PYDI HARIYA Vs. R D O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitioners are the appellants in this writ appeal. They filed the writ petition questioning inter alia the proceedings dated 3-6-2000 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellants for grant of pattadar pass books under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') was dismissed.

(2.) One Smt. Nallamotu Subbamma w/o Nallamotu Subba Naidu was the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 34.86 cents in S.Nos. 183/1,186,198/3,199/1, 247, 3261, 297/2 and 298/1 of Chintlapalem Village, Jarugumilli Mandal, Prakasham District. The appellants herein who are the sons of the sister of the said Subbamma claimed that she had executed a Will on 24-4-1988 bequeathing all the said lands in their favour and after her death they became the absolute owners of the property. They applied for grant of pattadar pass books and title deeds as per Section 4 of the Act. The 2nd respondent issued pattadar pass books showing the petitioners as the owners and in possession of an extent of Ac. 17.61 cents and Ac. 17.59 cents respectively As title deeds were not issued, they filed W.P.No. 20366 of 1999 for a direction to the respondents to issue title deeds to them in respect of the property in question which was disposed of by this Court on 30-9-1999 directing the respondents to pass necessary orders on the representation dated 17-8-1999 for issuance of title deeds. Pursuant to the said directions, 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order. The appellants contend that by reason of the decree and judgment passed by the Sub-Court, they are entitled to be issued title deeds. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellants herein are not entitled to grant of title deeds unless the enquiry before the Land Reforms Tribunal is concluded.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that once pattadar pass books had been issued under the Act and the rules framed thereunder, the title deeds were required to be issued as a consequence thereof. The learned Counsel would contend that having regard to the fact that the Will was not required to be registered, the appellants herein derive their title-in-interest under the said Will. In any event, the learned Counsel contends that, as a decree had been passed by a competent civil Court in favour of the appellants, the revenue authorities could not sit in appeal thereover and such question of title cannot be said to be res integra. Our attention in this regard has been drawn to the statements made in the counter-affidavit to the effect that the factual matrix of the matter stand admitted.