing on a lake document the subject lands were partitioned stating that there \f,ras an oral partition between the tamilt, members in the year, 1976. But the Revenue Divisional Officer, without considering the said facts dismissed the revision.

7. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents woulcl further submit that the respondent No.2 in the revision righth, observed that the recording authority 7 SK, J

1. e. MRO, Peddapally vide Order No.B/1549912OO9 dated 24.O1.2013 partitioned the subject lands among the brothers of the Joint Family,..whereas one of the lega1 heirs are disputing the same. As a matter of fact, the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer is not competent authority to decide the shares of the joint family and the Civil Court is the competent authority to decide such 1S Sl-lCS. Apart from that, the two civil suits i.e O.S.No.67 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli and O.S.No.83 of 2OO7 on the hle of Junior Civil .Iudge, Peddapalli are pending for adjudication at the time of mutation. The respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, without verifying the competency and dispute over the partition, simply confirmed the orders passed by the Tahsildar, which is not tenable and the respondent No.2 rightly set aside the proceedings issued by the respondent No.3 in case No.B2l878l2Ol3 dated lO.O2.2Ol4 and the proceedings of respondent No.4 8 SK, J Proc.No.B/ 7549912OO9 dated 24.01.2013 directing the both parties to approach the revenue authorities after the disposal of the civil suits and th6re are no merits ahd requested to dismiss the writ petition.

8. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of the petitioners is that the respondent No.2 passed impugned orders by setting aside the orders passed by the Respondent No.3 and 4 on the ground that the Tahsildar has no power to record the partition deed and also in view of pendencv civil suit Nos. O.S.No.67 of 2OO7 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli and O.S.No.S3 of 2OO7 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli and directed to both the parties to approach the revenue authorities after disposal of the said civil suits.

9. In fact, the unofficial respondents herein fiied O.S.No.67 of )OO7 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli for declaration that the orders passed by 9 sx, J the respondent No.3 in ROR No.21O/1994 dated

27.10.1997 as illegal and not binding on them and rectification of records. The said- suit was dismissed for default on 15.11.2016 i.e. prior to passing of the impugned orders by the respondent No.2 in Case No.Dl/373312OL4 and DIl374l2ot6

27.12.2O\7. The suit schedule property in O.S.No.67 2007 is the subject property in ROR revision filed by the unofficial respondents. Once the declaration suit liled by the unofficial respondents was dismissed for default, the respondent No.2 cannot direct the parties to approach the revenue authorities after the disposal of the said suit.

10. In.the impugned order it is a-lso mentioned that O.S.No.83 of 2OO7 is pending on the hle of Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. During the course of arguments, both the counsel stated that due to typographical mistake suit number was mentioned as O.S.No.S3 of 10 SK, J 2007 instead of O.S.No.44 of 2OO7 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Peddapally in the impugned orders and the sarne was liled by one Surya-Prakash, brother of the petitioner No. I and the said suit was filed for injunction against third parties with regard to his own properties and therefore the said suit is nothing to do with the proccedings under ROR

11. In this regard, the Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Erukula (Jmq. Vs. Gouernment of Andhra Pradesh (supra 2/ squarely apply to the facts of the instant case and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as under: " 14. W'e c.tre of tLrc opinion that the . Act prouid.es a complete mechanism in respect of making enties in the reuenue record.s. The Act cotTtc'ins a prescribed procedure and lags doun the pouers of the cLuthoities in relation to passing ord,ers and making entries. 'l-he prouision enuisages that uheneuer an appLication. ts ftect beJbre the authorities intimatinc them about the ocquisition of nghts and seeking amendment of the enties, the autlrcrities haue to put alt such persons to notice, tuhose names are entered in the record of ights, utho are interested and uho are going to be affected by the amend.ment- When a 11 SK, J person receiues a sholu cause notice from the authoities, it [s inanmbent upon him, to appear before the authoities and bA tuog of a replg, submit before the authoities all releuant facts including pendencg of ciuil suit, if ang. But he cannot straightauag approach this Court un.der Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of India and seek o wnt of Mandamus. In such cases, this Court should refrain from exercbing the extraordinory juisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutton of India.

15. Hence, tue deem it appropriate to clarifg the judgment of the learned singLe Judge of this Courl in V. Gouthom Rao"s cose, to the extent thot, uhen a shou-) cause notice is issued by o competent authoity, just because a ciuil suit i.s pending, ipso facto, it wilt not entttte a partg to approach the Higlt Court under Article 226 of the Constttution in uietu of the lau-t laid down in V. Gowtham Rno "-s case, but the partg has to opproach the cLuthoitg bg utay of o reply and should bing all the releuant facts to the nottce of the authoritg othenuise, the purpose of the Act itself would be frustrated, uhich is enacted for effectiue implementation of entnes in Record of Rights" In the instant case also, the unofficial respondents before Iiling the Revision under ROR, have already approached the Civil Court by filing O.S.No.67 of 2OO7 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli for declaration of title the same schedule property and the said suit was dismissed for default. But, said fact was ,..-.2 12 SI\, J not brought to the notice of the respondent No.2 and in view of the same the respondent No.2 set aside mutations proceedings in favour of letitioners as if O.S.No.67 of 2OO7 was pending and directed both the parties to approach the revenue authorities after disposal of the civil suits. In view of the same, the Judgment reiied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners rn Erukala uma case, (surpa 2/ squarely apply to the facts of the instant case.

12. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents in support of their contention relied on the Judgment in K.Jai Pal Reddg ys. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddg Districis and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as under: 31 The juclgment of Pramila Modi (one supra) referred by ' the leanted counsel for the Appellant/ respondent 1[o.3 ls not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case refered (one supra), it is the case that 5 2023 (6) ALT 622 (r)B) (rS) i3 SK, J transfer of patta is nothing but a title. Hotueuer, in the present case, the subject lands were alleged to be ancestral properties and the parTies herein haue common lineage. As such, thg -properties classiJied as ancestral properties cannot be claimed bg ony indiuidual u.there complex questions of disputes of title exists tuhich are for beyond the scope of summory enquiry and more so, on earlier occasion a partition suit wos ftled on the subject properties uthich Lt-tos dismissed for default. JJ The learned Single Judge, after considertng the prouisiot'ts of the Act and uaious judgments; finally heLd cts under: "Therefore, the said order utas deuoid of juisdiction and for in excess of the pou-ters conferred by the Act of 1971 and the Rules of 1989. The Reuenue Authoities, be tt the Joint Collector or the Mandal Reuenue Officer, octing in exercise of tLte pouers confened by the Act of 1971 could not haue resolued the disputed questions of title uthich uere throu.n up by the facts of the present case. The decisions in G.PADMAVATHI's case (1 supra), PATEL RAGHAV NATHA's case (2 supra), K.SIDDIAH NAIDU's case (3 supra), V.GOUTHAM RAO's case (5 supra), SANNEPALLI NAGESWAR RAO's case (6 supra) and B.PUSHPAMMA's case (9 supra) are of guidance and support in this regard. 14 (f SKJ Complex and seious d.isputes of title falling bettond the arnbit of Rule 9 of the Rules of I 9g9 are rtot tuithirt tlp, ken of the adjudicatiue authoriry of reuenlte authoities euen und.er the Act of 1971. It is for the parties to initiate appropiate proceed_Lngs before a ciuil Court of competent jurisd.iction to resolue their clispute and it is not open to either party to turtt to the Act of HC, .I & NVSK, J jg71 l.c) ste.tl a march ouer the other. Needless to state, in tlrc euent of either paftg approaching a ciuil Court of competent juisdiction, it is open to them to raise all the, issues and conten(iorts raised irt this turit petition. inclutling the e.ffect and consequences of the d.ismLssal of the surt O.S.No.3aB of l9g9 for d.efault, and the s(tme tuouLd be decided ind_epend_ently u.titltout bemg influenced bg any obseruations made herein. In lhe result, Lhe orcler dated_ 24.02.2OO0 passerT bU tlte Joint Collector, Ranga Red.tTy Disjrict, in exercise of reuisional jurisdiction uncler Section 9 of the Act of 197 1 is found to be u)ithout juisdiction and hence, unsustainable. The consequential order dated l0. j 1.2OOO passed bg tlte Mandal Reuenue Offi.cer, Ghatkesar Mand.al, Ranga Reddg District, in exercise of pou.ters confered. bg Sectiort S of the Act of t97j had tLrc effect oJ. resoluin.g .senous and complex disputes o-f title far beyoncl the scope of the summary enquiry tuhtch couLd haue been initiated bg the said Officer unrler 15 SK, J Rule 9 of the Rules of 1989. The said order is in excess of .lurisdiction and is accordingly held to be null and uoid. The u.tit petition is therefore allotued.. There shall be no order as ,o cosls. " The above Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents not apply to the instant case. In the instant case, the unofficial respondents have already approached the Civil Court by filing suit in O.S.No.67 of 2OO7 on the Iile of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapally for declaration of title and the said suit was dismissed for default prior to passing of the orders passed by the respondent No.2.

13. Further, another suit O.S.No.S3 of 2007 (correct number O.S.No.44 of 2OO7l is not pertaining to the subject property and the said suit was filed by one Surya Prakash, brother of the petitoienr No. 1, against third parties, for injunction. In view of the same, the lespondent No.2 cannot set aside the orders passed \ 16 SI\, J by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the ground of the said suit perrding for adjudication. The respondent No.2 has to take into account of the dismrssal of the suit flled bv the unoflicial respondents in O.S.No.67 ot 2OO7 and has to pass orders on merits. In vielv of the same, it is 1lt case to remand the matter to the respondent No.2 lor passing orders in accordance u,ith law.

14. In view of the above findings, this writ petition is disposed ol by setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 in No.D1/3733/2014 and DI/374/2016, dated

27.12.2077 and the matter is remanded back to the revisional authority for passing appropriate orders on merits, as per the existing rules. Tiil disposal of the Revision by the revisional authority, both the parties shall maintain s/afus quo in all respects existing as on today. t7 SK, J i5. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shali stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/.MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUW REGTSTRAR \ To, //TRUE COPYII v/ Telangana, Hyderabad. SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, secretariat buildings, state of 2. Joint Collector, Peddapalli District. 3. Revenue Divisional Officer, peddapalli, peddaoalli district. 4. Tahsildar, Peddapalli, Peddapalli district. 5. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao pufluri, Advocate tOpUCI 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the'State df Telanga4a, at 7. One CC to Sri Y. Ashok Raj, Advocate[OpUC] 8. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUTI T J /BSK a HIGH COURT DATED:2 510412025 e()FT c< F1 ..s *auu' (t .) t- ORDER WP.No.9190 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS