THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.13955 of 2002 Date:28th July, 2010 Between: Machineni (Ganta) Baby ..... Petitioner AND 1. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vemsuru Mandal, Khammam District & Ors. .....Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.13955 of 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by Machineni (Ganta) Baby under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Case No.10 of 1998, dated 16.01.2002, issued by the Joint Collector, Khammam-3rd respondent as well as the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vemsuru Mandal, Khammam District-1st respondent, in issuing pattadar passbook in favour of Ganta Prasad-2nd respondent as illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are daughter and son respectively of Smt.Ganta Savitramma. Smt.Ganta Savitramma was the only daughter to her parents. Therefore, she inherited the properties of her father. She executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner herein on 22.06.1988 in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.3.29 gts. situated in Survey Nos.124 and 125 of Lingapalem village, Vemsuru Mandal, Khammam District. The 2nd respondent laid a claim over the property covered under the gift deed dated 22.06.1988. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. came to be initiated before the Mandal Executive Magistrate-cum-Mandal Revenue Officer, Vemsuru Mandal-1st respondent. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Vemsuru, by order dated 13.08.1999 declared the possession of the 2nd respondent and forbidding all sorts of interference till such time he was evicted in due course of law. Having aggrieved by that order, the petitioner herein approached this Court by filing Crl.R.C.No.1028 of 1999 and this Court allowed the revision remanding the matter back to the Mandal Executive Magistrate-cum-Mandal Revenue Officer, Vemsuru Mandal-1st respondent for fresh disposal. After remand, the 1st respondent in his order dated 06.04.2000 inter alia came to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent herein is in possession of the land in dispute and therefore, his possession should be maintained till such time he was evicted from the land in due course of law. Assailing that order, the petitioner herein approached the Sessions Judge, Khammam, by filing Crl.R.P.No.13 of 2000. The learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 23.08.2000 allowed the revision. Inter alia in his order, the learned Sessions Judge observed that in view of the dispute between the parties as regards the enjoyment of the property, the best way of deciding was to ask both the parties to approach a Court of law and see the respective rights are determined in civil proceeding about their entitlement of the amounts. While observing so, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to make an interim arrangement as regards to the paddy said to have been kept with the third party by directing the same to be kept in a fixed deposit for the benefit of the successful party ultimately in the civil proceedings. The 2nd respondent herein filed Crl.Revision Case No.1020 of 2000 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 20.11.2000, allowed the revision case. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1020 of 2000 reads as hereunder: “The learned Executive Magistrate placing reliance on the sworn statements of Machineni Baby and Ganta Seetharamaiah, i.e,, the first party, had come to a conclusion that the possession was with the second party by name Ganta Prasad. It is also obvious from the sworn statements that the land was leased out by the first party to the second party so as to manage the property for a particular year. Apart from the question of possession over the land in dispute, the dispute as regards the tenancy would also arise. Once it is concluded that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties inter se, then the jurisdiction is vested with the Special Officer under the Tenancy Act. In the event of any dispute between the parties inter se, the party who is in possession of the land, in the capacity of a tenant cannot be ousted from the same under any circumstances, except in accordance with the provisions contained in the A.P. Tenancy Act. Oblivious of the legal position and ignoring a clear cut finding given by the learned Executive Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to direct the parties to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of the same which is out of his jurisdiction. What is germane for consideration in the revision filed before him assailing the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., was to see whether such an order is correct, legal and proper or not. The arrangement made by the learned Sessions Judge as regards the crop, admittedly kept with the third party is totally not germane for consideration in the revision petition. The order of the learned Sessions Judge on the face of it is unsustainable under law and in ignorance of the legal provisions, as the jurisdiction being exercised by the learned Sessions Judge is under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against an order passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. It is always for the parties to work out their rights and liabilities before the appropriate forum and there is no need to ask the parties to approach a particular forum, particularly when there is a dispute as regards the Tenancy also. Under the circumstances and for the reasons mentioned supra, the impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.” The petitioner filed an application for mutation of her name, on the basis of the gift deed executed by her mother, before the 1st respondent herein under Section 5 of the A.P. Records of Rights in Land Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’). The 1st respondent dismissed the said application. The petitioner filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Khammam-3rd respondent under Section 9 of the Act. The revision came to be disposed of on 16.01.2002 directing the aggrieved parties to file a suit before the competent civil Court to get the relief. The order passed by the revisional authority i.e., Joint Collector, Khammam-3rd respondent is under challenge in this Writ Petition. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioner got the property under registered gift deed executed by her mother Smt.Savitramma, who is the absolute owner of the property having inherited the same from her father being his only daughter. According to the petitioner, the authorities under the Act have to go by the registered documents and cannot entertain and adjudicate the claim set up by the rival claimants and it is only rival claimant, who is to be relegated to the civil Court for establishing his rights over the property. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 02.08.2002. 4. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the name of Ganta Prasad-2nd respondent has been entered in the possessory column of the revenue records after verification. As on this day, no pattadar passbook and title deeds have been issued in favour of Ganta Prasad-2nd respondent in respect of the lands in question. This Court while dismissing W.P.No.2091 of 2002, dated 05.02.2002, filed by the petitioner herein upheld the observation made by the Joint Collector, in the order dated 16.01.2002. Hence, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 and 3. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.3.29 gts. in Survey Nos.124 and 125 of Lingapalem village, Vemsuru Mandal, Khammam District having got the same under a registered gift deed executed by her mother and in which case, there cannot be any impediment for the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vemsuru Mandal-1st respondent to mutate the name of the petitioner as pattadar and possessor in the revenue records. A further submission has been made that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vemsuru-1st respondent as well as the Joint Collector, Khammam-3rd respondent failed to take into consideration the contents of the registered document as well as the statements of the donor viz. Smt.Ganta Savitramma and her husband Ganta Seetharamaiah and thereby erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for mutation of her name in the revenue records in respect of the lands covered under the gift deed. 7. Learned Asst. Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 submits that as on this day pattadar passbook and title deeds have not been issued in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect of the lands in dispute and in view of the serious disputes between the parties, the revisional authority is justified in directing the aggrieved parties to file a suit before the Civil Court for declaration of their rights. 8. The case of the petitioner appears to be very simple. But, on close scrutiny of the material brought on record, it reveals that there are serious disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent in respect of the property covered under the gift deed. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. came to be initiated and the finality of the proceedings came to be reached by the disposal of the Crl.R.C.No.1020 of 2000 by this Court on 20.11.2000. The 2nd respondent claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the land covered under the registered gift deed. The said contention was considered by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1020 of 2000. Such is the situation, the direction given by the revisional authority i.e., the Joint Collector, Khammam-2nd respondent to the aggrieved parties to establish their claim in civil Court cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the order impugned in the Writ Petition does not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:28th July, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.13955 of 2002 Date:28th July, 2010