HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.3846 and 4465 of 2006 Date : 21.06.2011 Between : D. Jayapal Reddy & others. …..Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.3846 and 4465 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: As both the writ petitions are filed questioning the common order, dated 07.02.2006, passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector in Case Nos.D5/4488/2005 and D5/4504/2005, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. In these writ petitions, the dispute relates to the land covered by Sy.No.53 admeasuring Ac.10-30 gts., situated at Bacharam village and the land admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts., covered by Sy.No.31 of Dayara village of Hayatnagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. One Sri D.Rajeshwar Reddy was recorded as pattadar in respect of the aforesaid lands. Smt.G.Sugunamma, 4th respondent herein, has made an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayatnagar Mandal, seeking to incorporate her name as pattadar i.e. in Column No.8 of Form-I in the Record of Rights. The Mandal Revenue Officer, by order dated 20th of December 1995, passed in File No.ROR2/95, ordered to record the name of Smt. G.Sugunamma as pattadar, in exercise of powers under Section 3(3) of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). As against the same, Sri D.Rajeshwar Reddy, who is the brother of Smt.G.Sugunamma, filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5(5) of the Act. The appellate authority, by recording a finding that in the declaration filed by Sri D.Rajeshwar Reddy before the Land Reforms Tribunal in C.C.Nos.1709/E/75 and 1737/E/75, himself has shown that the above lands were given to the 4th respondent as ‘Streedhana’ at the time of her marriage, and also taking into account the admission made by Sri D.Rajeshwar Reddy in the written statement filed in O.S.No.220 of 1981 on the file of the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissed the appeal. As against the same, the said Rajeshwar Reddy carried the matter in revision under Section 9 of the Act before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in Case No.D5/4488/2005. Similarly, the petitioners in W.P.No.3846 of 2006, who are the sons of Sri D.Gal Reddy, who is the step-brother of Sri D.Rajeshwar Reddy, have also filed separate revision petition in Case No.D5/4504/2005. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, by the common impugned order dated 07.02.2006, dismissed the revisions filed by both the parties. Hence, these writ petitions. In these writ petitions, it is contended by Sri A.K.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in W.P.No.3846 of 2006 and also representing Sri C.Rajendra Kumar, Advocate, who is the counsel on record for petitioners in W.P.No.4465 of 2006, that the primary authority i.e. the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayatnagar Mandal, has passed orders without notice to the petitioners in W.P.No.3846 of 2006. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that no valid reasons have been assigned either by the appellate or the revisional authorities for confirming the order, dated 20th of December 1995, passed in Proceedings No.D5/4504/05. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the decree, which is relied on by the revisional authority in O.S.No.68 of 1984, is a collusive decree obtained by Sri D.Rajeshwar Reddy and Smt.G.Sugunamma, as such, it should not have been taken as a basis for confirming the order accepting the plea of Smt.G.Sugunamma to record her name as pattadar. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri S.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents that as the patta stood in the name of Sri D.Rajeshwar Reddy, and as the petitioners in W.P.No.3846 of 2006 are step- sons of Sri D.Gal Reddy, who are not having any share in the property, they have no locus standi to question the same. It is further submitted that as Sri D.Rajeshwar Reddy, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.4465 of 2006, himself has admitted before the Land Reforms Tribunal that this property was given to 4th respondent as ‘Streedhana’ at the time of her marriage, cannot resile from his stand, to question the impugned order. It is further submitted that even in the suit filed by Smt.G.Sugunamma in O.S.No.68 of 1984, a compromise memo was filed, wherein Sri D.Rajeshwar Reddy has admitted the possession of 4th respondent over the lands in question. In these writ petitions, it is to be noticed that in respect of the disputed lands in question in the aforesaid two survey numbers, pattas stood in the name of Sri D.Rajeshwar Reddy. Proceedings were initiated on the application of Smt.G.Sugunamma, 4th respondent herein, to record her name as pattadar for the aforesaid lands. It is evident from the orders passed by the land reforms authority that Sri D.Rajeshwar Reddy himself has made an admission stating that the said lands belong to Smt.G.Sugunamma, as they were given as ‘Streedhana’ at the time of her marriage. After patta was transferred, part of the land was also sold to respondent No.6 Sri P.Vijaya Kumar Reddy. Having declared that the lands in question belong to Smt.G.Sugunamma, he cannot turn around and plead that she is not entitled for transfer of patta in her name. It is also to be noticed that alleging interference by Sri D.Rajeshwar Reddy, when the suit was filed in O.S.No.68 of 1984, a compromise decree was passed in the aforesaid suit, wherein, petitioner in W.P.No.4465 of 2006, has admitted the claim and possession of respondent No.4. Although it is pleaded by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners in W.P.No.3846 of 2006 were not put on notice, it is to be noticed that they are sons of Sri D.Gal Reddy, and patta was admittedly in the name of Sri D.Rajeshwar Reddy, who is the step-brother of said Gal Reddy. Though it is claimed by the petitioners that they do have a share in the property, the same is a matter which cannot be gone into in the proceedings initiated under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. If the petitioners in W.P.No.3846 of 2006 claim any portion of land in question, claiming that they are also having a share, it is for them to establish their right before a competent Civil Court, but they cannot assail the impugned order before adjudication of such rights by the Civil Court. During the course of hearing, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners in W.P.No.3846 of 2006 have also filed a suit in O.S.No.230 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for partition including the subject lands in question, which was initially dismissed, but subsequently, on appeal in First Appeal No.2399 of 1988, by order dated 2nd of July 2009, while setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.230 of 1983, a learned Single Judge of this Court has remanded the matter to the trial Court, with a direction to decide the matter after giving an opportunity to all the contesting parties to lead evidence. As much as the petitioners in W.P.No.3846 of 2006 have already filed a suit for partition being O.S.No.230 of 1983, in the schedule of which, the disputed lands were also included, if they succeed in the said suit, it is always open for them to file appropriate application before the competent authority under the Act, seeking to carryout the amendments in the Record of Rights. For the aforesaid reasons, and in view of the reasons recorded by the appellate and revisional authorities, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, warranting interference in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners succeed in the suit in O.S.No.230 of 1983 pending on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, it is always open for them to move the competent authority for appropriate relief. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st June 2011 ajr