Dharmana Dharma Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Originally, the land admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.456/2 of Singupuram Village belongs to one Koka Adinarayana family, who in turn sold away the same to Boddepalli Paul Raju, who in turn sold the same to the petitioner under registered sale deed No.6335/2011 dated 20.09.2011 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Srikakulam from its owner Boddepalli Paul Raju, S/o late Laxmi Tulasi and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of said property as its absolute owner. Thereafter, passbook was issued in his favour vide Patta No.1840 of Singupuram Village. The petitioner also availed loan by duly mortgaging the said property in favour of Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation(A.P.S.F.C) Srikakulam, under registered mortgage deed No.2252/2012 dated 31.03.2012.

While things stood thus, the petitioner came to know that the revenue authorities in collusion have issued passbooks in favour of one Smt. Singupurapu Lavanya by striking the name of the petitioner in 10(1) adangal. Then, the petitioner made an application to cancel the said passbooks issued in favour of Smt. Lavanya since already his name was recorded in Patta No.1840 by considering the transaction covered under sale deed 6335 of 2011 dated 20.09.2011 and also recorded in adangals.

The Revenue Divisional Officer considered the said application on file as an appeal under Section 5B of A.P.ROR Act vide proceedings No.1495/2013A dated 20.05.2014. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the petitioner have submitted all records evidencing his possession over the said property and the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed an order that the issue is civil dispute and same can be filed before the Civil Court and that the department cannot decide title in dispute and further directed the Tahsildar Srikakulam to kept the Pattadar Passbooks of respondents No.8 in abeyance and directed to issue Pattadar Passbook after finalization of civil dispute. 5) Pursuant to the order passed in Rc.1495/2013/A dated 20.05.2014 by Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, the petitioner submitted to the Collector, Srikakulam, who vide proceedings Rc.1282/2013/D8 dated 31.03.2016 directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct denovo enquiry and to pass appropriate orders. In pursuant to the said direction, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam once again passed order dated 27.12.2017 in Rc. No.1132/2016/C directing the petitioner to file a civil suit against the respondents for declaration of his right over the property in question as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision petition No.351/2018 D8 under Section 9 of A.P. ROR Act, 1971, before Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Srikakulam. However, the said petition was dismissed confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, and directed the Tahsildar, Srikakulam to take further action as per entries recorded in ROR.

It is the further case of the petitioner that earlier one Kothakota Rekha filed suit O.S.No.44 of 2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Srikakulam against the vendor of the petitioner for an injunction in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.50 cts in Sy.No.456/2 at Singupuram Village and the said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.04.2013. Apart from the said suit, the respondent No.8 - Varudu Devi Prasad who said to acquire the property in question under registered gift settlement deed dated 07.08.2013 from his sister Smt. Varudu Kalyani – respondent No.7 herein filed suit O.S.No.70/2014 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam to declare him as the absolute owner of plaint schedule property admeasuring Ac.0.40 cts in Sy.No.456/2 at Singupuram Village against the petitioner, wherein he filed detailed written statement and the said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 11.04.2017.

It is the further case of the petitioner that the said civil dispute in between the parties is settled and in view of the suits filed against the petitioner as well as his vendor are dismissed, right and title over the property in question was confirmed and there is no necessity for the petitioner to file a fresh civil suit/dispute as directed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Moreover, during pendency of the suit O.S.No.70 of 2014, the Revenue Divisional Officer though initially directed the Tahsildar to keep abeyance of Pattadar PassBooks issued in favour of the respondent No.8 and in view of dismissal of O.S.No.70 of 2014, it is obligatory on the part of respondent authorities to confirm the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner and to cancel the passbooks issued in favour of respondent No.8 or anyone claiming through him.

It is the further case of the petitioner that when there was no civil dispute pending, the Revisional authorities ought to have directed the Tahsildar to cancel the passbooks issued in favour of respondent No.6. Hence, the writ petition.

When the matter came up for admission on 03.10.2018, this Court passed the following interim order:

Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the averments made in the writ petition and contended that as per the Settlement Land Register (SLR) of Singupuram Village, Srikakulam Mandal & District, the land covered by Sy.No.456 is zeroyathi land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.79 stands registered in the name of Koka Apparao, S/o Adinarayana. During the course of hearing, it is noticed that, Penta Simhagiri Sarma, S/o Late Seetharamayya of Singupuram Village, Srikakulam Mandal, possessed an extent of Ac.0.64 in Sy.No.456/2 (Khata No.937), though the origin of his title from the Koka family is unclear and of this, Ac.0.24 (0.095 Hec.) was acquired by the Land Acquisition Authority (NH-5) and RDO, Srikakulam, and in the absence of objections, compensation of Rs.32,587/- was paid to him under Award No. 16/2002, dated 25.08.2002 and he later sold Ac.0.50 cents of the remaining land via Regd. Sale Deed Doc.No.4425/2003, dated 07.11.2003 to Kinjarapu Madhavi, who subsequently sold it to respondent No.6, through Regd. Doc.No.3304/2006, dated 24.08.2006 and she obtained Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed under Khata No.1824 and later executed a GPA in favour of Kottakota Rekha, W/o Narayanamurty, via Doc.No.32, dated 29.06.2007. And on the other hand Koka Venkataratnam and others executed a Sale Agreement with Possession-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of Boddepalli Pal Raj for an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.456/2 of Singupuram Village, Srikakulam Mandal and District, vide Regd. Doc. No.2191/2009, dated 13.05.2009, and later registered the same land in his name through Doc.No.5139/2009, dated 23.10.2009 and subsequently, Boddepalli Pal Raj sold the land to the petitioner herein under a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.6335/2011, dated 20.09.2011 and however, the said land was not reflected in the revenue records, i.e., Pattadar Passbook/Title Deed or RoR 1-B under the petitioner‟s existing Khata No. 1840 for Singupuram Village and upon inquiry, the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer confirmed that no entry of Sy.No.456 exists under Khata No.1840 in the name of the petitioner, though Sy. No.506/1 (Ac.0.40) is recorded and as per Section 6 of the RoR Act, entries in RoR records are presumed to be correct unless proven otherwise.

It is further contended the then Revision Authority-cum-Joint Collector, Srikakulam having examined material documents/ arguments/ written statements submitted by both the parties in the Revision case, noticed that both the parties have possessed Registered Sale Deeds and Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds, therefore, it is a clear case of civil dispute which is to be adjudicated by the Civil Court only and held that there is no reason to interfere with the orders of the Appellate Authority-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam issued vide Progs.Rc.No. 1132/2016/C, Dt.27.12.2017 and dismissed the Revision Petition vide Progs.R.P.No.351/2018/D8, Dt.20.09.2018 U/s 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, directing the Tahsildar, Srikakulam to take further action as per the entries recorded in RoR.

It is further contended that the request of the petitioner to set aside the order passed vide Progs.Rc.No.351/2018/D8, dated 20.09.2018 by the respondent No.3 in so far upholding the orders vide Pogs.Rc.No.1132/2016/C, dated 27.12.2017 issued by respondent No.4 deserves no consideration since the respondent No.3 herein has not confirmed any rights or title either to the Petitioner or to the un-official Respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 respectively, as both parties are having registered sale deeds, Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds, as such it is a clear case of Civil Dispute, which is to be adjudicated by the appropriate Civil Court only, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

Respondent Nos.6 to 8 filed counter denying the averments made in the writ petition and also denied that the petitioner availed loan by mortgaging the subject land.

It is contended that one Koka Adinarayana having two sons namely (1) Koka Satyanarayana and (2) Koka Apparao. Koka Satyanarayana is having four sons and all those four sons are having agricultural lands other than the land covered by Survey No.456/2, but all the said four sons executed GPA-cum-Sale Agreement for the above said land in favour of Boddepalli Paul Raju and who in turn created another sale deed in his favour on 23.10.2009, vide Document No.5139/2009. Thereafter, he sold the said land to the writ petitioner on 20.09.2011 which is illegal and non-est in the eye of the law. As stated above, the sons of Koka Satyanarayana do not have land in Survey No.456/2 and without having any right, title, interest or possession, they created GPA-cum-Sale Agreement in favour of Boddepalli Paul Raju who is the alleged vendor of the writ petitioner and any such transactions done by them does not create any title on them and also do not bind on the respondents 6 to 8. By creating the above fabricated document, the vendor of the writ petitioner in collusion with the then revenue authorities entered his name in his pattadar passbook, but the physical inspection of the revenue records would reveal that Survey No.456/2 is not entered in the records and the same was noticed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam.

It is further contended that the writ petitioner and his vendor by name Boddepalli Paul Raju tampered the revenue records in their favour in collusion with the then revenue authorities with an intention to grab the above said land without having right, title, interest or possession over the above said land at any point of time. While verifying the revenue records manually in the 1-B register, it is found that there is only one Survey No.506-1 is entered in the name of writ petitioner, but not the Survey No.456/2 at any point of time. But the writ petitioner by using his political power tampered the said survey number in his Khata No. 1840 in his pattadar passbook and title deed.

It is further contended by respondent No.7 that the vendor of the writ petitioner i.e. Boddepalli Paulraju submitted an affidavit in I.A.No.149 of 2014 in OS.No.70 of 2014 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam, stating that the writ petitioner got created a nominal and sham registered general power of attorney-cum-sale possessory sale agreement document bearing No.2191/2009 through some unknown person for an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Survey No.456/2 without effecting any physical delivery of possession of the said land to him and later the writ petitioner obtained a regular registered sale deed for the said land in his name under Document No.5139/2009. The writ petitioner in order to grab the said land created link documents in his name. He further stated that he never purchased the above said land nor he sold the same to the writ petitioner, all the documents were created by the writ petitioner.

It is further contended that respondent No.7 submitted representation dated 27.06.2018 to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh and complained against the writ petitioner for his tampering of revenue records by enclosing the documentary evidence and requested to take action against him. The then District Collector, Srikakulam addressed a Letter dated 04.01.2019 to the then RDO, Srikakulam to conduct enquiry and submit enquiry report to him for taking further action. The writ petitioner suppressing all the above referred facts in the writ petition approached this Court with unclean hands, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable, requested to dismiss the writ petition

The writ petitioner filed reply affidavit reiterating contentions urged in the writ petition. In the reply affidavit, it is specifically stated that the alleged registered documents under which the respondent Nos.6 to 8 claiming his property were kept in abeyance by the District Registrar by proceeding Endorsement No.GI/785/2023 dated 26.06.2024. Further, respondent Nos.6 to 8 have never challenged the proceedings dated 20.06.2024 of the District Registrar, Srikakulam and not filed any suit for declaration of the title pursuant to the dismissal of Suit O.S.No.70 of 2014 by Judgment and Decree dated 11.04.2017. Therefore, the same are become final and title of the petitioner over the property in question is undisputed and clear. In spite of his title to the property in question was perfected by virtue of Judgment and Decree in Suit O.S.No.70 of 2014 directing him to approach the Civil Court for further confirmation by respondent No.3, confirming the order of respondent No.4 is motivated, deliberate and under the influence of unofficial respondents. Further, pending enquiry in respect of property in question, respondent Nos.4 and 5 deliberately issued passbooks in favour of respondent No.7 and when appeal is filed to set aside those proceedings directing the petitioner to approach Civil Court is deliberate, intentional motivated, untenable against law as well as principle of natural justice, and requested to set aside the proceedings dated 20.09.2018 issued by respondent No.3 and proceedings dated 27.12.2017 issued by respondent No.4.

Heard Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 5, and Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8.

Perused the material available on record.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.456/2 at Singupuram Village, Srikakulam Town and Mandal, Srikakulam District having purchased the same from one B.Paul Raju from under registered sale deed dated 20.09.2011 vide document No.6335/2011, and his name was recorded in patta No.1840. As the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbooks in favour of respondent No.6, he made an application to cancel the said pattadar passbooks, and the same was taken on file under Section 5B of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 by respondent No.3 vide proceedings No.1495/2013 as an appeal.

Respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, considering the material on record, disposed the appeal stating that the issue is civil dispute and the same can be decided by the Civil Court. Pursuant to the said order passed by respondent No.3, the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Collector, who in turn directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct denovo enquiry. In pursuance of the said direction, respondent No.3 – Revenue Divisional Officer passed the same order directing him to approach the Civil Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the revision before the Joint Collector, who vide order dated 20.09.2018, confirmed the order dated 27.12.2017 passed by respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, and dismissed the appeal with a direction to Tahsildar, to take further action as per entries recorded in revenue records.

Admittedly, in the present case, one K.Rekha filed suit O.S.No.44 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam against the vendor of the petitioner herein seeking permanent injunction restraining the vendor of the petitioner herein and his men from interfering with the land admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.456/2 of Singupuram village, however, the said suit was dismissed as not pressed.

Thereafter, respondent No.8 herein filed suit O.S.No.70 of 2014 against the petitioner herein on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam seeking declaration of title of respondent No.8 over the subject property. Due to obvious reasons, the said suit was also dismissed as not pressed.

It is clear from the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.44 of 2010 and O.S.No.70 of 2014, the said suits were dismissed as not pressed without deciding the merits of the case and the title was also not decided. Therefore, either party cannot claim title basing on the judgment passed in the said suits O.S.No.44 of 2010 and O.S.No.70 of 2014. The dismissal of the suit filed by respondent No.8 against the petitioner herein as not pressed, by itself, would neither establish nor confer any title in favour of the petitioner herein.

Further, the averments made in the petition would show that the petitioner is claiming title over the land to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.456/2 of Singupuram Village basing on the registered sale deed No.6335 of 2011 dated 20.09.2011 executed by one B.Paul Raju in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8 brought to the notice of this Court the admission made by the B.Paulraju, who is the vendor of the petitioner herein, in the affidavit filed by him in I.A.No.149 of 2014 in O.S.No.70 of 2014, which was filed by respondent No.8 against the petitioner herein, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, which was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. For better appreciation of the case, it is relevant to extract the said admission hereunder:, which is as follows:

It is clear from the said admission made by the vendor of the petitioner that the document relied on by the petitioner is a created one, however, genuineness of the same cannot be decided in the present writ petition.

It is also evident from the counter filed by respondent Nos.6 to 8 that one Koka Adinarayana is the original owner of the land to an extent of Ac.0.79 cents, who in turn gifted the same to one Penta Simhagiri Sarma, who in turn sold Ac.0.50 cents to one Kinjarapu Madhavi under registered sale deed No.4425 of 2002 dated 07.11.2002. Later, the said Kinjarapu Madhavi sold the same to respondent No.6 under registered sale deed No.3304 of 2006 dated 24.08.2006, later respondent No.6 sold the same to respondent No.7 vide document No.2021/2013 dated 22.03.2013, and recognizing her title, revenue authorities granted pattadar passbook and title deed vide patta No.2119. Thereafter, respondent No.7 sold the said land to one Gullapalli Siva Prasad and Putta Santhamani under registered sale deed dated 01.10.2018 vide document No.6881 of 2018.

From the rival contentions made by both the parties, it can be said that two different registered sale deeds are in force as on today, one in favour of the petitioner herein and another in favour of respondent No.7 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.456/2 of Singupuram Village. The genuineness or otherwise of the said documents can be decided by a competent Civil Court, but not by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Under similar circumstances in “D.L.F.Housing Construction (P) Limited Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation and others^{11.(1976) 3 SCC 160}”, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court while dealing with the writ petition filed to declaration of title, in “State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhawani Singh and others^{22.1993 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 306}”, held as follows:

In “Roshina T Vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and others^{33.(2019) 2 SCC 329}”, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:

As per the law laid down in the said judgments, regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. Where the basic facts are disputed, and complicated questions of law are involved, the writ court is not the proper forum for seeking relief

Further, the aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate that there exists a serious dispute relating to title over the subject property between the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 to 8. Such disputed questions of title cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “Roshina T Vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and others” (referred supra) a regular civil suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons and the dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent as „not pressed‟ would not be a ground for the petitioner to claim right or title over the property as the said suit was not decreed after full-fledged trial. Therefore, the proper forum for adjudication of such disputes is the competent Civil Court, where the parties can establish their respective rights by leading oral and documentary evidence.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the contention of the petitioner that, in view of dismissal of O.S.No.70 of 2014, filed against him by respondent No.8, as not pressed, he would not be required to file a fresh civil suit cannot be accepted, as the dismissal of the said suit as not pressed does not amount to an adjudication of the rights of the parties or confer any title upon the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.