BAYABABOYINA SREENIVASULU Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR, KADAPA DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None appeared for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that their grandfather and the father of respondent Nos.4 and 5 jointly purchased the land of an extent of Acs.6.09 cents in five Survey numbers i.e., i) Survey No.1093/2 (Ac.0.86 cents), ii) Survey No.1092/P (Acs.2.62 cents), iii) Survey No.345/2 (P) (Acs.1.11 cents), iv) Survey No.345/4 (Acs.0.56 cents) and v) Survey No.343/1 (Ac.0.94 cents) from one Lavanuru Obanna and others of B.T.Pally Village, Kadapa District, in the year 1935 under a registered sale deed dated 06.11.1935. Thereafter, there was an oral partition between the petitioners' father and father of respondent Nos.4 and 5 dividing the said property into two equal shares. After partition, the petitioners have been in possession of the following extent i.e., i) Survey No.1093/2 consisting of Ac.0.86 cents, out of which the petitioners are enjoying Ac.0.43 cents each equally, ii) Survey No.1092/P consisting of Acs.2.62 cents and each is enjoying equally, iii) Survey No. 345/2 (P) consisting of Acs.1.11 cents, and each is enjoying equally, iv) Survey No.345/4 consisting of Acs.0.56 cents and v) Survey No.343/1 consisting of Ac.0.94 cents. The share of the petitioners to an extent of Ac.0.28 cents was gifted by the respondents 4 and 5 along with their share in the year 1975 to the Zilla Parishad School without the consent of the petitioners. It is their further case though their share in the said extent of Ac.0.56 cents of land in Survey No.345/4 was gifted to Zilla Parishad High School by respondent Nos.4 and 5 without their consent, since it was for a public purpose, they did not question the same.

(3.) WHILE so, after the death of the father of the petitioners in the year 1995, the property, which fell to the share of the petitioners, was partitioned and in the said partition, the land of an extent of Ac.0.47 cents in Survey No.343/1 fell to the share of the first petitioner under a family arrangement dated 31.03.1998. Thereafter, the first petitioner approached the third respondent for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the land allotted to him. The third respondent, after issuing notice to all the parties, including respondent Nos.4 and 5, and after conducting thorough enquiry, issued pattadar pass books and title deeds to the petitioners in the month of June 1998, including the land of an extent of Ac.0.47 cents in Survey No.343/1. Based on the said documents, the first petitioner obtained bank loans from Rayalaseema Grameena Bank and DCC Bank, B.T.Pally. While so, the petitioners were surprised to receive a notice from the office of the second respondent in proceedings ROR.No.1755/2002 in the year 2003. When they approached the second respondent they came to know about the petition filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 for cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the first petitioner in respect of land in Survey No.343/1, which was entertained by the first respondent, and remitted to the second respondent. Though the petitioners produced all the documents before the second respondent, the second respondent without conducting an enquiry, disposed of the petition directing the third respondent to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds granted in favour of the first petitioner in respect of land of an extent of Ac.0.47 cents in Survey No.343/1 on the ground that the competent Civil Court has granted decree in O.S.No.139 of 1991 in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the same is binding upon the petitioners. Challenging the said orders of the second respondent, the petitioners preferred a revision before the first respondent along with a stay application and when the said proceedings were pending before the first respondent, the third respondent issued an order of cancellation by proceedings dated 10.06.2004. When the petitioners filed W.P.No.14380 of 2004 before this Court challenging the action of the first respondent in not disposing of the stay application in the revision petition, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 16.08.2004 directing the first respondent to dispose of the said application within a period of one week. However, the first respondent dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the orders of the second respondent by his order dated 09.05.2005. Challenging the orders of the second respondent dated 30.04.2003, as confirmed by the first respondent by order dated 09.05.2005, the present Writ Petition was filed.