HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO. 2379 OF 2005 Monday, the Thirteenth day of December, Two Thousand and ten Between: Balagouni Yadaiah and others Petitioners AND Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, Khairtabad, Hyderabad – 4 and others Respondents ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an order made under Sec.9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 by the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, whereunder the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rangareddy East Division, dated 20.9.1993, in Case No. L/960/1993 confirming the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal, dated 24.10.1992, in File No. B/2424/1992, in respect of the land in Sy.No. 110 admeasuring Ac.5.10 guntas situated at Qutubullapur village Hayathnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, ordering correction of entries, was reversed. According to the petitioners, their father and paternal uncle made an application in the year 1992, when they came to know about the wrong entries made in the pahanies before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal, for rectification of entries made in possession column of the pahanies against Sy.No. 110 in an extent of Ac.5.10 guntas of Qutubullapur village, Hayathnagar mandal, Rangareddy District and to incorporate their names i.e. the petitioners 1 to 3 herein and their father, as they are in actual possession and enjoyment of the said land, by way of cultivation. The second respondent made appearance before the Mandal Revenue Officer by filing objections. The Mandal Revenue Officer after detailed enquiry and also after getting personal enquiry being conducted by the Revenue Inspector, allowed the petition vide order bearing No.B/2424/1992 dated 24.10.1992 for the correction of entries as prayed for. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents 2 and 3 preferred appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East Division and the appellate authority also after appreciating the entire record and the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, dismissed the appeal in File No. L/960/1993 while upholding the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Further aggrieved thereby, the respondents 2 and 3 preferred revision under Sec. 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971, before the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District. The said revision was allowed by the Joint Collector by order dated 31.8.2004. Therefore, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the correction was sought by the petitioners as to the entries against Sy.No. 110 in an extent of Ac.5.10 guntas situated at Qutubullapur village, Hayathnagar mandal, Rangareddy District, since the names of unofficial respondents were reflected in the revenue records erroneously. The Mandal Revenue Officer, after conducting enquiry and also getting the matter enquired by the Revenue Inspector concerned, allowed the application and ordered for correction of entries. The appeal filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer by the respondents 2 and 3 was also dismissed. Whereas, the Joint Collector, without properly appreciating and facts and circumstances, allowed the revision holding that the parties may have to approach civil court to get their rights adjudicated under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that the son-in-law of the respondent No.2 filed OS No. 430 of 1988 for perpetual injunction against the same land and the said suit was dismissed. He also filed suit O.S. No. 474 of 1989 seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale purported to have been executed by the second respondent. The said suit was also dismissed. In the suit OS No. 474 of 1989 also the respondents 1 to 3 were made as parties. That being so, there is absolutely no civil dispute between the parties either pending or arises for adjudication. Therefore, allowing the revision filed by the respondents 2 and 3 does not arise. None appears for the respondents, no counter is filed, nor there is any representation. The facts are not in dispute. From the facts noticed above, it is seen that the dispute is in a narrow compass, as to the correction of entries made in the pahanies against Sy.No. 110 in an extent of Ac.5.10 guntas, situated at Qutubullapur village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. The Mandal Revenue Officer gave his findings thus: “…The G.P.A. executed by Balagoni Jangaiah s/o Shankaraiah vide registered document No. 325/88 dated 5.8.1988 in favour of Sri Vazeer Maisaiah s/o V.Yellaiah in respect of the said land was cancelled vide registered canellation GPA No. 368/88, dated 14.9.1988. Since the GPA is cancelled by the executant itself, the respondents cannot claim the said land of their own as they did not submit any other documentary evidence in support of their claim except oral evidence of the villagers who may not have correct knowledge about the purchasing of the said land. In the cases referred by the respondent and petitioners filed before the court were dismissed as explained by the petitioners except a case is pending before the court filed for specific performance by B.R. Anjaneyulu in O.S. No. 274/89 and the petitioners are agreed that they can lay claim for entering their names in the revenue record only after winning the suit filed. The petitioners are claiming the possession over the said land as the subject land is of their ancestral and undivided joint Hindu family. Since the sale transaction which is said to have taken place in respect of the said land as claimed by the objection petitioner/ respondent it is not supported by any of the document and the G.P.A. executed in favour of the respondents was also cancelled by the executant himself therefore the claim of the respondent for possession has no value. The possessor should be either pattedar, purchaser, lease older or tenant. No other person can claim any right over particular land that he is in possession of the land. The possessor also should have title to enter the land and occupy it. In this case, the respondent has failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that he is a pattedar, purchaser or tenant. The respondent has brought oral evidence that he is cultivating the said land by virtue of purchase. Merely getting oral evidence that he has purchased and in possession of the land without any title over it and documentary evidence as pattedar, purchaser or tenant, his request not to incorporate the names of the petitioners (who are legal representatives of pattedars) will not be recognized. It is not a Government land to say that I have encroached the land and in possession. In respect of patta lands, the possession can be claimed if he is a pattedar, purchaser or a tenant. There is a court judgment in which the court has dismissed his request that the respondent is in possession of the said land. Her claim of possession over the said land was dismissed by the court of law. As such, I cannot go against the orders passed by the court. Hence, the objection petition put forth by the respondents not to incorporate the names of the petitioners and to continue her name in the possession column of the said land deserves no consideration. Therefore, the names of the petitioners viz., Sarvasri Balagoni Yadaiah, Balagoni Babuy, Balagoni Balaiah and the names of B.Jaihind Goud, Narender, B.Srinivas and B.Gowri Shanker, the sons of late B.Jangaiah being thelegal representatives of pattedar be incorporated in the possession column of the said land to an extent of Ac.5.10 guntas as they are in possession of the said land by cultivating “Uluvalu” for the present and ordered for incorporation of the above names in the possession column of the said land in the pahani for the year 1991- 92 of Qutubullapur village….” Against this, when the matter was carried in appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal, the appellate authority recorded the finding, as under: “…The case having been stood for consideration was taken up finally on 18.9.1993. Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellants and counter arguments on behalf of the respondent as well. The respondents are co-parceners. Respondent 1, 2 and 3 are sons of late Shankaraiah while respondents 4 to 7 are the sons of B.Jangaiah and 8th respondent is the wife of B.Jangaiah. Late Jangaiah is not supposed to execute G.P.A. in favour of appellants thus overlooking the interest of respondents 1,2 and 3. As per Lower Court record the respondents are in physical possession, Therefore, the claim of the appellants for declaring them to show as possessors of the suit land is not on footing ground and therefore, the appeal petition is dismissed…” The above findings recorded by the Primary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority disclose that the respondents 2 and 3 are not the true owners. The G.P.A. purported to have been executed in favour of the respondent 2 cannot confer any right on him. Section 3(3) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971, which contemplates correction of entries on application filed by the affected party, reads as under: “…3. Preparation and updating of record of rights in all lands: (1)……….. (2)……… (3) Any person affected by an entry in such record of right may, within a period of one year from date of the notification referred to in sub-section (2), apply for rectification of the entry to such officer as may be prescribed. The said officer may, after such inquiry as may be prescribed, give his decision on such application and direct the rectification of the record of rights in accordance with such decision which shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final. Section 4 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971, which deals with the acquisition of rights to be intimated, reads as under: 4. Acquisition of rights to be intimated: (1) Any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, the partition, Government patta, decree of a court or otherwise any right as owner, pattedar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Mandal Revenue Officer within ninety days from the date of such acquisition, and the said Mandal Revenue Officer shall give or send a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation to the person making it: Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified\, has guardian or other persons having charge of his property shall intimae the fact of such acquisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer. (2)…………. Admittedly, according to the unofficial respondents, it is only the G.P.A. which was executed in their favour. Therefore, the G.P.A. itself will not confer any right for seeking entries in the revenue records. Thus the Mandal Revenue Officer, has rightly ordered for correction of entries, which were wrongfully made earlier and the Revenue Divisional Officer also while recording his finding, has dismissed the appeal. Here there is no civil dispute pending between the parties. Even if there is any civil dispute pending between the parties, the findings recorded by the Tahsildar, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority, could not have been reversed by the Joint Collector under Sec. 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971. Absolutely there was no right conferred on the respondents seeking the entry of their names in the revenue records as contemplated under Sec. 4, noticed above. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Joint Collector, reversing the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, as confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the finding recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer as confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer are upheld. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu December 13, 2010 MAS