THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL Nos. 654 and 655 of 2005 DATE: 18th July, 2011 W.A.No. 654 of 2005 Between: Konda Reddy … Petitioner And: J. Yadi Reddy and 5 others … Respondents W.A.No. 655 of 2005 Between: Konda Reddy … Petitioner And: J. Yadi Reddy and 8 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL Nos. 654 and 655 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice. P. Durga Prasad) These appeals are directed against the common order passed on 07.02.2005 in W.P.No.20650 of 1993 and W.P.No.14822 of 1995, by the learned single Judge. The appellant herein is the respondent No.4 in the writ petition. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the writ petitioners. They questioned the order dated 21.12.1993 passed by the 1st respondent and the order dated 23.03.1993 passed by the 2nd respondent. The writ petitioners are brothers and claim to be owners and possessors of the land in Sy.Nos.8, 9, 10 and 12 admeasuring Ac.5-20 guntas, Ac.0-22 guntas, Ac.1-08 guntas and Ac.1-26 guntas respectively, situated at Renukapuri village, Saroor Nagar mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. According to the writ petition, they purchased the lands under private sale deeds from earlier owners i.e. Ramakrishna Reddy, Adisesha Reddy, Dharma Rao and the 4th respondent herein, for consideration and were put in physical possession of the lands in 1973 and are in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the same was duly recorded in the revenue records. The writ petitioners claimed that having such a long possession and for the statutory period, they have perfected their title by prescription also. They filed an application as contemplated under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, the Act), and the same was ordered after regular enquiry and Patta was mutated in their name. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 filed an application before the District Collector concerned on 22.03.1993, and the said application was referred to the 2nd respondent, who without an enquiry and without any notice to the petitioners, passed an order on 23.03.1993 unilaterally accepting the application of 4th respondent; treating the same as a regular appeal and directed to the 3rd respondent to effect changes by inserting his name in the Pahani patris for 1990-91 and 1991-92. Since the writ petitioners are not parties to the said proceedings, they challenged the same by way of revision under Section 9 of the Act before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent dismissed the appeal by the order dated 21.12.1993 on the ground that the 4th respondent is holding title in pursuance of the registered sale deed and further the petitioners were not found to be in possession of the property. Questioning the said order, the writ petition was filed and the same was disposed of by the learned single Judge by the order dated 17.02.2005, remitting the matter to the 3rd respondent for fresh enquiry and disposal, after giving opportunity to both sides, in accordance with law. The appellant’s counsel contended that the 4th respondent initiated proceedings suo moto and passed the order after hearing both the parties, and the respondent No.4 is having title under a registered sale deed and is in possession of the said property; while the writ petitioners are not in possession of the property as rightly observed by the respondent No.1 in the said enquiry, and as there is a dispute with regard to the title of the property, the 3rd respondent who is the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), cannot decided the title dispute. As such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3, the writ petitioners urged that they are in possession of the property and the same was evident from the revenue records; their names were rightly mutated in the revenue records and the 2nd respondent without giving an opportunity to the writ petitioners and in a hurried manner, disposed of the application filed by the respondent No.4, and directed the 3rd respondent to effect changes inserting the name of the 4th respondent in the Pahanis and as no notice was given to the writ petitioners, the learned single Judge has rightly remitted back the matter to the 3rd respondent for fresh enquiry after giving opportunity to both the parties. The writ petitioners are claiming that the disputed property was purchased by them under registered sale deeds and are in possession of the said property and the 3rd respondent mutated their names in the revenue records and on the application made by the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to effect changes by inserting the name of the 4th respondent in the Pahanis. According to the writ petitioners, they have questioned the said order by way of revision under Section 9 of the Act before the 1st respondent. But as per the impugned order dated 21.12.1993, the case was taken up by the Joint Collector, the respondent No.1 suo moto under Section 9 of the A.P. ROR Act, 1971 against the order passed by the MRO dated 19.07.1991 on receipt of complaint that some irregularities were committed by the MRO in disposing of the case in respect of the above lands in Sy.Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 30 and 31 situated at Renukapur village, covering an area of Ac.22-30 guntas. The Joint Collector issued notices to both parties and after hearing both parties’ counsel in their presence, disposed of the matter by the impugned order dated 21.12.1993. The 1st respondent found that the writ petitioners had filed a petition in Form No.10 in Mandal Revenue Office, Saroor Nagar under the Act for validation of the sale transactions held between the petitioners and others and the MRO recorded the statements of the petitioners and passed an order on 27.03.1991, holding that they are eligible for transfer of Patta after obtaining Stamp Duty and Registration Fee, and the said order was passed by the MRO only by giving notice to the writ petitioners and no notice was given to the pattedars recorded in the Pahanis. The 1st respondent found that no documents in respect of the transactions that were validated for the lands in Sy.Nos.1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 were presented before him and the MRO had not enquired the possession as per the records as well as on ground and also the documents considered by the MRO are fabricated documents, and the said order is violating the provisions contained in Section 5-A of the Act, and thereby the orders passed by the MRO are set aside by the impugned order. Thus, it is evident that the respondent No.1-Joint Collector suo moto held the enquiry under Section 9 of the Act on receipt of complaint that some irregularities have been committed by MRO, and after verifying the records, set aside the order of MRO, and the said impugned order is passed by the respondent No.1 after giving opportunity to both the parties. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petitions by the common order under question by setting aside the impugned order dated 23.03.1993 of the 2nd respondent and the order dated 21.12.1993 of the 1st respondent and the matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent for fresh enquiry and disposal after giving opportunity to both sides in accordance with law. As discussed above, the dispute between the writ petitioners and writ appellant is with regard to the title of the said property and the 4th respondent being an MRO cannot decide the title dispute as such ordering for fresh enquiry by the 3rd respondent-MRO does not serve any purpose and the parties have to adjudicate their dispute with regard to the title before the competent civil Court. In the above circumstances, the common order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ appeals are allowed and the common order passed in W.P.No.20650 of 1993 and W.P.No.14822 of 1995 is hereby set aside, and in the circumstances of the case, both the parties are directed to bear their own costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM ______________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD 18th July, 2011 KSM