THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No. 485 of 2005 Dated: 12-7-2011 Between Babburi Venkata Ramana Bhoopal and another …Appellants And Koppula Nageswaramma and others …Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard Sri M.Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the appellants. There is no representation on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 (the writ petitioners) though the matter was adjourned on three occasions. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue represents the official respondents. The appeal is by third parties to the writ petition and is filed after obtaining the leave of this Court. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the writ petition contending that the official respondents are not receiving land revenue, water tax etc., from them in respect of agricultural land in an extent of 9.06 ½ cents in R.S.Nos.412/1, 413/2 and 414/2 of Gollapudi Panchayat, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District and are not issuing pattedar pass books despite an application for the same. The first petitioner claimed to be the owner of the schedule property and asserted to have acquired the same from her father Sriramulu as “Pasupu Kumkuma”. The first petitioner claimed the second petitioner to be her tenant. The complaint in the writ petition is that when she tried to pay land revenue to the revenue authorities they refused to receive the same on the ground that there is an ownership dispute over the land. She further pleaded that Sujatha, the wife of her brother B.V.R.Prasad was claiming the property and since Sujatha remarried after the death of her husband Prasad she has no title to the property. The first petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.01.2003 to the fourth respondent and another to the third respondent requesting to receive the land revenue and issue pattadar pass book, no action has been taken thereon, despite subsequent legal notices issued on 08.10.2003 and 27.01.2004, to the fourth respondent. By the judgment under appeal the writ petition was disposed of directing the first respondent herein (the first writ petitioner) to file all the material regarding her title to the property in question and her entitlement for payment of land revenue and issuance of pattadar pass books before the sixth respondent herein- the Mandal Revenue Officer; who was directed to consider the representations and the material to be filed by the first writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders, preferably within the time fixed by this Court. It requires to be noticed that the writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission, whereat the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, had submitted that the schedule property is patta land of which Sriramulu was the original owner and after his death his son B.V.R.Prasad was in possession and enjoyment and on his death the property was in possession and enjoyment of his widow B.Sujatha and one Madhira Jayamma was a cultivating tenant and paying rent to Sujatha. Learned Government Pleader also submitted to the learned single Judge that in 2003 Sujatha sold an extent of Ac.2.03 cents in R.S.No.413/2 to Samba Siva Raju (second appellant) through a registered document and leased out another extent of Acs.4.62 cents in R.S.Nos.412/1 and 413/2 and an extent of Ac.1.58 cents in R.S.No.414/2 to one Kella Srinivas through a registered lease. He also submitted to the learned single Judge that O.S.No.590 of 1994 and O.S.No.640 of 2004 are pending on the file of the Sub Court, Vijayawada and Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada pertaining to the schedule property itself and since there are serious disputes regarding ownership of the land, the Mandal Revenue Officer refused to collect land revenue from the petitioner; and in any event being a revenue authority he had neither the competence nor jurisdiction or authority to determine disputes as to title. Despite the above submission, the writ petition is disposed of in terms already adverted to. The appellants herein contend that there are title disputes between them and the writ petitioners and three suits O.S.Nos.590 of 1994, 640 of 2004 and 249 of 2001 are pending before the competent civil Courts and other proceedings are pending before Tenancy Tribunals in respect of the schedule properties. O.S.No.590 of 1994 was filed by the first writ petitioner for partition of the suit schedule properties against her sister-in-law Sujatha (widow of late B.V.R.Prasad) and her children and others. O.S.No. 640 of 2004 was filed by both the writ petitioners seeking a permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties, wherein the 2nd appellant is the 5th defendant; while O.S.No. 249 of 2001 was by the 2nd writ petitioner and also for a permanent injunction. It is also contended by the appellants that the 2nd appellant was granted a pattadar passbook vide Patta No. 1231 in respect of an extent of Ac.2-03 cents in Sy.No. 413/2 (part of the schedule property in the writ petition). In the facts and circumstances above, the appellants contended that no relief could have been granted in favour of the writ petitioners, particularly, as serious dispute as to title, require adjudication on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, a matter beyond the jurisdiction of the Mandal Revenue Officer. In view of the facts and circumstances above, we are of the considered view that the learned single Judge was in error in directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to consider the representation/application of the writ petitioners for payment of land revenue and for issuance of pattadar pass book. On this premise the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 12- 4-2004 in W.P.No. 5164 of 2004 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 12th July, 2011 ______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J GRR