SINGAMANENI PULLAMMA & ORS. Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants filed a writ petition being WP No. 16887 of 2002 seeking quashing of proceedings being Procs. No. D339052001, dt. 25/2/2002 and Rc. No. B1752001, dt. 11/4/2002 They further sought a direction that the respondents should issue pattadar pass books in their favour in respect of the lands held by them. The parties shall be hereinafter referred to as "petitioners" and "respondents" as they appeared in the writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner No. 2 is the daughter and respondent No. 4 is the daughter-in-law of petitioner No. 1. It was contended that they belonged to a joint family and property was partitioned in the year 1975 and the petitioner No. 1 became successor to the properties that had fallen to the share of her husband.

(3.) An extent of Ac. 19.49 guntas in Sy. Nos. 6602, 788, 984.A, 1005, 747 and 705 situated at Bodduvanipalem village of Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam district had fallen to the share of her husband. Respondent No. 4 was also a successor to the share of the properties that had fallen to the share of her husband. An extent of Ac. 17.29 guntas in Sy. Nos. 716.A, 604, 744, 846, 766, 767, 748, 716.C and 4782 had fallen to the share of the husband of respondent No. 4. After the death of the respondent No. 4's husband, the 4th respondent, with the connivance of the revenue officials, got tampered the Resettlement Registers and fabricated the pattadar pass books, Ryotwari pass books and title deeds. The 4th respondent filed a suit being O.S No. 213 of 1989 in the Court of Addl. District Munsiff, Addanki against the husband of 1st petitioner and petitioner No. 2 for injunction. The suit was dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court was confirmed in AS No. 47 of 1996. A second appeal was also filed being S.A No. 551 of 2001 which was also dismissed. While dismissing the second appeal the High Court observed that the 4th respondent was at liberty to file a suit for declaration and possession. So far the 4th respondent has not filed any suit. It was further submitted by the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1's husband, on 29/8/1989, had executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner No. 2 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 984.A, admeasuring Ac. 1.00 vide document bearing No. 1078 of 1989 towards Pasupu Kumkum and also alienated an extent of Ac. 3.00 of land in Sy. No. 984.A vide registered sale deed bearing document No. 1072, dt. 28/8/1989 in favour of petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 2 was given pattadar pass books, ryotwari pass book and title deeds by the revenue authorities in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 4.00 The petitioners got issued a legal notice to the respondents 2 and 3 through their counsel asking them to cancel the pattadar pass book and title deeds in respect of Sy. No. 747, 705, 984.A, 1005 and 984, admeasuring Ac. 3.51, 3.65, 5.82,2.45 and 4.00 guntas respectively which had been issued in favour of the 4th respondent. They also sought issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour. The 2nd respondent, after due enquiry in the matter, cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the 4th respondent and directed the 3rd respondent to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2. Accordingly pattadar pass book and title deeds were issued in favour of the 1st petitioner in respect of land in Sy. Nos. 747, 705, 984-A, 1005, admeasuring Ac. 3.51, 3.15,1.82 and 2.45 guntas respectively and the petitioner No. 2 was issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of land in Sy. No. 984.A, admeasuring Ac. 4.00 vide orders dt. 28/5/2001 in D.Dis No. 450 of 2001. The 4th respondent, feeling aggrieved of the order of 2nd respondent, filed a revision before the 1st respondent who stated that the matter was sub-judice, therefore the revision could not be entertained. The 4th respondent filed a writ petition being W.P No. 16142 of 2001 which was disposed of on 4/9/2001 with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the matter afresh. The 1st respondent, vide order dt. 25/5/2002, disposed of the revision keeping the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in abeyance. This order of abeyance was challenged by way of the writ petition which has now been dismissed by the learned single Judge and the order of the 1st respondent has been upheld. Therefore the appeal.