IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6682 of 2005 Between: D.M. Venkatamuni, S/o. Muttaiah Mudaliar, R/o. Gate Street, Puttur, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner ( Appeals) O/o. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Settlements, A.P. Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Chittoor. 4 The Joint Collector, Chittoor. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order dated 30-8-2003 in P3/307/97 of the Commissioner, Appeals (R-1) as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the decree and judgment dated 14-6-1991 in O.S.No.136 of 1982 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District, which stood implemented and consequently set aside the said proceedings dated 30-8-2003 and direct the MRO (R5) to issue Pattadar pass book and title deeds to the petitioner in respect of the lands in Sy.No.232 and 233 admeasuring Ac. 3-20 cents situated in Govindapalem Village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District and with all other consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 30.08.2003 passed by the 1st respondent- Commissioner (Appeals), Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad. The petitioner claims that he is the owner and possessor of the lands in an extent of Ac.3-00 in Sy.No.232 and Ac.0-20 cents in Sy.No.233 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject lands’), both situated at Govindapalem Village, Puttur Mandal of Chittoor District, having purchased the same from one N. Mutha Reddy, under a registered sale deed dated 27.01.1981, and has been continuing in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is his case that the total extent of lands in Sy.Nos.232 and 233 is Ac.5-18 cents, out of which cart track is existing in an extent of Ac.1.98 cents and the remaining extent of Ac.3.20 cents is in his possession as stated above, but however, since the total extent of Ac.5-18 cents was erroneously shown as cart track in the revenue records, he filed a claim petition before the Settlement Officer, Nellore, for grant of ryotwari patta in his favour in respect of the subject lands, and the Settlement Officer, after due enquiry, held that the cart track is going on at the northern side of the subject lands and that the petitioner is entitled for ryotwari patta for the subject lands, and accordingly allowed the claim petition, by order dated 15.10.1981, granting ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that, in spite of the Settlement Officer granting ryotwari patta in his favour, there was interference with his possession of the subject lands by the 5th respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur, claiming that the entire land of Ac.5-18 cents is cart track, and therefore he filed O.S.No.136 of 1982 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Puttur, Chittoor District, against the District Collector, Chittor, and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur, respondents 3 and 5 herein respectively, seeking declaration of his title over the subject lands and permanent injunction against the defendants therein and also appropriate directions for entering his name in place of ‘cart track’ in the revenue records pertaining to the subject lands. The said suit was decreed as prayed for on 14.06.1991. When the name of the petitioner was not entered in the revenue records in spite of the said decree, the petitioner filed an execution petition and the same was allowed on 19.03.1996 directing the respondents 3 and 5 to enter his name in the revenue records as per the decree. While things stood thus, the respondents 3 and 5 have filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.136 of 1982 along with a petition to condone the delay caused in filing the said appeal, but that petition was dismissed by the appellate Court and the civil revision petition preferred against such dismissal was also dismissed by this Court, and thus the decree passed in O.S.No.136 of 1982 had become final. However, it appears, in the year 1984 itself i.e. even during the pendency of O.S.No.136 of 1982 filed by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent herein filed a revision petition before the 2nd respondent- Director of Settlements, A.P., against the order dated 15.10.1981 passed by the Settlement Officer, Nellore, whereunder ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the petitioner, and that the 2nd respondent has also initiated a suo motu revision, and having kept those revisions pending for about 12 years, the 2nd respondent has allowed both of them on 27.12.1996, setting aside the order dated 15.10.1981 passed by the Settlement Officer and holding that the subject lands are to be registered as cart track. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent- Commissioner (Appeals), Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., and obtained interim stay of the order impugned therein, and he has also filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.26775 of 2001, before this Court, questioning the inaction of the authorities in entering his name in revenue records, and the same was disposed of on 23.04.2002 directing the respondents therein to take necessary steps and pass appropriate orders in the matter of entering the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. Pursuant thereto and also in pursuance of the orders of the Civil Court, the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records. But however, the 1st respondent, by the impugned order dated 30.08.2003, disposed of the revision petition preferred by the petitioner, remanding the matter to the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, for fresh enquiry and examination of the records and for passing orders on merits and as per law. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed and it is the grievance of the petitioner that the 1st respondent ought to have set aside the order 27.12.1996 passed by the 2nd respondent and allowed his revision petition, taking into consideration the fact that his title over the subject lands was declared by way of ryotwari patta granted by the Settlement Officer and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.136 of 1982, which had become final, and that the 1st respondent erred in remanding the matter. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. Though the facts were admitted, the order impugned was sought to be supported on the ground that the lands for which ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the petitioner were not correlated to Sy.Nos.232 and 233, and, therefore, the matter was rightly remanded to the Joint Collector for consideration afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that when the title of the petitioner was proved by way of decree dated 14.06.1991 in O.S.No.136 of 1982, which had become final, no further probe into the matter is required and that the revision filed by the 3rd respondent as well as the suo motu revision taken up by the 2nd respondent were erroneously allowed by the 2nd respondent. He further contended that the aspect of correlation of the subject lands was also considered by the civil Court in detail in O.S.No.136 of 1982 and therefore there is no dispute with regard to the same and the 1st respondent erred in remanding the matter to the Joint Collector for consideration afresh. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order, reiterating the contents of the counter-affidavit. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted a ryotwari patta by the Settlement Officer on 15.10.1981 in respect of the subject lands and, by way of judgment and decree dated 14.06.1991 passed in O.S.No.136 of 1982, which had become final, his title over the subject lands was declared and the respondents 3 and 5 were restrained from interfering with his possession over the subject lands, by way of permanent injunction, and that his name was also directed to be entered in the revenue records. A perusal of the said judgment would make it clear that the aspect of correlation of the subject lands was also considered by the Civil Court in detail and it was observed as under: “The Settlement Officer who is admitted by a competent authority inspected the suit land with reference to paimash numbers and hold that paimash numbers 15,25,26,27,28 and 32 should have been correlated to Sy.Nos.232 and 233. Therefore, the version of the defendant that the suit land is a cart track and that it is a government poramboke is not correct. There is unimpeachable and documentary evidence in this case to come to the conclusion the plaintiff has purchased the land covered by Sy.Nos.232 and 233. In the light of the findings given in Ex.A.8 the version of the defendants that paimash numbers 7 and 6 alone correspond to survey numbers 232 and 233 respectively and in any event the plaintiff cannot lay his hands on survey No.232 and 233 which are not covered by Ex.A.1 is not sustainable. Even in the absence of Ex.A.1 (the registered sale deed under which the ancestors of the vendors of the plaintiff purchased the suit lands and other lands) the right of the vendors of the plaintiff was established beyond doubt by marking the other documents namely Ex.A.10 paimash adangal for faslies 1364 and 1366. Therefore, Ex.A.10 also strengthen the version of the plaintiff that the suit land is only ryothi land. Further the perusal of Ex.A.11 adangal extract for faslie 1392 to 1397 finds the name of the plaintiff against Sy.No.232 and 233 also. Therefore, the arguments of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the document dated 11.12.1929 i.e. Ex.A1 does not disclose either paimash number or any other details about the description of property and that it contains only some schedule and some extent is not acceptable. The perusal of Ex.A1 under which the ancestors of the vendors of the plaintiff purchased properties is without paimash numbers but the other documents Ex.A10, Ex.A.11 and even the documents filed on behalf of the defendant Ex.B.2 certified copy of No.2 adangal finds the names of vendor of the plaintiff against Sy.No.233 and also his vendor’s vendors name in Ex.B.3. The arguments of the learned A.G.P. that it is only in 1981 documents paimash numbers are mentioned does not hold good as there is an agreement of sale which is 4 years prior to the date of A.A.2. No importance could be attached to Ex.B.1 the settlement adangal in which cart track is shown against Sy.No.232 and 233 corresponding to old paimash numbers 7 and 6 respectively in view of the orders of the Settlement Officer under Ex.A.8 even D.W.1 the Mandal Revenue Officer has categorically admitted in the cross-examination that the competent authority to decide about the right or wrong correlation is settlement officer. It has been further admitted by D.W.1 that he did not inspect the suit land with reference to old paimash numbers and the schedule contained in Ex.A.2. The real picture would have come to light if the inspection of the suit land by D.W.1 had been with reference to old paimash numbers and as per the schedule given in Ex.A.2 certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is true that paimash numbers are not in vogue as on the date of the inspection of D.W.1 but the consideration of the very paimash numbers plays a vital role in deciding the issue involved in this case. Further it is not as if all records filed by both parties are without paimash numbers. All these documents prior to survey and settlement operations consists of only paimash numbers and as such the inspection of D.W.1 would have resulted in correct understanding of the issue on hand. If it were to be with reference to paimash numbers, above all it is needless to go into further discussion when once it was hold by competent authority the Settlement Officer, Nellore, that the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A.2 are tallied on ground and it appeared that paimash numbers 7 and 6 were wrongly correlated to Sy.No.232 and 233 respectively. And that the paimash numbers 15, 25, 26, 28 and 32 measuring the extent of 5 acres 50 cents correlated to survey No.241/1 which is 82 cents in extent and that the boundaries shown I Ex.A.2 are tallied on ground. The paimash Nos.15,25,27,28 and 32 should have been correlated to Sy.No.232 and 233. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has purchased the suit lands from his vendors and as such this issue is held in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” A reading of the above findings would indicate that the controversy as to correlation of Sy.Nos.232 and 233 to the subject lands does not exist any more. Thus, the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be proper. Even, in the impugned order, the 1st respondent held that the contentions raised by the Collector, which were supported by the orders of the Director of Settlement, based on the records, were at variance with the details that were revealed on perusal of the records such as Registered Sale Document No.312/1930 and certified copy of the adangal of the village for F.1352 and 1365 filed by the revision petitioner and that apart the orders passed by the lower Court show that the cart track poramboke is situated on the other side of the schedule land. Thus, cancelling the patta granted in favour of the petitioner and remanding the matter to the Settlement Officer for fresh consideration is unwarranted in view of the fact that all the issues between the parties were settled by a competent Civil Court and the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court attained finality, and it is not proper on the part of the authorities to re-agitate the matter again and again and frustrate the cause of the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 30.08.2003 passed by the 1st respondent as also the order dated 27.12.1996 passed by the 2nd respondent are arbitrary and illegal, and, therefore, they are set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 23rd June, 2009. IBL