LAWS(APH)-2013-6-102

ERUKALA UMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On June 24, 2013
Erukala Uma Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is referred to the Division Bench on reference by a learned single Judge by order dated 04.06.2013, as the learned single Judge has expressed inability to concur with the opinion of another learned single Judge in V. Goutham Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagital, Karimnagar, 2003 1 ALD 681. We have heard Sri P.V. Narayana Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the Respondents. We have also perused the order of reference as well as the judgment of the learned single Judge in V. Goutham Rao's case referred to above.

(2.) The writ petitioner questions the notice issued by the, Collector, Karimnagar in File No. D1/3994/2012, dt. 08.11.2012. The said notice called upon the petitioner to respond to the Revision Petition filed by the 2nd Respondent under Sec. 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'ROR Act' or 'the Act'), seeking correction of entries in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.12-21 guntas in Sy. No. 515/1, of Kurikyal village, Karimnagar District.

(3.) The writ petition was primarily filed questioning the jurisdiction of the Collector under Sec. 9 of the Act on the ground that a civil suit O.S. No. 71 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, was filed by one llineni Rajeshwar Rao against the 2nd Respondent herein, is pending. According to the petitioner, a common written statement was filed by the 2nd Respondent in the said suit admitting the possession and ownership of the petitioner herein. It is also stated that the petitioner figured as 5th Defendant and the 2nd Respondent as 2nd Defendant in the said suit. It is also stated that in the said written statement 2nd Respondent has admitted that the Revenue Records show the name of petitioner herein as duly recorded in the pahanies and while the said suit is pending, the 2nd Respondent filed the aforesaid revision before the Collector seeking correction of entries in the pahanies from 1995-96 to 2011-12. Since the aforesaid suit is pending between the parties, entertaining the revision under Sec. 9 of the ROR Act, at the instance of the 2nd Respondent, is therefore challenged on the ground that the revisional authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision, when the issue is seized of by the Civil Court. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the decision of V. Goutham Rao's case, V GOUTHAM RAO V/S REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, 2003 1 ALD 681 .