Chavakula Venkata Subbaraju vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Others

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J

Assailing the action of the 3rd respondent in illegally altering the adangal / pahani records of the property belonging to the petitioner admeasuring Ac.8-26 cents in Sy.No.26-1 of Tallavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam to Ac.7.70 cents and adding the deleted portion to the extent in favour of the 4th respondent, the present Writ Petition is filed.

Heard Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued the matter at length. It is his contention that the petitioner is the owner of Ac.8-26 cents of land situated in Sy.No.26-1 of Tallavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal. He acquired the same under five separate registered sale deeds from his previous owners in the years 1989 and 1996. The property was recorded in the revenue records on 18.04.2018 and the adangal copies, which are filed as material papers. The entire extent of Ac.8.26 cents is thus recorded petitioner’s favour, as per him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that in the copy of the No.3 adangal which is filed, the acquisition of the land in bits viz., Ac.2-00 cents, Ac.2-48 cents, Ac.3-30 cents, Ac.0-28 cents and Ac.0.20 cents is recorded. Subsequently, it is submitted that without notice to the petitioner Ac.0-56 cents was reduced from the petitioner’s extent of land noted and included in the extent belong to the unofficial respondent. This is visible from the adangal copy dated 06.10.2018. Learned counsel submits that this reduction in the petitioner’s extent and an addition to the unofficial respondent. Extent in the adangal copy dated 06.02.2018 is contrary to law, contrary to the process of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) and also to the rules of natural justice. He relies upon the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court reported in Velivela Sarojini v The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., Manu/AP/0812/2021. Basing on this judgment learned counsel argues that the writ petition and petitioner must be given an opportunity to present his case before any changes are made in entries in the revenue records.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for State argues that as far as the unofficial respondent is concerned, she acquired Ac.1-12 cents of land through two sale deeds dated 08.08.2006 and 01.06.2007. She made an application in 2012 and after following due process Pattadar Passbook and ROR book was issued to her. Notice was also published in the village but no objections were received. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s extent was entered in the notional katha, but not under Revenue Record like ROR, 1B etc. It is pointed out that the petitioner did not file any objections to the notice issued on the application filed by the writ petitioner. The entries were made in 2012 and Pattadar Passbook and title deed were issued to the unofficial respondent but the petitioner did not raise any objection or file an appeal. It is also asserted that the writ petitioner did not file any document to show that she has title to the property. Therefore, learned Government Pleader submits that if the petitioner had title to the property he should have made a claim at the appropriate stage. Lastly, it is submitted that the writ petition is filed long after the entries were made in favour of the unofficial respondent.

For the unofficial respondent Sri G. Rama Gopal appears and states, relying upon his counter affidavit / vacate stay petition, that the flow of title in his client’s favour is described with clarity, whereas the writ petitioner did not disclose the details of the sale deeds under which he has acquired the property. He points out that a vague allegation is made that the petitioner acquired the property under five sale deeds in 1989 and 1996. The petitioner’s title to Ac.8-26 cents is vehemently denied. The unofficial respondent asserts the title to the property of Ac.1-12 cents in Sy.No.26/1 part. It is pointed out that the mutation was carried out in 2012 itself and the Pattadar Passbook and Record of Rights book were issued. Sri Rama Gopal submits that on the ground of suppression of facts / failure to disclose the material particulars the petitioner is not entitled to any relief also.

This Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petitioner has to fail. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent has not disclosed the details of the title deeds by which he is claiming right in the property. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel also deals with the issue as to when the Mandamus can be issued. The law on the subject was summarized and it is clearly held that the mandamus is a discretionary remedy. It is held that only when a person establishes he has a legal right to the performance of a duty by the respondents and the said right is subsisting he can claim a mandamus. In the case on hand the petitioner has not proved that he has a legally subsisting right in the property of Ac.8-26 cents by disclosing his sale deeds. Despite the clear and categorical averments in the counter affidavits, neither a rejoinder affidavit nor the title deeds were filed before this Court. This Court, therefore, is unable to hold for the present that the petitioner is the owner of the property in Sy.No.26/1.

Apart from that, this Court also notices that the procedure stipulated under the Act has also not been followed by the writ petitioner. Once he claims a right in the property he has to make an appropriate application for mutation of his name and/or for changes in the record of rights. For the amendment and upgrading of the record of rights also the authority concerned has to be convinced about the correctness of the party’s application. The respondents have stated on oath that in the year 2012 itself that Pattadar Passbook and Record of Rights Book were issued to the unofficial respondent. The writ petitioner is claiming the title to the property in Sy.No.26/1 under five sale deeds. The names of the jformer owners were also not disclosed. The unofficial respondent on the other hand has clearly disclosed the details of the sale deeds, registration number and also the names of the vendors. The flow of title is described with certain clarity.

In these circumstances, this Court cannot hold that the petitioner has established certain rights in the property which would enable him to seek mandamus. Despite the counter affidavit, nothing to the contrary has been pointed out or established before this Court. It is also not clear why he has not applied for Pattadar Passbook or a Record of Rights book in line with the Act, despite claiming title to the property from 1989.

Considering all the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this Writ. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the opinions expressed in this order are for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition only and shall not be treated as an expression on the right, title or interest of either of the parties to the litigation. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.