IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 19618 of 2008 Between: Gattu Maruthi Rao S/o.Late Gattu Hanmandlu R/o.h.No.5-3-253, Jagtial Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisonal officer, jagital Karimnagar district 2 Gattu Devender S/o.Late Mahadev R/o.Gunj Road Jagtial Karimnagar District 3 Vuturi Naga laxmi S/o.late Ganga RAm R/o.Shiva Veedhi Jagtial Karimnagar District 4 Nagamandla Sarojana W/o.Eashwraiah R/o.Vavilalapalli Karimnagar District 5 Akkinapalli Anjali W/o.Late Gangaiah R/o.Jagtial Karimnagar District 6 Chittimalla Naga Ratnam W/o.Ramesham R/o.Gunj Road H.No.6-3-79, Jagtial Karimnagar District 7 Chada Vachala W/o.Veersham R/o.Gollapalli village & mandal Karimnagar District 8 Chittimalla Rama Devi W/o.Ramesham R/o.H.No.6-3-79, Gunj Road Karimnagar District 9 Sangam Revathi W/o.Thirupathi R/o.H.No.2-48/1 Jagtial mandal Karimnagar District 10 Katkam Jalaja W/o./Srinivas R/o.Kothur village Luxettipet Mandal Adilabad District 11 Maa Kailsam S/o.Shnkaraiah R/o.7-2-113, Pchammawada Jagtial, karimnagar District 12 Mara Manikanta S/o.Kailasam R/o.H.No.7-2-113, Pochammawada Jagtial, karimnagar District 13 Ranga Arohana W/o.Ranga Shiva R/o.Nagarjuna Sagar, Now temporarily Residing at H.No.7-2- 113,Pochammawada Jagtial, karimnagar District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more especially one in the nature of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.B/372/2008 dated 9.7.2008 issued by the 1st respondent as bad null and void and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and also pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.H.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Proceedings No.B/372/2008 dt. 9.7.2008 of the 1st respondent is challenged, whereby rectification of the entries made in the revenue records namely the pahani for the year 2006-2007 in respect of land of an extent of Ac. 1.30 guntas in S.No. 177 and of an extent of Ac. 2.22 guntas in S.No. 179 of Rajaram village, Mallial Mandal, Karimnagar District is ordered, by deleting the name of the petitioner and incorporating the name of one Gattu Mahadev. The impugned order appears to be the culmination of a representation submitted by the 2nd respondent herein to the Tahsildar, Mallial mandal seeking rectification of the entries in the revenue records in respect of S.Nos. 88, 177 and 179 of extents of Ac. 3.37 gts, 1.30 gts and 2.22 gts respectively of Rajaram village. The 2nd respondent sought deletion of the name of the petitioner from the pattedar column. Thereupon, the Tahsildar addressed the 1st respondent by way of a report stating that on the 2nd respondent’s representation, he inspected the lands and was satisfied that the name of the petitioner was wrongly incorporated in the Pattedar column and that the name of Gattu Mahadev ought to have been recorded instead of the petitioner (Gattu Maruthi) and sought appropriate action by the 1st respondent. Thereupon, the 1st respondent issued the impugned order but after notice to the petitioner. The petitioner assails the impugned order inter alia on the ground that the proceedings under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the1971 Act’) are not maintainable before the authorities under the said Act in the context of the fact that the non-official respondents 2 to 13 herein had already moved the civil court of competent jurisdiction namely the Senior Civil Judge, Jagityal by way of O.S.No. 15 of 2006 seeking relief of a declaration of their title and recovery of possession of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property of an extent of Ac. 3.37 gts in S.No. 88; a declaration that the registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing No. 259/2006 dt. 27.2.2006 registered in the office of SRO. Mallial is invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs; a declaration that the registered sale deed bearing No. 389 of 2006 dt. 16.3.2006 of the SRO Mallial is void and not binding on the plaintiffs; a declaration that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the joint owners and possessors of items 2 and 3 of plaint schedule lands i.e. an extent of Ac. 1.30 gts in S.No. 177 and an extent of Ac. 2.22 gts in S.No. 179 of Rajram village, Mallial mandal and for issue of perpetual injunction in respect of items 2 and 3 of plaint schedule lands restraining the defendant No.1 (the petitioner herein) from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. From the chronology of events, the inference is compelling and inescapable that the 2nd respondent herein had petitioned the Tahsildar, Mallial for rectification of the pahani with regard to the pattadar column and substitution of the name of Gattu Mahadev instead of the writ petitioner, subsequent to the institution of the suit by him and others in O.S.No. 15 of 2006 before the civil court of competent jurisdiction. Whether the 2nd respondent can pursue with the authorities under the 1971 Act after institution of a substantive suit before the civil court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of title in respect of the same property is the singular issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that on principle and authority, it is not permissible, in the context of the provisions of the 1971 Act to simultaneously pursue the remedies before the civil court for declaration of title and under the provisions of the 1971 Act for rectification or recording of revenue entries. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the non-official respondents 2 to 13 Sri.Narayana Rao would strenuously contend that having regard to the antecedent litigation between the petitioner and the non-official respondents which stood determined in favour of the non-official respondents as regards title of these respondents with regard to the schedule properties qua the judgments of the learned District Munsif, Jagtial in O.S.No. 266/1 of 1953-54 dt. 30.3.1954 and a subsequent judgment dt. 12.3.1979 of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Karimnagar in O.S.No. 40 of 1970, the exercise of the jurisdiction by the authorities under the 1971 Act is valid and proper and in furtherance of the course of justice. According to Sri.Narayana Rao, the petitioner surreptitiously and illegally manipulated recording of his name in the revenue records instead of the lawful pattadar Gattu Mahadev, contrary to the earlier entries which were recorded pursuant to the judgments referred to above. It requires to be noticed that foundation for the claim of title over the schedule properties in S.Nos. 177 and 179 (which alone are the subject matter of the lis herein) as claimed by the non-official respondents in O.S.No. 15 of 2006 is substantially with respect to the same properties covered by the earlier decrees in O.S.No. 266/1 of 1953-54 on the file of the learned District Munsiff, Jagitial and in O.S.No. 40 of 1970 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Karimagar. These judicial determinations are the basis for the petitioner’s representation to the revenue authorities for the exercise of powers under the 1971 Act. Section 4 of the 1971 Act enacts that any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government Patta, decree of a Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Mandal Revenue Officer. Section 5 ordains that on receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence therefor and shall carry out the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. Sub-Section (5) of Section 5 provides an appellate remedy to the Revenue Divisional Officer against a primary order of the Mandal Revenue Officer passed under Section 5(1). Section 5-B enacts an appeal against an order made by the Mandal Revenue Officer under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A. Section 6 enacts a presumption that every entry in the record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or until it is otherwise amended in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Section 9 enacts a revision to the District Collector by an aggrieved person as also a suo motu power of Revision including for examination of the record of any Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B and to pass appropriate orders in the plenitude of the revisional power conferred. Section 8(1) enacts a bar of suits against the Government or any officer of Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to any entry made in any record of rights or to have any such entry omitted or amended. In fact the bar under Section 8(1) is not as regards institution of suits but an immunity is conferred for the action taken by the Government or a Government Officer including the amendment of entries and alteration or recording of entries. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 enacts that any person aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act 1963 and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with such declaration. In the context of the scheme of the 1971 Act and the particular legislative setting of Section 8(2), the inference is compelling that original or corrected entries made in the revenue records namely by issue of Pattedar Pass Books or Title deeds does not exclude a recourse to the Civil Court for declaration of title or for impeaching any order of the authorities under the 1971 Act which adversely impacts the plaintiff’s title on account of any entries made in the revenue records under the provisions of the 1971 Act. The revenue entries recorded, corrected or revised under the provisions of the 1971 Act are in the ultimate analysis subject to determinations by the Civil Court in exercise of the judicial power of the State. What is in issue in this writ petition is a question whether the non-official respondents having filed a civil suit in O.S.No.75/2006 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jagitiyal may yet and simultaneously pursue the proceedings under the provisions of the 1971 Act. This is the core issue arising in this writ petition. Sri.Naryana Rao would invite this Court to the Judgments of the learned District Munsiff in O.S.No. 266/1 of 1953-54 and of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Karimnagar in O.S.No. 40 of 1970 to support his contention that the non-official respondents have title to the schedule properties and are therefore entitled to be recorded as pattadars and not the petitioner and to contend that the earlier issue of Pattadar Pass Book in name of the petitioner is erroneous and unlawful. This court declines this invitation on behalf of the non- official respondents since it is not within the province of this Court in this writ petition to determine which of the contesting parties has title to or is entitled to be recorded as pattadar in respect of the schedule lands Sri.Naryana Rao, the learned Counsel for the non-official respondents would place reliance on the following decisions: Meer Ahmed Ali Khan vs. Momen Begum1, Chinnamsetty Murali Krishna vs. District Collector, Kadapa District2, Bachan vs. Kankar3, Baleshwar Tiwari vs. Sheo Jatan Tiwari4, A.V.Papayya Sastry vs. Government ofA.P.5 and an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 14891 of 2004 dt. 20.4.2005, to support his contentions. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the following decisions: V.Goutham Rao vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagitial, Karimnagar District6, B.Pushpamma vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District7 and K.Pratap Reddy vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District8 . In the decision in Goutham Rao (6 supra), a learned single Judge of this Court observed that in proceedings initiated under the provisions of the 1971 Act where either a civil proceedings is already pending or where a serious dispute of title is involved, the authorities under the 1971 Act cannot not determine serious disputed questions of title nor can decide thereupon. In Pushpamma (7 supra), on an analysis of the provisions of the 1971 Act, this Court held that where there are serious and competing disputes and claims as to title and rights to property, the provisions of Section 8(2) of the 1971 Act would be attracted and such questions cannot be decided in a summary enquiry under the provisions of the said Act. In another decision in K.Pratap Reddy (8 supra), a learned single Judge of this Court observed that disputes as to title in relation to entries in record of rights may be adjudicated in a summary enquiry but where serious disputes as to title involving entries in the record of rights arises, the same would be subject to determination of title by the Civil Court and that in the light of the scheme of the 1971 Act, the revenue authorities in a summary enquiry under the provisions of the Act would not be capable of deciding complicated questions of title. It was further held that qua the provisions of the 1971 Act and the Rules there-under, though the revenue authorities are empowered to undertake summary enquiry in respect of title, such enquiry is obviously not a substitute for adjudication by a civil court of competent jurisdiction and in the course of such enquiry by the revenue authorities, it would not be open to set aside transactions or adjudicate complicated issues falling outside the scope of Rule 9 (1) (a) (i) (ii) and (iii) of the Rules under the Rules of 1989. Again in para 95 of the decision, it was observed that complex and serious disputes of title falling beyond the ambit of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1989 are not within the ken of the revenue authorities even under the Act of 1971; it is for the parties to initiate appropriate proceedings before a civil court of competent jurisdiction to resolve their disputes and it is not open to either party to turn to the Act of 1971. Sri.Narayana Rao, the learned Counsel for the non-official respondents would place strenuous reliance on the decision in Bachan’s case (3 supra) to contend that the earlier entry in the pahanies recording the name of the writ petitioner as Pattadar is not genuine as being contrary to the Judgments and decrees in O.S.No. 266/1 of 1953-54 on the file of Munsif Magistrate, Jagitial and in O.S.No. 40 of 1970 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar and that such illegal entries cannot be sustained. It is contended that it is exclusively in the province of revenue authorities under the provisions of the 1971 Act to determine the accuracy or legality of the entries in the revenue records. The issue falling for consideration in this writ petition is not directly as to whether the petitioner or the non-official respondents are pattadars of the schedule lands. The issue is as to the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent’s authority under the provisions of the 1971 Act to entertain an application/representation by the 2nd respondent for correction of the entries in the pahanies relating to the pattadar column in the context of the non-official respondents being the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 15 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jagitial in a suit for declaration of title in respect of the very same property. The very issue, as to whether the non-official respondents (as the plaintiffs) or the writ petitioner and others (as defendants) have title and therefore are entitled to be recorded as pattadars in respect of the schedule lands is substantially and directly in issue in the earlier instituted O.S.No. 15 of 2006. Having pursued the remedy before the civil court of competent jurisdiction, a jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 9 of C.P.C., the non-official respondents shall not be permitted to pursue simultaneous and parallel remedies before the revenue authorities under the provisions of the 1971 Act, in respect of the same property. A fundamental principle of public policy that parallel remedies for similar reliefs may not be simultaneously pursued is transgressed by the action of the non- official respondents in first filing O.S.No. 15 of 2006 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagitial and thereafter an application before the Tahsildar, Mallial, which resulted in the impugned order by the 1st respondent. Another decision on which reliance is placed on behalf of the non-official respondents is Chinnamsetty Mural ( 2 supra). The issue herein was whether proceedings under the 1971 Act were untenable in the context of a suit for a bare injunction instituted by one of the parties before the revenue authorities. This Court held that a suit for a bare injunction cannot be a bar since the relief claimed in the suit and the relief claimed in a revisional proceedings before the revenue authorities under the provisions of the 1971 Act do not cover the same adjudicatory area. The underlying principle of this decision appears to be that there is no potential for conflict of decisions, which should negate simultaneous pursuit of injunctive relief before the civil court and relief under the provisions of the 1971 Act. This decision does not support the case of the non-official respondents either. Another decision pressed for consideration by Sri.Narayana Rao is the judgment of a learned single Judge in W.P.No. 14891 of 2004 dt. 20.4.2005. On facts, the respondents 3 and 4 therein petitioned the Joint Collector under the provisions of 1971 Act to correct the pahani for the year 1977-78 on the ground that they were un-authorisedly tampered by the then Patwari. This court on an interpretation of Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the provisions of the Act (which is to the effect that the pahanies do not constitute record of rights but reflects the ground position including the name of the cultivator who actually cultivates the land and whether the person in occupation of the land has violated any law and if so, the details of the same), held that notwithstanding the repeal of the A.P. (TA) Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Fasli, proceedings could be initiated under the provisions of the 1971 Act for correction of the record of rights. The issue whether a correction of the record of rights relating to an entry in the pahani as regards the pattadar column which is nothing but a reflection of the record of rights under the provisions of the 1971 Act including issuance of Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds could be pursued (under the provisions of 1971 Act) while an earlier instituted suit for declaration of title in respect of same property is pending did not fall for consideration in this decision. This decision does not render any assistance to the non-official respondents. The other decisions (4, 5 and 1 supra) are equally of no assistance to the non-official respondents. In Baleshwar Tewar (4 supra), the well-established principle is reiterated that the entries in the revenue records per se do not legitimize possession. The Apex Court observed that so long as the litigant’s possession and enjoyment is not interdicted by the due process of law, he is least concerned with entries. In A.V.Papayya (5 supra) the ratio is that an order obtained by playing fraud has to be treated as a nullity and can be challenged in any court at any time, in appeal, revision, writ proceedings or even in collateral proceedings. Stating this principle, the learned Counsel for the non-official respondents would contend that as the earlier revenue entries reflecting the name of the writ petitioner as Pattadar in respect of schedule lands is the product of a fraudulent misrepresentation by the writ petitioner and the entry being a nullity may well be reversed by the revenue authorities under the provisions of the 1971 Act. On principle, there can be no quarrel with this contention but that is not the issue in this writ petition. The issue is the non-official respondents may pursue proceedings under the provisions of the 1971 Act after having earlier instituted O.S.No. 15 of 2006 for declaration of their title to the same properties. In Meer Ahmed Ali Khan (1 supra) a Division Bench of this Court in a writ petition involving interpretation of the provisions of the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulation 1358 Fasli had held that in exercise of powers under Section 15(1) of that Act, the Talukdar or the Collector could not cause an entry to be corrected as against the decree or decision of a court so far as that decree or decision has bearing upon the right sought to be entered in the record of rights. Sri.Narayana Rao would contend that having regard to the judgments and decrees in O.S.No. 266/1 of 1953-54 and in O.S.No. 40 of 1970 determining the rights of the predecessor in title of the non-official respondents to the schedule lands and the disentitlement of the father of the writ petitioner to the same lands, the name of the writ petitioner cannot be recorded as the pattadar. As earlier observed that is not the issue in this writ petition. The issue is whether proceedings by the revenue authorities under the provisions of the 1971 Act are competent in the context of an earlier and pending civil suit before a civil court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of title in respect of the same lands. It is axiomatic that the determination of rights by the judicial branch of the State in exercise of the judicial power must prevail over administrative or revenue determinations covering the same generic field unless there is compelling and clear legislative declaration that revenue/administrative determinations of title to the property is final and has superior efficacy over judicial determinations by the civil court. The summary enquiry before and by the revenue authorities under the provisions of the 1971 Act cannot be a substitute nor can run parallel when proprio vigore determinations of title are pending before the civil court of competent jurisdiction. On the aforesaid analysis, in the considered view of this Court, the 1st respondent has no power, authority or jurisdiction to entertain a representation, appeal or revision by whatever name called, presented by the non-official respondents seeking correction of the revenue entries in respect of S.Nos. 177 and 179 of an extent of Ac. 1.37 gts and Ac. 2.22 gts respectively of Mallial in the earlier instituted suit in O.S.No. 15 of 2006 by the non-official respondents 2 to 13 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagitial seeking declaration of title in respect of the same properties. In the absence of any such suit having been instituted, it would perhaps have been open to the authorities under the provisions of the 1971 Act to have entertained an application for correction of the revenue records. It is axiomatic and the legislative scheme is clear qua Section 4 of the 1971 Act that the determination or recording of entries includes as to any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land whether derived by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a court or otherwise. The claim of the non-official respondents before the revenue authorities for being recorded as pattadars in opposition to the claim of the writ petitioner is on the basis of earlier decisions in O.S.No. 266/1 of 1953-54 and in O.S.No. 40 of 1970 under which the respondents’ claim is asserted to have been determined as the original pattadars of the schedule lands. Any determination under Section 5 is relatable to adjudication under Section