YELAGANI PAPAIAH SON Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in proceedings no. D5/8031/1993 dated 05. 03. 2001 passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books act, 1971 (for brevity, 'the Act'), is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE facts of the case, as reflected in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are that one Smt. Shetti Sharanamma was the pattadar of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 8. 01 gunta in Najeeb Nagar Village of Moinabad mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The father of the petitioner No. 1 and respondents 4 to 7, namely late Sri Shankaraiah, is said to have been the Protected Tenant in respect of this land. Owing to the default committed by the pattadar, smt. Shetti Sharanamma, in payment of arrears, the Tashildar, Chevella, put the land to auction under the Revenue Recovery Act and the petitioner No. 1 participated in the said auction on 26. 08. 1967 and became the highest bidder. According to him, after he deposited the sale consideration, the then Tahsildar put him in possession of the property on the date of the auction. He claims to have made an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chevella, Moinabad mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the third respondent in the writ petition, under the Act and in pursuance thereof, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chevella, issued a validation certificate dated 14. 11. 1990 under Section 5-A of the Act, in Form 13 (B) proforma with a Form 13 (C) proforma appended thereto. It is stated that the respondent No. 5 herein, being aggrieved by the issuance of the said proceedings, filed a Revision Petition before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district, the first respondent in the writ petition. It is further stated that the petitioner No. 1 gifted an extent of Ac. 2. 00 guntas out of the subject land to his wife, petitioner No. 2 herein and put her in possession. Meanwhile, the proceedings impugned in the writ petition were passed by the Joint Collector, ranga Reddy District, setting aside the proceedings issued by the Mandal Revenue officer, Chevella, which led to the filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioners that they are in possession of the property even as on the date of filing of the writ petition and the findings of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, are erroneous in law and on fact. The finding that the father of the petitioner No. 1 and respondents 4 to 7 was the actual owner of the property in question and accordingly all his sons, viz. , petitioner No. 1 and respondents 4 to 7, would have an equal share therein, is attacked on the ground that the father was not in a position to purchase the land in the auction held in the year 1967. The factum of the father's name being reflected in the revenue records is sought to be explained by stating that he was a Protected Tenant in respect of the said land and accordingly his name continued to be recorded in the said proceedings notwithstanding the events that transpired thereafter, including the purchase of the land by the petitioner no. 1. Accordingly, the petitioners sought for a writ in the nature of a certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings dated 05. 03. 2001 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and to quash the same on the grounds of illegality and arbitrariness.