AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 and the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.
This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents particularly the 5th respondent in mutating the names of the unofficial respondents in revenue records in respect of the property in an extent of Ac.1.79 cents in Sy.No.38/1 and Ac.6.43 cents in Sy.No.38/2 (38-1, 38-1A, 38-1B, 38-2-A-1, 38-2-A-2-A, 38-2-A-2-B, 38-2-B-1, 38-2-B-2, 38-2-C-1 & 38-2-C-2 (after subdivision) of Chintanippula Agraharam Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam (Anakapalli) District, without putting the petitioners on notice.
(i) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they belong to Schedule Caste community. From the year 1863 in the Madras Residency, the petitioners‟ great grand fathers Boni Chinnigadu and Boni Kannigadu, worked as Village Thalaris of Chintapalli Agraharam, Anakapalli Taluk, Visakhapatnam District. Taking into consideration of the services rendered by them, they were allotted the Inam lands measuring an extent of Ac.1.79 cents in Sy.No.38/1, and Ac.6.43 cents in Sy.No.38/2 of Chintanippula Agaraharam, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District (presently Anakapalli District) under 1802 Permanent Settlement Act under “Barika Service Inam” with T.D.No.41.
After the death of Boni Chinnigadu, his son Boni Appadu and after the death of Boni Kannigadu, his son Boni Ramulu continued to render their services as Thalaris. They inherited the above said land and their names were entered in the Survey and Settlement Register, dated 07.01.1928. It was also registered in Inam Permanent B Register in the year 1929 and Inam Barika Patta was issued by the Vijayanagaram Samsthanam in their favour. Their names were also recorded in all the revenue records with title deed No.TD 41. After the death of Boni Appadu and Boni Ramulu, their sons Appala Swamy and Venkata Swamy continued their services and they were also in possession of the Service Inam Lands assigned in favour of their ancestors. Boni Venkata Swamy did not marry and died issueless. Boni Appala Swamy was survived by his only son Boni Bhuloka and after his death his son Boni Demudu who is none other than the father of the petitioners inherited all his properties including the subject lands.
The petitioner‟s father Demudu got employment as an Attendant in North East Railway Zone, Assam State. He died in the year 2021. The ancestors of the petitioners and at present the petitioners are in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the subject land without any obstruction from any quarter. The names of the petitioners family was incorporated in all the revenue records from the year 1863 till 1989. The petitioners‟ father died in the year 2021. In his absence, the third parties who do not have any right or title over the above said properties made several transactions. After the death of their father, it came to their notice about the fraudulent acts of the third parties.
In the month of June, 2022, it came to the notice of the petitioners that some third parties are trying to mutate their names in the revenue records by placing fraudulent documents. On verification, it is found that in the year 1989, one Malipireddy Apparao mortgaged an extent of Ac.1.07 cents for an amount of Rs.5000/-. Subsequently, from 19.05.1999 to 28.03.2005, several transactions have taken place in these survey numbers. Subsequently, no sale transactions have taken place up to the year 2015. Again from 18.04.2016 till 2019, the land was transferred into the hands of different individuals. Finally, the major extent of the land was alienated in favour of CRPL VSP Cold Chain Private Limited by the third parties. Coming to know about the same on 18.07.2022, a legal notice was issued to the Tahsildar, on behalf of the petitioners requesting to block list the property in the web Adangal and also to take necessary steps not to have registration in respect of the subject property. Meanwhile, the CRPL VSP Cold Chain Private Limited made an application to the revenue authorities to have digital signatures.
On the instructions of the Tahsildar, the Village Revenue Office submitted a report dated 17.09.2022 to the Tahsildar, stating that Sy.No.38/2 is shown as Inam Nanja, in Settlement Fair Adangal Register. Suspecting the third parties may obtain exparte orders before the Civil Courts, the petitioners filed Caveats before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Anakapalli and other Courts. The Tahsildar issued a notice dated 15.11.2022 under 19(1) of the Rule calling for objections from the interested persons on or before 30.11.2022 and the petitioners submitted their objections on 15.11.2022. But the Tahsildar mutated the names of the third parties and the third parties do not have any right or title. Questioning the same, the 2nd petitioner approached this Hon‟ble Court on 17.11.2022 and filed W.P.No.37595 of 2022, against the action of the Tahsildar in mutating the names of the unofficial respondents in revenue records by sub-dividing the same. This Hon‟ble Court ordered issuance of notices to the unofficial respondents dated 21.01.2022.
The Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents therein requested time to obtain instructions. The 2nd petitioner made a representation dated 28.11.2022 to the District Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer bringing to their notice about the high handed acts of the third parties. It was also brought to their notice about the allotment of all the above said subject lands in favour of the above said petitioners ancestors. Be that as it may, inspite of the objections raised by the petitioners, the Tahsildar, vide proceedings dated 15.10.2022, 19.11.2022 and 09.09.2023 effected sub-division by uploading the same in web land. Some of the unofficial respondents executed several sale deeds in favour of the 27th respondent from 16.10.2019 to 13.12.2019. The 27th respondent approached the Tahsildar on 26.05.2023 and submitted 6A application along with the sale deeds.
The petitioner filed ROR Appeal R.C.No.1692/2023 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 19.07.2023. The Revenue Divisional Officer issued notices on 19.07.2023 to the Tahsildar directing the Tahsildar and the 2nd petitioner to appear before him on 22.07.2023. On 25.08.2023, Form-8 was generated and on the same day, a notice was issued under Rule 19(1) of the Rules calling for objections from the interested persons. On 28.08.2023, the petitioner has submitted his objections bringing to the notice of the Revenue officials that there is a title dispute in respect of the subject property. The pendency of W.P.No.37595 of 2022 before this Hon‟ble Court and ROR Appeal R.C.No.1692/2023 dated 19.07.2023 before the Revenue Divisional Officer were brought to their notices. As per the petitioners, the Tahsildar has not passed any orders. But the 2nd petitioner sought information under RTI Act on 04.09.2023.
The Deputy Tahsildar, by an endorsement dated 12.09.2023 informed that no orders are passed and no mutation is affected. The Village Revenue Officer, by an endorsement dated 09.09.2023 has recommended not to issue pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the 27th respondent. Inspite of all these things, the Tahsildar on 09.09.2023 mutated the name of the 27th respondent in revenue records with Khata No.609. When a serious title dispute is pending in respect of the subject property, the action of the Tahsildar in mutating the names of the unofficial respondents in the revenue records is not correct. Whenever rival claims are there, the party going to be affected by the orders should be given notice and reasonable opportunity should be given as prescribed under the rules. The valuable rights of the parties cannot be finalized by passing exparte orders in the absence of the effected party. When there is a serious dispute with regard to the title, whether title has been passed to a party under registered document or not, all such complicated civil disputes cannot be decided in the summary proceedings and the authorities should direct the parties to approach the Civil Court. By virtue of mutation of the revenue records in the name of the unofficial respondents, they are making efforts to make further alienation in favour of the third parties. For the purpose of filing anyhow a comprehensive writ petition, the petitioner withdrawn the W.P.No.37595 of 2022 dated 14.12.2023 with a liberty to file fresh writ petition. Hence, this writ petition.
(i) On the other hand the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, relying upon the counter of the 5th respondent submits that as seen from the Survey and Settlement Register of Chintanippula Agraharam Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Anakapalli District, the Sy.No.38 (Old R.S.NO.1) is sub divided as under:
| Sy.No. | Extent Ac.Cnt. | Classification | Patta No. | Remarks |
| 38/1 | 1.77 | Inam wet | TD No.41 | Boni Appadu and Ramulu (Barika Inam) |
| 38/2 | 6.43 | Inam wet | TD No.41 | Boni Appadu and Ramulu (Barika Inam) |
As per Settlement Fair Adangal (1958) of CHintanippula Agraharam Vilage, Anakapalli Mandal, the land in Sy.No.38 is sub-divided as under:
| Sy.No. | Extent Ac.Cnt. | Classification | Patta No. | Name |
| 38/1 | 1.79 | Inam wet | TD No.41 | Bonda Gangayya |
| 38/2 | 6.43 | Inam wet | TD No.41 | Korukonda Durgalu Tanakala Somunaidu Kokati Gangayya Kapusetti Ramana |
Further, as per the S.F.A. obtained by the petitioners from the Central Survey Office, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad and produced before the 5th respondent, the Sy.No.38 is sub-divided as under:
| Sy.No. | Extent Ac.Cnt. | Classification | Patta No. | Remarks |
| 38/1 | 1.79 | Inam wet | TD No.41 | Boni Appala Swamy |
| 38/2 | 6.43 | Inam wet | TD No.41 | Boni Venkata Swamy |
And a final Notification was also published in Visakhapatnam District Gazette dated 24.03.1960 to that effect.
As per the Web land Adangal, the Sy.No.38/1 and 2 to a total extent of Ac.8.1470 cents of Chintanippula Agraharam Village is shown as Inam/Ryotwari Patta and in the enjoyment column, it was recorded as Ancestral land in Column No.11 and name of the pattadar, it was recorded as „NIL‟ vide 1-B Khata No.297 and L.P.No.77 in the Re-survey conducted on 13.02.2023. In view of the above changes in the revenue records, the petitioners filed an application dated 10.07.2023 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapalli seeking to instruct the Tahsildar, Anakapalli to mutate their names in Draft Land Record (DLR) as successors of Inamdars since the wrongly incorporated S.F.A. Pattadars or their successors are not having any legal right and they never sold the said property to anybody and the Revenue Divisional Officer issued notice dated 19.07.2023 to the 2nd petitioner as well as to the 5th respondent directing them to appear before the RDO along with the documentary evidence, if any to prove the title of the said lands as on 22.07.2023 and the same is still pending. Anyhow, as stated supra, the W.P.No.37595 of 202 filed by the 2nd petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file fresh petition. Subsequently, the petitioners filed this writ petition.
The old story narrated by the petitioners in the form of previous history of the subject land relates to the record of pre-independence, which is not traced out in the office of the 5th respondent as the entire office was submerged in the flood water that occurred in the year 1990 and all the records in the record room were completely damaged due to the flood water. The 27th respondent filed 6-A applications dated 26.05.2023 seeking mutation of its name in respect of the lands in Sy.No.38/2 stating that the 27th respondent company purchased the said land vide document Nos.4559, 4386, 4387, 4560, 4385/2019 dated 22.11.2019 from various ryots. As stated above, the petitioners filed an application before the 4th respondent on 10.07.2023 seeking to instruct the Tahsildar to mutate their names in Draft Land Record (DLR) as successors of Inamdars and the Revenue Divisional Officer issued notice dated 19.07.2023 to both parties and the issue is still pending.
At the time of publication of Form-8 notice dated 25.08.2023, the petitioners filed an application in Jaganannaki Chebudam (JKC) stating that the land in Sy.No.38/2 belong to them and also filed objections for mutation of the land in favour of the 27th respondent. As per the directions of the then Tahsildar, Anakapalli, the Village Revenue Officer visited the subject land and having found that the said land is vacant without there being any cultivation and that the 2nd petitioner gave objections dated 28.08.2023 to the Form-8 notice and an application in Rc.No.1692/2023 before the 4th respondent is filed, the then Tahsildar, Anakapalli himself has conducted field inspection of the land in Sy.No.38/1 and 38/2 and having come to a conclusion that the said lands are not service Inam lands and the 27th respondent has purchased the land from webland pattadars and accepted the mutation in favour of the 27th respondent on 09.09.2023. Absolutely, there is no illegality or irregularity in mutating the names of the unofficial respondents in revenue records.
The above said case pertains to the issuance of Inam patta prior to independence and several transactions were taken place in respect of the subject land and also third party transactions occurred during 2016 to 2019 and no objections were received. Further huge extent of land was alienated by the third parties to the 27th respondent and they have applied for mutation in Form-6A of ROR Act and after due enquiry, mutations were carried out in Web land Adangal/1B Register on 09.09.2023 in favour of the 27th respondent with 1B Khata No.609. As per the material on record, the subject land is neither Assigned nor Government land as per the list of prohibited lands notified u/s.22A(1)(a) to (e) of the Registration Act, 1908 to deny the registrations of the documents. The 7th respondent cannot stop or deny the registration of documents. The unofficial respondents also sailing with the official respondents and filed their counter through the respondent Nos.22 to 26.
In view of the above said facts and circumstances, upon consideration of the rival submissions made and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is a clear dispute with regard to the title and possession of the subject land. Admittedly, a series of third party transactions took place by way of alienations of the subject land between the years 1989 to 2019 and the major extent of land was alienated in favour of the 27th respondent by the third parties. It appears that first time in the month of June 2022, the petitioners approached the revenue authorities to stop the mutations further stating that there are complicated civil disputes which cannot be decided in summary proceedings by the learned authorities concerned.
From the above said totality of facts and circumstances and as per the averments of the respective parties concerned, unless title and possession of the petitioners over the subject land is determined / settled, further issues before the revenue authorities under the Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 cannot be resolved. At this stage, the revenue authorities cannot maintain and decide the rights of the petitioners with respect to the title and possession over the subject land. Hence, without any further loss of time, the petitioners are permitted to approach the competent Civil Court for establishing their title and possession over the subject land by impleading all the proper and necessary parties concerned / interested persons. Subject to outcome of the same, the parties can approach the revenue authorities concerned for mutations over the subject land, following the due procedure.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, is deemed to have been vacated.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.