P.ANJANEYULU GUPTA Vs. MOHD ABDUL BASITH KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed with identical grievance against the same proceeding of the Joint Collector (J), Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Joint Collector').

(2.) There is a serious dispute among the petitioners in these writ petitions and the private respondents with respect to the land in Survey No.69 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Based on the preliminary decree, dated 29.12.2000, in O.S.No.38 of 1993, on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District filed for partition, the private respondents have approached the Joint Collector invoking his revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') for mutation of their names in the record of rights. Though the petitioners in either of the writ petitions were not made parties to the revision petition, the petitioners in W.P.No.8958 of 2013 filed their objections, both on merits and also on the maintainability of the revision petition before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector by the impugned order, while holding that the private respondents are entitled for mutation of their names in the records of rights as pattadars for the patta land in Survey No.69 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in terms of the civil Court's decree, directed the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District to take necessary action on the claim of the private respondents for effecting mutation as per the decree of the civil Court duly following the procedure and protecting the Government's interest, if any.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions have questioned the impugned order on two grounds, namely, (1) that the very revision petition itself is not maintainable as the private respondents have not approached the primary authority i.e., the Tahsildar, Serilingampally under Section 4 of the Act and that therefore, there was no occasion for the private respondents to approach the Joint Collector by invoking his revisional jurisdiction and (2) that even on merits, no rights of the parties have been finally adjudicated in the civil suit, as the basis for the claim of the private respondents for mutation of their names in the revenue records was a preliminary decree in a partition suit and that unless final decree allotting properties by dividing by metes and bounds is passed, the rights of the private respondents will not be crystallised and that on such inchoate rights, the private respondents cannot claim mutation.