M. MAHALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the orders dtd. 14/9/2022 passed in case No.D.Dis.D1/365/2022 by respondent no.2 confirming the orders dtd. 23/12/2020 passed by respondent no.3 in D.Dis.G/4474/2019 as well as the orders dtd. 23/12/2019 passed in proceedings Roc.73/2019 by respondent no.4.

(2.) The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that the land in an extent of Ac.0-60 cents in Survey No.134/3, Ac.0-28 cents in Survey No.134/4, Ac.0-27 cents in Survey No.134/5, Ac.0-38 cents in Survey No.134/6 and Ac.0-42 cents in Survey No.134/9-total Ac.1-95 cents (hereinafter, referred to as, 'the subject property') is the ancestral property of the petitioners and name of husband of petitioner no.1 was entered in revenue records as pattadar and enjoyer and the subject property and pattadar and title deed passbooks were issued in his name. Consequent to death of husband of petitioner no.1, the petitioners being legal heirs came into possession of the property. It is the further case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 borrowed Rs.2,00,000.00 from one Madduru Muni Govindaiah and executed registered mortgage deed by conditional sale dtd. 21/9/2025. Respondent no.5 filed suit in O.S.No.54 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur against the petitioners and Madduru Muni Govindaiah/Mortgagee for redemption of mortgage and permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed. Appeal preferred against the said orders vide A.S.No.36 of 2016 was also dismissed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. Thereafter, respondent no.5 preferred second appeal vide S.A.No.949 of 2017 on the file of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and later respondent no.5 withdrew the same stating that respondent no.5 and Muni Govindaiah/ Mortgagee compromised the matter. It is the further case of the petitioners that they paid an amount of Rs.8,21,400.00 towards principal amount and interest to Mortgagee and got cancellation of Mortgage deed by conditional sale dtd. 21/9/2005 vide document No.3988/2018, dtd. 28/8/2018. Thereafter, they made an application in Form 6-A to respondent no.4 for mutation and for issuance of e-passbook. The said application was rejected by respondent no.4 vide proceedings Roc.No.73/2019, dtd. 23/12/2019. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred appeal before respondent no.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, for cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of respondent no.5. Respondent no.3 without considering the grounds of appeal and also the judgments passed in O.S.No.54 of 2007 and A.S.No.36 of 2012 and cancellation of mortgage deedcum-conditional sale, held that there are rival claims between the appellants and respondent no.5 and advised the petitioners to approach civil Court. Assailing the said orders, the petitioners preferred revision under Sec. 9 of A.P.Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (hereinafter, referred to as, 'the Act,1971) before respondent no.2-Joint Collector and the said revision was also dismissed vide orders dtd. 14/9/2022. When the Competent Civil Courts in suit as well as Appeal Suit filed by respondent no.5 held that the agreement of sale and sale deed projected by respondent no.5 are invalid and accordingly dismissed those proceedings holding that respondent no.5 has neither title nor possession over the subject land, the revenue authorities cannot decline the request made by the petitioners for mutation of their names and issuance of pattadar and title deed passbooks. The orders passed by primary, appellate as well as revisional authorities are unsustainable and against to the findings arrived at by the competent civil Court. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) The official respondents filed counter-affidavit through respondent no.4-Tahsildar denying the material averments of the writ affidavit further contending that basing on the material available on record and considering the facts that though the petitioners are parties in all the civil proceedings, title over the subject property was not declared in their favour, that the second appeal filed before this Court was settled out of the Court in view of the compromise held between respondent no.5 and Muni Govindaiah/Mortgagor, that the Mortgagee had also given no objection to grant pattadar passbook in favour of respondent no.5 and that the petitioners did not challenge the orders passed in Second Appeal No.949 of 2017; the respondent no.2-Joint Collector dismissed the revision petition. There is no illegality nor procedural impropriety in passing the orders. There are no merits in this writ petition to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.