THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4910 of 2010 (Dated : 31-12-2010) Between: Pothula Lingamma …Petitioner A n d The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4910 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 22.8.2010 passed in File No.D1/80/A/2006 on the file of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereunder, the stay application filed by the petitioner pending disposal of the revision under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 assailing the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool in File No.K/ROR/76/2006, dated 16.11.2006 ended in dismissal. 2. The petitioner is the mother of the 4th respondent. She filed petition before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nagarkurnool for mutation of her name in the revenue records in respect of Ac.8.05 guntas in Survey No.270 of Ganyagula village of Nagarkurnool Mandal. She claimed that her husband P.Venkat Reddy purchased Ac.8.05 guntas under a simple sale deed on 20.5.1965 out of her stridhana property from Smt. Chinna Rathnamma W/o Chinna Lakshma Reddy. The Mandal Revenue Officer entertained her application and mutated her name in the revenue records as per proceedings in ROR/7036/05, dt.14.12.2005. The 4th respondent herein filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool assailing the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. According to him, he purchased Ac.8.05 guntas in the name of his father P.Venkat Reddy under simple sale deed dated 6.5.1960 from Pothula Chinna Lakshma Reddy and developed the land by spending few lakhs of rupees. He also pleaded before the Revenue Divisional Officer that his mother filed maintenance case against him on the ground of her not being in possession of any of the properties. Pending appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, B.Chinnamma and five others filed petitions seeking their impleadment on the ground that the petitioner herein executed registered gift deeds in their favour. The Revenue Divisional Officer called for the records from the Mandal Revenue Officer and found that mutation in the name of the petitioner herein came to be effected without putting on notice to the 4th respondent herein and the original owners. He also recorded a finding that the proposed parties are not necessary for disposal of the appeal. With these findings, the appellate authority set aside the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and directed to enter the name of the petitioner herein as pattadar. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order passed by the appellate authority and it is thus:- “ It is clear from the documents produced that Smt. P.Llingamma, respondent has claimed maintenance allowance from appellant renouncing her claim over the family properly including the land in question i.e, Sy.No.270 ext. 8-05 and subsequently by claiming, which is a violation of agreement and not appropriate in the light of ruling of Supreme Court of India i.e., in case of Venkata Subbamma vs. Ratnamma(T) 1987 SCC 1775 affirming 1973 AP 226, it was held that “Renunciation with a condition to pay maintenance to hi m is also valid”. Further in case of Guru Swamy vs. Marappa 1950 Madras 140(1949) 2 MLJ 525 : 62 MLW 773, Madras High Court held that “such renunciation can be effected by an expression of an intention to that effect and no formality is necessary”. Further, Madras High Court in case of Guru Swamy v. Marappa ILR 1950 Mad 665- 1949 2 MLJ 525 , 529 it was held that “ A renunciation of his rights by a father after agreeing to receive maintenance would be valid. The appellant comes within the definition under sub- section 6 & 6-a of Section 2 of A.P.Rights in land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 but the same has not been observed while taking action under Section 5-A of the Act. The mutation in the name of P.Lingamma is having no locus standi and consequently, as a result subsequent gift deeds executed by P.Lingamma in favour of B.Chinnamma and five others i.e., petitioners for impleading, are also not having any locus standi and accordingly their petitions for impleading them are also not maintainable”. 3. Assailing the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed revision before the Joint Collector. She also moved stay application pending disposal of the revision. When her stay application was not being taken up by the revisional authority, she approached this Court by filing writ petition 22996 of 2007 . The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 01.11.2007 directing the revisional authority to consider and dispose of stay application. “ Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to direct the Joint Collector to consider and dispose of the stay application pending in Revision Case No.D1/80/A/06. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the stay application pending in Revision Case No.D1/80/A/06. Pending disposal of stay application, status-quo obtaining as on today with regard to the entries in the revenue records shall be maintained. There shall be no order as to costs”. 4. For completion of narration of facts, I deem it appropriate to refer C.R.P.No.6421 of 2006 filed by the proposed parties, i.e., B.Chinnamma and five others assailing the order dated 16.11.2006 passed in Appeal No.K/ROR/76/2006. In the said revision, Chinnamma and others questioned the dismissal of the application seeking their impleadment in the appeal filed by 4th respondent herein before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The said revision ended in dismissal on 11.10.2007. It is trite to note the relevant portion of the order passed in the above-referred revision, which reads as hereunder:- “ It is no doubt true that this Court by virtue of Article 227 of the Constitution of India can correct any errors committed by the subordinate courts or tribunals subordinate to it. Since I find no irregularity in the order dismissing the petition of petitioners, I see no grounds to interfere with the order of dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioners. D.Sreenivasulu Reddy (2nd supra) relied on by the petitioners has no application to the facts of this case, as the facts in that case are entirely different. In that case the suit for mandatory injunction was filed seeking a direction to the defendants to provide pipe culverts across road to draw water from an irrigation tank. Application filed by the revision petitioners, owning lands on the either side of the road, to come on record as parties to the suit was dismissed by the trial Court as belated. That order was set aside in the revision. De hors the gift deeds executed by the second respondent revision petitioners have no other right in the land in Sy.No.270, which is the subject matter of the proceedings before the authorities under the Act. So, they cannot be said to be either necessary or proper parties to the proceedings under the Act”. 5. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court in Writ Petition No.22996 of 2007, the revisional authority took up the stay application and proceeded to dismiss the same on 28.8.2010. The said order is assailed in this revision. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the 4th respondent-party in person. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the revisional authority-1st respondent dismissed the stay application without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and therefore, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel refers the docket sheet maintained in Revision Case No.D1/80/B/2006. The said docket sheet relates to the revision filed by B.Chinnamma and five others. 8. The 4th respondent-party in person contends that on the stay application, the counsel representing the petitioner submitted arguments on 24.8.2010. He also contends that the revision filed by the petitioner came to be clubbed with the revision filed by Chinnamma and others and proceedings sheet has been maintained in the revision case No.D1/80/B/2006. He also placed on record the docket sheet in Revision Case No.D1/80/B/2006. The docket proceeding dated 24.8.2010 indicates that the counsel for the petitioner herein appeared before the revisional authority and submitted arguments. 9. The material on record indicates that the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, who are no other than the mother and son, has been pending since quite a long time. The petitioner initiated maintenance case against the 4th respondent on the ground that she has no income of her own. The 4th respondent has been paying amounts, pursuant to the orders passed by the Civil Court and proceedings initiated by the petitioner. The petitioner having pleaded that she had no income of her own, executed gift deeds pending the proceedings before various authorities including the civil Court. Since the main revision is still pending with the 1st respondent, I deem it appropriate not to record any finding on the rights of the parties over the lands in dispute. The revision is of the year 2006. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to direct the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Pending disposal of the revision, there shall be status quo existing as on this day with regard to the entries appearing in the revenue records in respect of Ac.8-05 guntas comprised in Survey No.270 situated at Ganyagula village, Nagarkurool Mandal. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.31-12-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4910 of 2010 (Dated : 31-12-2010)