B PUSHPAMMA Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the first petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 are children of one anjaiah, who is none other than the brother of the fourth respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that the property in survey Nos. 304, 362 and 392 admeasuring ac. 26.27 guntas in regadi doswada village in shahbad mandal of ranga reddy district and other lands originally belonged to one balaiah, the father of anjaiah and fourth respondent. After his death, according to the petitioners, the property was partitioned by an unregistered partition deed dated 9-5-1963 and the land (hereafter called, subject land) fell to the share of anjaiah, that anjaiah made an application to the third respondent for regularisation of the partition deed under Section 5-a of A.P. rights in land and pattadar pass books act, 1971 (the act, for brevity), that by order dated 08-02-1996, mandal revenue officer issued proceedings regularizing the unregistered partition deed, and aggrieved by the same, the fourth respondent unsuccessfully filed appeal before the second respondent, which was dismissed on 21-09-1996, whereafter at the behest of the fourth respondent while exercising power of revision under Section 9 of the act, the first respondent set aside the orders of the mandal revenue officer and revenue divisional officer relegating the parties to civil court, aggrieved by the said Order, the present writ petition is filed. Be it noted, when the matter was pending before the mandal revenue officer, anjaiah died and the petitioners herein pursued the matter as his legal representatives.

(2.) this court while admitting the writ petition on 22-6-2004 suspended the impugned order of the first respondent. Thereafter the fourth respondent filed an application being W.P.m.p. No. 20260 of 2004 praying this court to expedite hearing of the writ petition. Having regard to the fact that the fourth respondent is 86 years of age, this court directed the matter to be posted for final hearing on 25-10-2004 and ultimately the matter came up for hearing to-day.

(3.) learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. A. Jayanthi, submits that the impugned order of the joint collector is vitiated by error apparent on the face of record. In substantiation of the said submission, she contends that after partition, both the brothers filed declaration before the land reforms tribunal in c.c. No. 1087/ch/75, and c.c. No. 2438/ch/75 showing the entire subject land, and the land reforms tribunal after conducting enquiry rejected the claim of the fourth respondent and accepted the claim of anjaiah, and that thereafter he had filed an application before the third respondent. She would urge that the application was contested by the fourth respondent, and after considering the evidence, the third respondent ordered mutation in favour of anjaiah to the extent of his share and the order does not suffer from any infirmity. She also would contend that when the third respondent has acted on the partition deed and ordered regularisation under Section 5-a of the act, it was improper for the joint collector to come to a conclusion that there is a dispute regarding the title to the property.