THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6288 of 2010 26.03.2010 Between: Gurrapushala Srinivasulu ….Petitioner AND The Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole, And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6288 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner statedly purchased an extent of Acs.3.08 cents in survey No.119/2 situated at Teegadurthipadu Village of Podili Mandal in Prakasam District from Purushotham Suryakumar under registered sale deed dated 12.05.2008. It is his case that fourth respondent came to the land and tried to occupy the same in a high handed manner. On enquiries, he came to know that revision petition of fourth respondent was allowed by first respondent on 30.12.2009 directing third respondent to conduct enquiry about all the legal heirs of the persons whose names were mentioned in 10(1) Khata (10(1) Pattadars), pass mutation orders and issue pattadar pass books and title deeds. The petitioner contends that he purchased the land from the grandson of one Gurram Shantamma (third respondent before first respondent) and that without impleading her legal representatives, Joint Collector could not have passed order. It is also his contention that the dispute before first respondent is in relation to the land in survey No.33/1 whereas he purchased the land in survey No.119/2. For these reasons, he filed the present writ petition assailing the order of first respondent. The petitioner is not a party to the proceedings before second respondent or first respondent. Probably for this reason, the background of the case before the authorities has not been brought out in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition properly. A perusal of the order of first and second respondent would reveal the background of the case briefly noticed in the ensuing paragraph. The land admeasuring Acs.3.08 cents in survey No.119/2, as per revenue records, stood in the name of three brothers Jaldi Kotappa, Jaldi Joseph and Jaldi Ramaiah. Gurram Shantamma, wife of Moshe was their sister. Another extent of land admeasuring Acs.3.81 in survey No.33/1 along other survey Nos.53/2 and 54/4 of Teegadurthypadu Village stood in the name of Jaldi Joseph in whose favour a patta was granted under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Estates Abolition Act, for brevity). The fourth respondent is the daughter of Jaldi Joseph. Gurram Shantamma approached the Mandal Revenue Officer for mutating her name in respect of survey Nos.119/2 and 33/1. Tahsildar obliged her by ordering mutation of her name in the place of three brothers. Aggrieved by the same, fourth respondent preferred an appeal presumably under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity). By brief order in proceedings D.Dis.No.2297/98, dated 08.06.1998, the appellate authority – second respondent herein; dismissed the appeal giving liberty to fourth respondent to approach the civil Court to establish her right over the lands in two survey numbers. Feeling aggrieved, fourth respondent preferred revision under Section 9 of the Act before the first respondent. By impugned order, the same was allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh enquiry by third respondent. In the meanwhile, Purushottam Suryakumar, grandson of Gurram Shantamma and son of Purushottam Sarojini alienated an extent of Acs.3.08 cents in survey No.119/2 to petitioner under registered sale deed dated 12.05.2008. The counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a bona fide purchaser from grandson of Shantamma and therefore, there cannot be any enquiry in respect of the land purchased by him. He nextly contends that after death of Shantamma, her daughter was added as legal representative, but after she died, it was brought to the notice of first respondent, but without impleading the legal representatives, first respondent proceeded with the case, and therefore, it would not bind the legal representatives of Shantamma. The two submissions by counsel do not in any manner help for maintaining the writ petition. After verifying the record and obtaining the report of Tahsildar, first respondent recorded the findings that the Tahsildar incorporated the name of Gurram Shantamma without notice to other heirs of three brothers and that the changes in the revenue records like 10(1) khata were not attested by any officer. He also came to the conclusion that fourth respondent being daughter Jaldi Joseph was alone entitled to entire extent of land in survey No.33/1 in respect of which Jaldi Joseph was given a patta under Estates Abolition Act. It is rather curious how the sister of Kotaiah, Joseph and Ramaiah could manage to get her name mutated even without information to legal heirs – sons and daughters of the three brothers. Be that as it is, when fourth respondent filed revision, Gurram Shantamma was very much alive. After her death, her daughter Purushottam Sarojini was brought on record. It appears she also died. As observed by Joint Collector, in paragraph 8 of the order, after death of Sarojini, the legal representatives did not appear and explained as to how they acquired rights and therefore, he proceeded ex parte. Therefore, the submission that legal representatives were not represented cannot be countenanced especially when the Joint Collector can exercise suo motu power and when the matter is remitted to Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. Insofar as petitioner is concerned, being a subsequent purchaser in respect of survey No.119/2, his remedy is to file a suit for declaration, because under Section 8(2) of the Act, the declaratory decree of the Court shall be binding and the entries in the record of rights are to be amended in accordance with civil Court judgment. By impugned order, the matter is remitted to Tahsildar, Podili who is required to conduct enquiry. Therefore, it is open to petitioner to participate in the enquiry before Tahsildar. As and when he seeks to implead in enquiry, Tahsildar may consider allowing him in enquiry. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26.03.2010 Pln