PRATAP C. JOSISHER Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of 2nd respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Anantapur District, in holding enquiry to decide the possession and title of the lands belonging to the petitioner purportedly exercising powers and jurisdiction under Sec. 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, "the Act"), vide proceedings in Rc. No.CCH/1743/2007, despite the judgment, dtd. 30/9/2002 in O.S. No.7 of 1996 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, confirmed by judgment, dtd. 22/2/2006 in A.S. No.1 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Hindupur, and further confirmed by judgment, dtd. 20/11/2006, in Second Appeal No.822 of 2006 of this Court, as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and consequently, sought to quash the said proceedings, which were initiated at the instance of the 4th respondent.

(2.) (a) Petitioner claims to be absolute owner and to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.1847.67 cents in Survey Nos.80-1, 81, 93, 65, 83, 73-2, 97, 94, 67 and 99 of Gudipalli village and Survey No.733-2 of Somandepalli Village and Somandepalli Mandal, Anantapur District. 4th respondent and his farther filed O.S.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, seeking perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner and others from interfering in any manner with the management, administration and possession of the factory viz., Bhanusali Sissal Fibre Industry and Plantations and properties mentioned therein which include those referred above. Petitioner being 1st defendant therein denied the title and possession of the plaintiffs and on contest, the said Suit was dismissed vide judgment, dtd. 30/9/2002. The learned trial Court has categorically recorded finding that the plaintiffs were not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and on the other hand based on the admission of PW.1, none other than the father of the 4th respondent herein, Court found that the defendants were in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Pending Suit, 1st plaintiff, father of 4th respondent herein, died. Respondents 5 to 8 herein came on record as plaintiff's legal heirs. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Suit, they preferred A.S. No.1 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Hindupur, which eventually got dismissed by judgment, dtd. 22/2/2006, confirming the findings rendered by the learned trial Court and in particular that plaintiffs therein were not in possession of the plaint schedule property. Matter was carried in second appeal before this Court in S.A. No.822 of 2006 and the same was also dismissed, vide judgment, dtd. 20/11/2006, by observing that in case if the appellants felt that possession of respondents therein was illegal, liberty was granted to file a Suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. Taking clue from such observation, respondents 4 to 8 filed O.S. No.19 of 2007 on the file the learned Additional District Judge, Hindupur, for declaration of title to suit schedule property and for grant of consequential injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and/or alternatively in the event, learned Court comes to conclusion that defendants were in possession of the plaint schedule property, sought for delivery of the same. That being so, petitioner sought for amendment of revenue records based on the judgments in O.S. No.7 of 1996; A.S. No.1 of 2003 and S.A. No.822 of 2006 for inclusion of his name and deletion of name of 4th respondent and his father.

(3.) This Court while issuing notice before admission on 29/9/2008 passed the following order: