IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.17504 of 2008 Between: Paka Mallaiah S/o Papaiah Annampatla(V) Bibinagar(M) Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Jr.Collector Nalgonda,Nalgonda Distrit 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Bhongir Nalgonda District 3 The Tahasildar Biginagar(M) Nalgonda District 4 Ambati Pramesh @ Medelu Paramesh S/o.Swamy Raghavapuram(V) Biginagar(M) Nalgonda Dist 5 Addithiti Poultries Pvt Ltd A Company Incorporated under Companies Act 1956 Rep.by its Director K.Satyanarayana Raju S/o.Rajan Raju P.No.27 Kiran Enclave Sikh Road Secunderabad 6 Kalidindi Jhansi Laxmi W/o.Satyanarayana Raju P.No.27 Kiran Enclave Sikh Road Secunderabad .....RESPONDENTS 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 pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari by quashing the proceedings of Respondent 1 vide No.F2/1688/07 dt.26-07-2008 as illegal arbitrary null and void and it violative the rights of the petitioner U/a 14,19,&21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent 1 to 3 not to dispossess and later the revenue records in respect of sy.No.530 an extent of Ac 6- 05 Gts of Raghavapuram(V) of petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.ASHOK KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.17504 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the revisional order of the first respondent in proceedings bearing No.F2/1688/2007 dated 26.07.2008. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein preferred a revision before the first respondent, which culminated in the impugned order. According to the petitioner, his adoptive father - Paka Mallaiah, S/o Komaraiah, was the owner and pattadar of agricultural land of an extent of Acs.10.05 guntas in survey No.530 of Raghavapuram Village, Nalgonda District. As Mallaiah had no issues, the petitioner, the biological son of Papaiah, was adopted. During his lifetime, the petitioner’s adoptive father sold Acs.4.00 out of the total extent of Acs.10.05 guntas to one M. Buchaiah. Buchaiah, in turn, sold this property to one Swamy, the son of his younger brother. The petitioner claims continued possession and enjoyment of the remaining extent of land of Acs.6.05 guntas. In 2005, while the petitioner made efforts to dispose of the remaining extent of land, he learnt that the fourth respondent and others’ names were recorded in the revenue records as purchasers and that mutation was effected in their favour by proceedings dated 12.06.1992 of the third respondent. Aggrieved by the third respondent’s proceedings dated 12.06.1992, the petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent, who by the order dated 11.09.2006 allowed the appeal and ordered restoration of the land of Acs.6.05 guntas in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein preferred a revision to the first respondent. By the impugned proceedings dated 26.07.2008, the first respondent allowed the revision set aside the appellate order of the second respondent dated 11.09.2006 and declared that the revision petitioners (respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein) had purchased the property; that their vendors – the fourth respondent and others, were brought on record as pattadars as per the ROR 13-B certificate No.1957/89 dated 12.06.1992; and that the possession of the fourth respondent and others was established from 1980-81 onwards. In effect, the revisional order of the first respondent restored the mutation effected by the third respondent in favour of the fourth respondent and others and in respect of which property respondent Nos.5 and 6 had claimed to have purchased the same under a registered sale deed from the fourth respondent and others. Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (‘the Act’ for brevity) states that any person, if aggrieved, as to any rights 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 any such declaration. If the petitioner is aggrieved that the nonofficial respondents herein have, through the process of pursuing proceedings under the provisions of the Act, had procured irregular revenue entries including in the record of rights or that a mutation in the revenue records or grant of pattadar passbook or title deed was made in favour of the nonofficial respondents or any other persons without lawful entitlement in law, he has the remedy of seeking a declaration of his rights and title to the property, a remedy which is untrammelled in view of the provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act. On a true and fair construction of provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act, it does not appear to constitute a new remedy but merely preserves the jurisdiction of the civil Court under Section 9 C.P.C. The Act, being a special Act, could have abrogated the remedy of approaching the civil Court. I did not. What the provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act incorporate is a declaration that the normal remedy available to a citizen to approach the civil Court for resolution of any civil dispute or for declaration of title to property is not suppressed by the provisions of the Act. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated 26.07.2008, in substance confirming the order of the third respondent mutating the names of others in respect of the land and to an extent of Acs.6.05 guntas, that would be a grievance relating to an entry in the record of rights and is amenable to a remedy mentioned in Section 8(2) of the Act. Since the impugned order of the first respondent is not canvassed as being in violation of the principles of natural justice or a patent or inherent lack of jurisdiction of the first respondent under the provisions of the Act, this Court is not inclined to examine the substantive entitlement or claim to title to the property, of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since the substantive claim of the petitioner and the claims in this regard of respondent Nos.4 to 6 are as to the title to an extent of Acs.6.05 guntas, such determination is more appropriate before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction, on a critical examination of oral and documentary evidence and not by affidavit evidence as in an Article 226 proceedings. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedy under Section 8(2) of the Act or any other appropriate law, as advised. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression by this Court on the merits of the rival claims of the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6 as to title, possession or any other right of whatsoever nature in respect of the land of an extent of Acs.6.05 guntas in survey No.530 of Raghavapuram Village, Nalgonda District. No costs. ____________________ (GODA RAGHURAM, J) 06th July, 2009 GHN