MASHETTY VENKATESHAM Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 23.10.2004 as modified by order dated 29.3.2005. By impugned order dated 23.10.2004, the first respondent set aside the order of the second respondent dated 8.12.1999 in Case No.E/5793/98 and directed to delete the names of respondents 3 to 6 from the occupant's column in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.139, 180/A, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247 and 260 of Yeddumailaram Village from record of rights and further directed to record the name of Mashetty Venkatesham. During the pendency of the writ petition, Venkatesham died and, therefore, petitioners 2 and 3 came on record as legal heirs of deceased first petitioner. It is the case of the petitioners that the land in Survey Nos.139, 180, 241 to 243, 246, 247, 257, 259, 260, 289 and 290 situated at Yeddumailaram Village of Sangareddy Mandal in Medak District was purchased by Mashetty Venkatesham. Respondents 3 to 6 are children of brother of Venkatesham. They obtained mutation in the revenue records from the second respondent claiming the property to be joint family property of all brothers. Therefore, Venkatesham filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy (RDO). The application was referred to the second respondent. Respondents 3 to 6 also filed an application before the RDO alleging that they purchased the property from joint family funds. The said application was also referred to the second respondent, who passed orders on 8.12.1999 directing to enter the name of Venkatesham by deleting the names of respondents 3 to 6. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 3 to 6 filed a revision petition before the first respondent under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (RoR Act, for brevity). The first respondent allowed the revision petition taking into consideration the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal/Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms), Sangareddy, on the declaration filed by Venkatesham in which he declared the subject land to be joint family property. The first respondent also noticed that as the property was held by the joint family, the family does not hold any excess land under A.P. Land Reforms Laws. Subsequent to passing of the orders of the first respondent allowing the revision petition, respondents 3 to 6 filed another application requesting the first respondent specifically mention the survey numbers in the operative portion of the final orders issued. Accordingly, the second order dated 29.3.2005 was issued.

(2.) This matter came up for hearing at the interlocutory stage when W.V.M.P. No.1762 of 2006 filed by respondents 3 to 6 came up for enquiry. At that stage, this matter was heard finally and is being disposed of by this order.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 3 to 6 along with W.V.M.P. No.1762 of 2006 for vacating the interim order, it is stated that Mashetty Venkanna and his four sons, namely, Venkatesham, Pandurangam, Chukkaiah and Viswanadham constitute Hindu joint family. They own agricultural lands admeasuring Acs.45.07 cents in Survey Nos.7/A, 54, 55, 139, 180, 242, 246, 260 and 289, but after death of Mashetty Venkatesham, the joint family purchased land admeasuring Acs.41.00 in Survey Nos.139, 180, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247, 257, 259, 260, 289 and 290, in the name of the deceased first petitioner. The petitioner and three brothers filed individual declarations under the provisions of the A.P. Urban Land (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (ULC Act, for brevity) stating that each of them got 1/4th share in the lands. These declarations being C.C. Nos.2495, 2496, 2497 and 2498 of 1975 were duly considered by the LRT holding that all the four sons of late Venkanna had 1/4th share each and, therefore, the joint family does not own excess agricultural land. Therefore, Venkatesham cannot now claim that the properties are self acquired properties.