HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17450 of 2009 Date : 04.08.2011 Between : D. Jangamma. …..Petitioner And The Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17450 of 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, questioning the order, dated 06.10.2006, passed in revision petition case No.D1/5989/2005, by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District. 2. By the aforesaid order, the revisional authority under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, allowed the revision petition filed by respondents 3 to 5 herein and ordered for cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of the petitioner with regard to the land admeasuring 5 acres, covered by Sy.No.3/A, situated at Ghansimiyaguda village of Shamshabad Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 10 acres covered by Sy.No.3, situated at Ghansimiyaguda village of Shamshabad Mandal, which was inherited from her ancestors. It is stated that out of the aforesaid land, 5 acres was sold to third parties by retaining the remaining 5 acres of land, for which, she was issued pattadar passbook and title deed and her name was also mutated in the revenue records as pattadar. It is the case of the petitioner that without approaching the primary authority, respondents 3 to 5 herein, claiming title to the aforesaid land, approached the revisional authority by filing revision before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, to declare the pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of petitioner as arbitrary and cancel the same. It is stated that in the aforesaid revision petition, as the petitioner was set exparte by the revisional authority on 24.05.2006, she has filed an application to set aside that order, but without passing any orders on the said application, the impugned exparte order is passed without assigning valid reasons. 4. Respondents 3 and 5 herein have filed counter and additional counter affidavits. In the counter, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that respondents 3 to 5 have purchased the property admeasuring 5 acres covered by Sy.No.3/A from Sri Mannubai Patel, who has purchased the said land from the earlier owners by name Sri Pichhakuntla Kristaiah and 4 others, by registered sale deed dated 05.10.1979. It is stated that pursuant to the purchase made by respondents 3 to 5, their names are also mutated in the revenue records, inspite of the same, the petitioner has obtained passbook and title deed for the very same land without any order from any competent authority. It is also the case of respondents that when there was an interference with the possession of their vendor, he filed a suit in O.S.No.402 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsiff, West and South, Ranga Reddy District, but the same was compromised, in which proceedings, the petitioner has agreed the title and possession of the vendor of respondents. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has entered into compromise with the vendor of respondents, she has also filed a separate suit in O.S.No.640 of 2003 on the file of the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking for injunction, which was refused by the Court below. It is stated that though the petitioner is not having any interest or title over the land in question, she has obtained pattadar passbook and title deed to the land in question without any order from any authority, as such, they have questioned such issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed to the petitioner, by filing revision before the revisional authority, who has considered the revision and allowed the claim of respondents 3 to 5 and ordered for cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 5, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 6. When the matter is heard, learned Government Pleader has produced the record relating to the impugned order, dated 06.10.2006. I have carefully gone through the record, which contained the pahani patrikas with regard to the land in question for various years. In the old revenue records, the name of Jangamma is shown as pattadar for the aforesaid land, admeasuring 5 acres covered by Sy.No.3/A. It is the case of the petitioner that though she was originally holding 10 acres of land, she has already sold 5 acres by retaining the remaining 5 acres, for which, her name was mutated and she was given pattadar passbook and title deed. Although respondents 3 to 5 herein are claiming transfer from the earlier owner and possessor by name Mannubai Patel, who in turn, claims to have purchased from Pichhakuntla Kristaiah and 4 others, at this stage, it is to be noticed that at no point of time, the petitioner has transferred the aforesaid piece of land. Although respondents 3 to 5 herein are relying on various mutation proceedings, it is not known as to how the mutation was affected in the absence of any transfer by Jangamma, who is shown as pattadar in the revenue records. Although respondents 3 to 5 herein sought to rely on the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.402 of 1990, it is only an injunction suit, in which, it is claimed by respondents 3 to 5 that the petitioner herein has agreed their title and possession, but at the same time, it is to be noticed that the petitioner herein has filed another suit in O.S.No.640 of 2003, which is pending consideration. Irrespective of the claim of the petitioner in the civil Courts, by merely referring to the proceedings in the suit in O.S.No.640 of 2003 and the compromise memo relied on by respondents 3 to 5, the impugned order is passed by the revisional authority, cancelling the pattadar passbook and title deed of the petitioner, without recording any valid reasons. A perusal of the impugned order also indicates that the said order is passed after the petitioner herein was set exparte. A perusal of the record also discloses that at one stage of the proceedings, on the ground that all the parties were absent on 12.05.2006, the revision petition filed by respondents 3 to 5 herein, was dismissed for default. There was no exparte order on 24.05.2006, as claimed by the petitioner, but it appears that under the mistaken impression, a petition was already filed before the revisional authority, seeking to set aside the exparte order dated 24.05.2006. A perusal of the file also indicates filing of such an application by the petitioner, which itself appears to have been filed under mis-conception that the petitioner was set exparte on 24.05.2006. In any event, as the impugned order is passed by setting the petitioner exparte, and no valid reasons are recorded to cancel the pattadar passbook and title deed issued to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the revisional authority has considered the entire issue on a superficial approach and passed the impugned order for cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed of the petitioner. Although it is pleaded by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 that there was some delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court, as much as the matter relates to substantive rights of the parties over a valuable property, and as the impugned order is passed for cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed of the petitioner without recording valid reasons and also by setting the petitioner exparte, I deem it is a fit case to set aside the order dated 06.10.2006, and to remit the matter for fresh consideration by the learned Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the order, dated 06.10.2006, passed in Case No.D1/5989/2005, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the 1st respondent-Joint Collector with a direction to consider it afresh and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that the learned Joint Collector shall issue fresh notices to the parties and their Advocates and pass appropriate orders after giving them the opportunity of hearing. It is also open to the parties to adduce any other evidence before the 1st respondent, in support of their respective claims with regard to entries in revenue records, within a period of four weeks from today. Status quo to be maintained till appropriate orders are passed by the Joint Collector. 8. Writ petition is allowed with the directions referred above. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th August 2011 ajr