IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.18455 of 2010 Between: G.Krishna Murthy and others. … Petitioners And The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Gade Venkatswara Rao. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue for R.1. None for R.2. Sri Rajendra Bussa for R.3 to R.5. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioners after mutating their names in the concerned revenue records as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a direction to respondent No.1 to mutate their names in the revenue records and issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of Ac.42.47 ½ cents comprised in Nekkundi survey group, K.Batthalapuram village, Nekkundi Gram Panchayat, Punganoor Mandal, Chittoor District. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that petitioners 1 to 7 are the absolute owners and possessors of Ac.29.24 ½ cent and petitioners 8 and 9 are the owners and possessors of Ac.14.62 ¼ cents of land situated in the above mentioned survey group and village. It is the case of the petitioners that the said properties originally belonged to Rusum family; that late Sri Rusum Raja Rao was the joint share holder of 1/3rd of the total property; that after the death of the said Rusum Raja Rao, the property devolved on his sons, viz., late Sri Rusum Anantha Padmanabha Rao and late Sri Rusum Rama Murthy; and that, after their death, their children viz., Sri Rusum Muralidhara, Smt. S.Leelavathi, N.Prameela and Sri Rusum Krishna Prasad executed registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners are stated to have applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records and issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds. As no action has been taken thereon on the ground of pendency of a civil suit, with which neither the petitioners’ vendors nor the petitioners are connected, they have filed the present Writ Petition. A counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.1, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioners have submitted their claim petition in Form No.6-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 on 16-8-2010 requesting for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds; and that while it is true that the petitioners have purchased the properties under registered sale deeds, respondent No.1 has denied the petitioners’ possession on the ground that no pattadar pass books and title deeds have been issued even to the vendors of the petitioners as the dispute relating to the shares of the pattadars is pending adjudication in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, in OS No.34 of 1972. It is further averred that no claim is filed by respondents 3 to 5 for pattadar pass books for the lands which are claimed by the petitioners in this Writ Petition; and that one J.Balaiah Naidu, one of the joint pattadars, filed O.S.No.34 of 1972 in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle for partition of his 1/9th share against the other joint pattadars; that the Government is not a party to the said suit as the subject lands are private patta lands; that the said Court after full-fledged trial decreed the suit on 24-12-1976 for 1/9th share of the plaintiff; that a Court Commissioner was appointed to suggest the mode of division of the property, who filed his report along with sketches on 18- 4-1990; and that the final decree proceedings are pending adjudication. In the above circumstances it is pleaded that as the claim for division filed by one of the joint pattadars is still pending at the final decree proceedings stage, no pattadar pass books and title deeds could be issued by delineating specific extents or boundaries either to the petitioners or to respondents 3 to 5 and others. Having carefully considered the stand taken by respondent No.1 in the counter-affidavit referred to above, I am of the opinion that non-disposal of the petitioners’ application cannot be said to be unreasonable or irrational. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a preliminary decree pertaining to a part of the property, which was held in joint by several co-sharers, was already passed and that unless a final decree is passed by partitioning the property of the plaintiff in the suit by metes and bounds, it may not be possible for respondent No.1 to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of some of the joint owners of the property. In this view of the matter, the relief as claimed in this Writ Petition cannot be granted at this stage. However, as and when the final decree proceedings are concluded and the properties are divided by metes and bounds, respondent No.1 shall dispose of the petitioners’ application after intimation to them and other interested parties. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:26-10-2010 MNR