IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20372 of 2000 Between: Sri Krishna Goseva Mandal, Narsing VIllage, Rajendranagar (M), Ranga Reddy District, rep by its Secretary Shyamsunder Agarwal S/o Mathuram Agarwal, R/o Hyderabad. Sri Krishna Goseva Mandal, Narasing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, Hyderabad. 4 Mohd. Shareef S/o Late Mohd. Abdul Raheem, (Aged Major) R/o Narsing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 5 Ghousia Bee D/o Mohd. Abdul Raheem (Aged Major) R/o Narsing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 6 Khaja Bee W/o Late.Abdul Raheem (Aged Major) R/o Narsing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 7 Mohd.Naseer S/o Late Babumiyan (Aged Major) R/o Narsing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 8 Mohd.Sarwar S/o Late Babumiyan (Aged Major) R/o Narsing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 9 Mohd.Ghouse S/o Late Babumiyan (Aged Major) R/o Narsing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 10 Mohd.Khaja S/o Late Babumiyan (Aged Major) R/o Narsing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 11 Mohd.Anwar S/o Late Babumiyan (Aged Major) R/o Narsing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 12 Zainu Miyan S/o Late Babumiyan (Aged Major) R/o Narsing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 13 Kareem Bee S/o Late Babumiyan (Aged Major) R/o Narsing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 14 Beejan Bee S/o Late Mohd Moulana (Aged Major) R/o Narsing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 15 Shaik Ghudu S/o Late Fatima Bee (Aged Major) R/o Narsing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.PRAKASH REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MR T.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondents 4 to 15: MR V.ANANDA RAO and MS. K.N. Vijaya Laxmi The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 30-09-2000 passed by respondent No.1. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3, Sri V.Ananda Rao and Ms. K.N.Vijaya Lakshmi, for respondents 4 to 15, and perused the record. The dispute pertains to the lands admeasuring Acs.10.50 guntas and Acs.16.30 guntas comprised in Survey Nos.167 and 169 respectively of Narsing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. The petitioner claimed that the property originally belonged to Mirza Jaﬀer Nawaz and Khasim Nawaz, sons of Moulvi Mirza Gulam Hussain Ali Saheb; that Sri T.Satyanarayana Saheb, Contractor, purchased the said properties under registered sale deed dated 09.08.1353 fasli (1943 AD); that the said Satyanarayana Saheb sold the said property to Sriram Agarwal under a registered sale deed of 11th Mehar 1355 fasli (1944-45 AD) and that the said Sriram Agarwal executed a registered trust deed dated 29-11-1950 AD constituting the said land as ‘Sri Krishna Goseva Mandal’-petitioner. On the petitioner approaching respondent No.3 for correction of entries in the record of rights, the latter vide his proceedings dated 31-03-1992 allowed the petitioner’s claim. Respondents 4 to 15, who claim their title through one Mohd Moulana over the said property, ﬁled an appeal before respondent No.2 against the order of respondent No.3. The said appeal was dismissed by respondent No.2, by his order dated 20-09-1997. Questioning the said order, respondents 4 to 15 ﬁled revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) before respondent No.1. The said revision petition was allowed with liberty to the petitioner-Sri Krishna Goseva Mandal to seek title from the Civil Court as envisaged under Section 8(2) of the Act, apart from challenging the entries in sethwar and khasra pahanies, if it is aggrieved by such entries, by approaching the appropriate forum. At the hearing Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that respondent No.1 committed a grievous error in not adverting into the issue as to whether striking oﬀ the name of Nawab Fasih Jung Bahadur, through whom Moulvi Mirza Gulam Hussain Ali Saheb, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, claimed title, was legal and valid. If on an enquiry it is found, submits, the learned Senior Counsel, that striking oﬀ the name of the said person and entering the name of Mohd Moulana in sethwar were unauthorized acts, there would have been no occasion for respondent No.1 to interfere with the orders passed by respondents 3 and 2 in favour of the petitioner. Opposing the above mentioned contentions, Sri V.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 15, submitted that when there is a dispute relating to the title, Civil Court is the appropriate forum to adjudicate such a dispute and therefore, respondent No.1 did not commit any error in relegating the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. He also submitted that the petitioner raised self-conﬂicting pleas i.e., on the one hand it claimed title through Moulvi Mirza Gulam Hussain Ali Saheb, who was said to be the predecessor-in-title, and on the other it had set up the plea of adverse possession. I have given serious thought to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Under Section 4 of the Act, any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition etc., any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land, shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer within 90 days from the date of such acquisition and on receipt of such intimation, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer shall hold an enquiry into such claim after giving notices to the interested parties. The petitioner’s application is traceable to the said provision. Evidently on the basis of the entries in sethwar, which contain the name of Nawab Fasih Jung Bahadur, respondent No.3 allowed the application of the petitioner. On the same premise, respondent No.2 conﬁrmed the order of respondent No.3. Respondent No.1, however, allowed the revision petition ﬁled by respondents 4 to 15 on the ground that the name of their predecessor-in-tile i.e., Mohd Moulana was mentioned in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.167 and 169 and the name of Nawab Fasih Jung Bahadur through whom Moulvi Mirza Gulam Hussain Ali Saheb, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, claimed title was found struck oﬀ. Interestingly, in respect of these two survey numbers along with Survey Nos. 166, 170, 171 and 172, the names of Mirza Jaffer Nawaz and Khasim Nawaz, sons of Moulvi Mirza Gulam Hussain Ali Saheb, continued to appear in the sethwar. Indisputably, correction of entries in the record of rights should be made on the basis of the acquisition of title. If Nawab Fasih Jung Bahadur continued to be the titleholder and the sons of Moulvi Mirza Gulam Hussain Ali Saheb succeeded to the property, the petitioner would have derived valid title. If on the other hand, the title over the property was divested from Nawab Fasih Jung Bahadur in accordance with law and his name was consequently struck oﬀ in the sethwar and the name of Mohd Moulana was substituted, then respondents 4 to 15 would derive title and they would be entitled to get their names recorded in the record of rights. Unfortunately, respondent No.1 has not gone into the issue as to whether striking oﬀ the name of Nawab Fasih Jung Bahadur and mentioning the name of Mohd Moulana in the sethwar and khasra pahanies was in accordance with law and in pursuance of any proceeding issued by any competent authority. Therefore, in my considered view, respondent No.1 ought to have held an enquiry into this aspect instead of relegating the petitioner to Civil Court under Section 8(2) of the Act. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned order of respondent No.1 is set aside. The case is remanded to respondent No.1 to decide the issue referred to above after hearing the petitioner and respondents 4 to 15. He shall complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that respondent No.1 will hold enquiry and pass an order without being inﬂuenced by any of the ﬁndings contained in order dated 20-09-1997 passed by respondent No.2. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 9th September, 2008 vrn