AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed to call for the records relating to the proceedings F.Dis. 164/61/93 dated 31-8-1993, F.Dis. 164/61/95 dated 7-1-1995 resulting in the issuance of patta No. 1267 and 1397 in favour of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and to declare the said action of splitting up of pattas as illegal etc.
The petitioners are the joint pattedars in palta Nos.45, 70, 166 and 206 covering various S.Nos.56 to 61, 78, 79 admeasuring Ac. 149.63 cents of Thikkavaram village, Chillakum Mandal, Nellore District They are in joint possession of the said land and using the same for grazing the cattle. Their names were included in 10(1) adangal as possessors. While so, the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 purchased Ac.13.21 cents and Ac.8.00 from some of the joint palledars. Basing on the sale deeds, which were executed in their favour, applications are said to have been made to Respondent Nos.l and 2 by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 for incorporating their names in the revenue records. Since the paltas are joint paltas, u/s 4 of the A.P. Splitting up of Joint Pattas Act, 1965, (Act 2 of 1965) a procedure has been contemplated before effecting the transfer of pattas pursuant to the transfer by the joint pattedars and the Respondents 1 and 2 effects transfer in favour of Respondents 3 and 4 without following the said procedure.
In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos.l and 2 it is sated that they have admitted the document No. 140/93 dated 30-1-1993 of the Sub-registrar''s Office Gudur, in S.Nos.56, 58, 61, 78 and 79 a total extent of Ac.18.6,15.95 and 13.89 guntas out of which Ac.5.96, 2.00 and 5.25 guntas were sold by one Smt. Duwur Deva Senamma to Vendeti Chakrapani Reddy (R3) of Thonukumala. The said Devascnatnma claimed that she came into possession of the lands through unregistered Will dated 25-9-1990 executed by Smt. Duwur Gncmamma, her mother-in-law, who was ajoint paltedar. Since no objection was raised, under the A.P. Record of Rights ih Land Act, an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Inspector and issued a pattedar pass book No.99925 and paltaNo.1522. Thereafter, one joint patledar, Sri Odur Chenga Reddy filed an objection petition and after a detailed enquiry, it was found that there was no splitting of joint palta in S.Nos.65, 57 and 58 and there was no mention of Ihese Survey numbers and extents in the unregistered Will dated 25-9-1990. Similarly, under document No.l 114/93 dated 14-7-1993 one Smt. Isanaka Meenamma sold Ac.8.00 out of an extent of Ac.90.25 guntas in S.No.60 (o oneMaddali Venkata lianga Reddy. The Recording officer issued''a pattedar pass book for the said lands without holding any enquiiy, although the said Isnaka Meenamma was not a joint pattedar of patta No.45 in which S.No.61 is included. It is also stated that pursuant to the action of the Recording Officer under A.P, Record of Rights in Lands Act, pattedar pass books in S.Nos-61/C, 78/B and 79/C were granted to the purchasers. It is also stated thai no action was taken under A.P. Splitting of Joint Pattas Act and only under the A.P. Record of Rights in Lands Act the Recording Officer took the action as no joint pattedars raised any objection for effecting the mutation in the records. But, later an objection was raised by one O.Chenga Reddy and hence a detailed enquiry has been conducted and they are taking steps to rectify the mistake, if any, committed by the Recording Officer.
Respondent Nos.3 and4 also filed a counter-affidavit stating that pursuant to their purchase, mutation was effected in Revenue Records and the joint pattedars have not raised any objection before the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is also stated that only remedy to the petitioners herein is to approach the Civil Court u/s 8 of (he A.P. Record of Rights in Lands Act, 1971, but not by way of this Writ Petition.
From the facts narrated above, it is clear that some joint pattedars sold the property to Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the sale was recorded in the Revenue Records and pattedar pass books were issued. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were joint pattedars along with the other joint pattedars, who sold the property to Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and that the fact is that in the case of joint palla, each joint pattedar had joint interest in the land along with others. Therefore, if one of the joint paltedars sells his/her interest in the joint property, the same should not effect the rights of the other joint pattedars and therefore it should be with the notice to the other joint paltedars, even though there cannot be any objection for the sale of joint interest by some of the joint patledars in favour of strangers. Therefore, in order to safeguard ''� the interest of joint paltedars, a procedure has been contemplated u/s 4 of the A.P. Splitting of Joint Pattas Act, 1965, to effect the transfer/sale of joint palta lands some of the joint paltedars in favour of the purchasers/third parties. The Act also recognised the right of joint pattedars to sell his/her share to the purchaser/third parties. Section 4 of the said Act reads as follows :
"4. Transfer or grant of pa!las :--(!) Every person acquiring ownership of any land by succession, testate or intestate, or by sale, gift, exchange, partition or by any other means shall be entitled for the transfer or grant of a patta for such land.
(2) The Tahsildar shall, after publishing a notice in the manner prescribed call upon the owner and other persons known or believed to be interested in the transfer of patta or the grant of patta for such land and after holding an enquiry in the manner prescribed, by order, affect the transfer of palla or grant of patta for such land. The Tahsildar shall thereafter get such land sub-divided, where necessary, in the manner prescribed. The costs incurred by the Government in connection with such sub-division shall be determined and recovered in the manner prescribed from the paltedars concerned in proportion to Iheir shares."
6, The above Section has recognised the right of joint paltedars to transfer their interest to third parties. However, before issuing patta to third parties, the Tahsildar shall issue notice calling upon the owner and other persons known or believed to be interested in the transfer of palla or grant of palta for such land and alter holding enquiry only he has to pass the order effecting the transfer of patta or grant of paltas. Thereafter, he has to sub-divide the land in the manner prescribed and the costs incurred by the Government in connection with sub-division shall be determined and recovered from the pattedars concerned in proportion to Iheir shares. Evidently, in this case, before granting patta to Respondent Nos.3 and 4, the procedure contemplated under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Splitting of Joint Pattas Act has not been followed. No doubt, the Mandal Revenue Officer in his counter, staled that they are taking steps to rectify the error committed by them. However, since the procedure contemplated under Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Splitting of Pattas Act has not been followed by the Respondent Nos.l and 2, before granting pattas to Respondent Nos.3 and 4, the pattas said to have been granted to Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall be kept in abeyance.
The petitioners in respect of S.Nos.56,57,58,60,61,78,79 are directed to approach the Mandal Revenue Officer with their objections asking him to hold fresh enquiry as contemplated u/s 4 of the A.P. Splitting of Joint Pallas Act by bringing to his notice the joint interest in the said Survey Nos. and by providing the necessary documents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representation/ objections being filed, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall hold enquiry and take appropriate action according to law within a period three months thereafter.
Till such a decision is taken by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the respondents are directed not to take any action which would affect the rights of the petitioners.
The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions.