Ramgari Sathi Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the cir ) rnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High cou - rnay be pleased to suspend the order passed by the Special Grade Deputy ( ) )llector & Revenue Divisional officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, 4th responderrl l]erein in case No. A2l237l2oo1 dated 03-01-2009 as confirmed by the Joinl I cllector - l, Ranga Reddy District, 3rd respondent herein in the order in cas : lrlo. D5/1097/2009 dated 17-O3-2O10, pending disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. DURGA PRASAD Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 6: AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 and g:---- The Court made the following: ORDER - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHITIDDIN WRIT PETITION No.1424 OF 2O11 ORDER: The present writ petrtion is hled by the petitioner challenging the order passed by ttre Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District East Division (4'h respondent) in case No.A2l237 l2OO8 dated 03.01-2009 which was confrrmed by the Joint Collector-I, Rarrga Reddy District (3'd respondent) in case No.DS l lO97 12009 dated 17.O3.2O|O.

2. The petitioner seeks to quash these orders and consequently restore the Pachamama (site inspection report) drawn by the Mandal Revenue Officer (Sft respondent) in hle No. B17828/2006 dated 04.05.2006 regarding the property in Sy No.206 of Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distnct' BRIEF FACTS:

3. Shorn of unnecessarJr' details, facts in brief ieading to the ftling of the present writ petrtion are as follows:

3. 1 The petitioner claims aI extent of 1 Acre 9 % guntas in Sy.No.206 of Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as his share, based on ancestral partition between the families of the original recorded pattadar Sri Ramgari Malla Reddy and the original pattadar's brother Chaldra Reddy. The petitioner claims that a,fter tlle death of recorded pattadar, Sri Malla Reddy and 2 - Sri Chandra Reddy, their sons Sri Ramachandra Red,t and Sri Veera Reddy mutually agreed to cultivate the land ir: t qual shares. Accodingly, Sri Ramachandra Reddy cultivated ar e-x (-rt of Ac-l' 09% gunats ald Sri Veera Reddy cultivated an equal ext: t of Ac.l.O9% guntas. Both brothers continued such separate l cssession and cultivation during ttreir lifetimes. The patrani patrik a i reflected this arrangement for several years; however, due to wrong ( rtries made by the Village Patwari, discrepancies subsequently ap leared in the records.

3.2 The petitioner approached the Tahsildar (l t, ndal Revenue Officer) Medchal Mandal, upon discovering the c i r repancies as regards t1.e entries in the revenue records, in the year : [106.

3.3 The Tahsildar ordered that a panchanama (si -r inspection) to be conducted artd accordingly the Mandal Rer e lue Inspector conducted a palchamar-ra in File No.B/ 1828106 datt.l ) +.O5 2006. 3-4 The GPA Holder of respondent Nos.7 & 8, one i i Malla Reddy, as one of the palch witness in the said panchanama s toke about the petitioner's possession and enjoyment ald entitler t -rt to the said property

3.5 However, the said General Power of Att( r rey from the respondent Nos.7 and 8 changed his stand for wr r r;ful gain and obtained an agreement of sale-cum-General Power r r1 .\ttorney from the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 ald appealed against pan: renama in File 3 No.B/1828/06 dated 04.05.2006 before the Special Grade Deputy Collector ald Revenue Divrsional Officer Ralga Reddy East Division challenging the palchanama.

3.6 The Revenue Divisional ofhcer by virtue of an order dated O3.O7.2OO9 in Case No.A2 /237 l2OO8 (P2) set aside the panchanama. The Revenue Divisional Ofhcer noted that there were no orders of the MRO ald the appeal was preferred against the panchanama; that the MRO had changed tJle entries in the revenue records based on the panchanama; that conducting such panchanarna was beyond tJe competence of revenue authorities; and the dispute involved complex questions of title ald set aside the panchanama and direcled the parties to approach the competent Civil Court to get their rights adjudicated.

3.7 The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Divisiona-l Of{icer filed a revision before the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District which was disposed off by the Joint Collector uide order d,ated

77.O3.2O7O in Case No. D5/ lO97 /2OO9 (P1) wherein the Joint Collector confirmed tie order of the RDO ar-rd held that the matter involved a dispute of title and that such question car-r only be decided by a Civil Court.

3.8 The learned counsel for petiLioner made submissions in line with the averments made in the alhdawit in support of the writ petition. The learned Assistant Govemment Pleader supported the 4 - order of ttre RDO which was confrrmed by the Joi r Collector and submitted that as held by the Joint Collector any po v :;- exercised by any statutory authority must be traceable to the sta t lr and that no such powers of ordering a panchanama were availe t <: to tJle MRO under the Act ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:

4. The issue that arises for consideration in the 'tesent case is whether this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction und: Article 226 of the Constitution of India has power to intervene in t I I matter where concurrent hndings of the Appellate and Revi; tnal Revenue Authorities relegated the parties to establish their dislrr ted title before the competent Civil Court. LEGAL ANALYSIS:

5. This Court hnds that the writ petition is not t re appropriate re medy, in matters of the nature as involved in the p', sent case. The dispute raised by the petitioner is not one for the corr: ;tion of clerical entry but is essentially a claim for declaration ol r t1e based on disputed questions of inheritance, relationship arlC other factual issues. This Court is of the considered view that thr lresent matter involr,es questions with regard to title, possession ar I enjoyment of property, which are issues triable exclusively by the r cmpetent Civil Court and not by tlle revenue authorities under the I :rited scope of ,/ 5 Andhra Pradesh record of Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, 197 I (hereafter 'Act, 797 I' for brevity).

6. It is trite law that the issues of title, more particularly where complex factuaf issues are involved, can only be conclusively determined by a decree passed by the competent Civil Court.

7. The petiLioner in the present case has aJready filed a Suit ujde O.S-No.1086 of 2OO7 on the hle of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar seeking a declaration that he is tJre owner arrd pattadar of the subject property and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction. The petitioner already having approached the Civil Court which is the appropriate forum legally equipped arrd competent to adjudicate such disputes of title, calnot for the very same relief of declaration of title approach the revenue authorities. Further, the exercise undertaken by the Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue Offrcer) in ordering a panchanama as a collateral remedy to conhrm the entitlement and possession of the petitioner is ultra uires the scope of the Act, 1971.

8. The underlying subject matter is certainly not within the jurrsdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of [ndia. Entertaining such writ petition would violate the well-established principles, that the discretionarlr remedy of a writ petition is apposite and appropriate only in the matters, if an ellicacious alternative remedy is unavailable. In the present case, the petitioner having 6 - already invoked the jurisdiction of the competent Civil t )(lurt seeking a declaration of title carnot be allowed to pursue two p I zrllel remedies, one belore the Civil Court and other before the Revtr Le authorities, essentierlly for the same relief. g. The action of the Revenue Divisional Officer in s rl.ting aside the parcharama dated 04.05.2006 of the Tahsildar :r L . directing the parties to approach the competent civil Court was 1t g rLly sound and proper, ald thus, the appellate order of tJle Revenue l) visional Ofhcer setting aside the panchanama of the Tahsildar (l '1 r:rda1 Revenue olficer) cajrnot be classified as arbil rary or perverse.

10. The appellate Revenue authority i.e., Revenue . ) visional Offrcer alrd the Revisional Revenue authonty i.e., Joint Colle c c,r have rightly held that the Tahsildar (MaIdaJ Revenue Offrcer) h I I exceeded his jurisdiction in attempting to decide complex dispu t J questions of title based merely on a summary panchanama, th I clrawing up of which is no[ even provided in the statute. For the I i irl reason, this Court hncls that the Appellate authority (RDO) has r ghtly set aside the panchanama; and the order of the Appellate autt ( :: ty was rightly conhrmed by the Revisional authority- The order I the RDO was rightly issued by directing the parties to the ap: rrpriate forum namely the competent Civil Court is apposite in vierv , f the facts and circumstalces of the case- 7 F ll.Further,itiStobenotedt}rattheimpugrredordersoftheRDo and the Joint Collector have rightly emphasized that entries in the revenue records cannot be altered on the basis of panchanamas, process of law. The conducted without adherence to due panchanama, which is not provided' for in the Act as a ground for modihcation/ a,lteration of revenue entries' and more particularly like the panchanama in the present case' which was undertaken without adherencetothebasictenetsofnaturaljusticelikepriornotice,does not by itself confer a.rly legal right or title' as is sought to be portrayed by the petitioner.

12. Upon pemsal of the material on record' it is evident that the petitioner 'approached' the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) requesting that a panchalama be conducted in respect of the disputed property' It is also manifest from t1le absence of any formal application or even the reference to aly such application in the entire record' tltat the petitioner did not frle any formal application seeking such action As a matter of fact, no such provision or procedure is available'under the Act. It is equally signifrcart that there is no order/ instructions in writing available or adverted to in the entire record whereunder the MRO directed the MRI to conduct a panchanama'

13. It is pertinent to observe that the power to conduct a is not traceable to any statutory provision under the panchanama relevant Revenue Laws or the Rules framed thereunder' The Mandal Revenue OIficer, beilg a statutory authority' is bound to act strictly o within the limits of the powers conferred upon him r. law' In the absence of any specihc statutory provision authorizir': e t'he MRO to undertake such art crercise, any act of conducting a rrrnchanama, either suo motu or at the behest of a private indiviC u aI, rvould be wrthout jurisdrction and liable to be treated as a nulltt I in the eyc of - law. L4. It is well settled that administrative or prasi-judicial authorities cannot assume powers that aJe not expr( s ;y conferred upon them by statute. The conferment of power must 1 ,t ,rxplicit, and in its absence, no authority can act on equitable o: d iscretionary considerations. Therefore, the action sought by the pe i i:ner calnot be sustained merely on the ground of convenien c : or factual verihcation, as such power has neither been delegat,:r nor can be impiied under the relevant provisions of the Act or a,11it r lnactments. It is equally well settled that even in matters where s r :h power is avaiiable in thc statute; the power is to be exercised r r ly complying v'rith the Princrples of Natural Justice, like prior r otice to the concerned. 15, It is to be noted that, a writ of Certiorari lies to c I rect an error ofjurisdiction or an error apparent on the face of recot c However, in the present case no such error exists or has been po r ted out from the impugned orders. On the contra-ry, the orders of tht t:pellate and the Revisional authority uphold the rule of law by reset r, rrg questions of title for the competent Civil Court, and refraining fr c :r interfering - t i : l , t 9 with the matters which involve complex questions of fact a-nd devolution of title It will not be out of the context to note that during the 16. arguments the petitioner himself argued that the order of the Revenue authorilies would impact the outcome of the Civil suit' a;rd by the same ana-lo5r, aly order passed by this Court restoring the palachanama of the Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue O{Iicer) would also seriously prejudice the pending civil suit in which the parties are arrayed and where comprehensive evidence necessary for the adjudlcation of the title would be led' The petitioner's claim rests squarely on the disputed question of private title which is a subject matter of the pending Civil Suit instituted by the petitroner himself and considering the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Lhe Constitution of India, this Court ltnds no ground to interfere with the well reasoned orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector.

17. ln the view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of Lhe view that the Appellate and Revisional authorities have rightly set aside the panchanama ald directed the petitioner to work out his remedies before the Civil Court. The writ petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disrnissed' Any observations made by this Court in this writ petition shal1 not bind the Civil Court l0 which shall adjudicate the issue of trtle independentl5' a rl on its own merits, on the basis of evidence adduced before it. Th: t shali be no - order as to costs. Pending miscellaleous applications, if any, shall s :rrrd closed. //TRUE COPY/I Sc i L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASS I 'TANT REGTSTRAR fi,.t S,ECTIONOFFICER To

1. One CC to Sri P. Durga Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 2.TwoCCstoGPforRevenue,HighCourtfortheStk:ofTelangana,at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD CoPies T J/MP -6 o.- (t L/- \y_P z'1 L-./ HIGH COURT DATED:2711012025 ORDER WP.No.1424 of 2011 o 'J A./ t * .- I s7a ,!s ., (. I E 2602 2 6t * s rc} DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0