Shaik All Baksha vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others

R. Raghunandan Rao, J

Heard Sri G. Sivaprasad Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned G.P. for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7.

As both these writ appeals arise out of the common order of the learned Single Judge, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

One late Sri Razakmiah is the common ancestor of all the parties in the present writ appeals. Late Sri Rajakmiah is said to have purchased certain lands in Sy.No.176 of Gokulapadu Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. After he had passed away, disputes arose between his legal heirs.

The case of the appellants in W.A.No.864 of 2024 is that an extent of Ac.8.06 cents in Sy.No.176A, had become the absolute property of Smt. Shahjad Bi, the mother of the 1st appellant, by virtue of settlement deed dated 24.07.1977 registered as document No.1369 of 1977 and she had been issued pattadar passbook and her name was entered into all the revenue records. The 1st appellant said to have purchased an extent of Ac.6.06 cents out of Ac.8.06 cents from his mother by way of a registered deed of sale dated 27.11.2010 registered as Document No.9208 of 2010 and he had been issued pattadar passbook and title deed after necessary entries had been made in the revenue records, confirming his ownership over the aforesaid Ac.6.06 cents. The 2nd appellant is said to have purchased remaining Ac.2.00 from the mother of the 1st appellant under a registered deed of sale dated 27.11.2010 and pattadar passbook and title deeds were also issued in his favour.

Subsequently, the appellants came to know that respondents 6 and 7 had, fraudulently, obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds in relation to the same land. The 1st appellant is said to have approached the revenue authorities for cancellation of the said pattadar passbooks and title deeds, whereas the authorities had cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds of the 1st appellant. Aggrieved by this action, an appeal is said to have been filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, who rejected the contentions of the appellants, by his order, dated 24.01.2018.

Aggrieved by this order, the appellants had filed a revision before the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Kurnool, who while considering this revision petition and after obtaining reports in relation to the ground position, had disposed of the revision petition on 04.10.2019 directing the Tahsildar to follow due process and after giving opportunity to the interested parties to issue pattadar passbooks. However, there was also an observation that in case of dispute over title, the respective parties would have to approach the competent civil Court. After obtaining this order, the appellants are said to have approached the Tahsildar for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. However, the Tahsildar, without considering these claims, directed the appellants to approach the competent civil Court.

Aggrieved by this order, dated 13.12.2019, the appellants had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.23666 of 2020 contending that pattadar passbooks and title deeds should have been issued by the Tahsildar and relegating them to civil Court is arbitrary.

The appellants in W.A.No.908 of 2024, claiming to be the grand-children of late Sri Razakmiah, contended that by virtue of oral relinquishment, the 1st appellant had become the owner of Ac.4.03 cents, the 2nd appellant had become the owner of Ac.2.02 cents and the 3rd appellant had become the owner of Ac.2.01 cents and that their names were entered into the revenue records. However, on account of the complaints raised by the 1st appellant in W.A.No.908 of 2024, the aforesaid proceedings had taken place resulting in the order of the Joint Collector came to be passed. The appellants herein, being aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector dated 04.10.2019, have approached this Court by way of W.P.No.16223 of 2019.

The contention of the appellants in W.A.No. 908 of 2024 , was that the order of the Joint Collector itself was wrong and had been passed without looking into the reports of the Deputy Inspector of Survey and the Tahsildar, who had stated, that it was they who were in possession of the land and that their title to the land is in order. The appellants, contended that the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, without going into any of these reports, had unilaterally held that the title was not made out and such a finding, without appreciating all the reports submitted by the revenue authorities and without appropriate opportunity being given to the appellants, was arbitrary and unfair.

Both these writ petitions were taken up by the learned Single Judge and W.P.No.23666 of 2020 was dismissed with costs and W.P.No.16223 of 2019 was disposed, with liberty to the parties to approach the civil Court.

The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions made by both sides and the material on record, had held that the issues that have arisen in the case, cannot be resolved by way of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it would be appropriate that the issues are resolved before the Civil Court in as much as the questions whether gifts alleged to have been made and oral relinquishment alleged to have made in favour of the mother of the appellant in W.A.No.864 of 2024 would be valid. The learned Single Judge had also taken the view that the proceedings directing the parties to approach the civil Court issued by both the Joint Collector as well as the Tahsildar, are not only legal but also equitable.

In view of the complicated issues being raised by both sides, it would only be appropriate to leave it open to both sides to approach the civil Court for adjudication of their respective rights. These issues cannot be decided by this Court, nor by the revenue authorities. It is only after a full fledged trial is conducted, that the civil Court can arrive at some finding of fact, which can be the basis for the revenue authorities to take further action. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed. However, the fine of Rs.1,00,000/- levied by the learned Single Judge is reduced to Rs.25,000/-. The said amount to be paid out, in proportion to the directions given by the learned Single Judge for deposit of such sum. There shall be no order as to costs.

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