LAWS(APH)-2008-11-51

VEERAMACHANENI RAMCHANDER RAO Vs. TAHSILDAR CHITYAL MANDAL NALGONDA

Decided On November 27, 2008
VEERAMACHANENI RAMCHANDER RAO Appellant
V/S
TAHSILDAR CHITYAL MANDAL NALGONDA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners purchased land admeasuring Acs. 8. 04 guntas in Survey Nos. 276 and 278/a situated at Pedda Kaparthi Village of Chityal Mandal in Nalgonda District under two registered sale deeds, dated 18. 12. 2003 and 20. 12. 2003. On an application made by petitioners, first respondent mutated their names in revenue records and also issued Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds (PPBs/tds ). Second respondent is daughter of petitioners' vendor, Smt. Danamma. Second respondent filed a suit being O. S. No. 50 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, for partition and separate possession. Petitioners herein are defendants 2 and 3 therein. Learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit on 21. 7. 2008. After obtaining copy of the same, second respondent approached first respondent for implementing the judgment under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity) and Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (the Rules, for brevity ). By impugned proceedings, dated 21. 8. 2008,' first respondent purportedly sanctioned partition in favour of second respondent apportioning half of the land admeasuring Acs. 4. 02 guntas in her favour. He also gave a direction to petitioners to surrender their PPBs/tds for rectification.

(2.) AT the stage of admission itself, second respondent appeared and filed counter- affidavit. Learned Assistant Government Pleader obtained instructions from first respondent and made submissions.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, passed decree on 21. 7. 2008 and second respondent made application on 15. 8. 2008. Impugned order was issued on 21. 8. 2008 without waiting for forty five days. If this ground can be sustained on its own without anything else, the impugned order must go. However, this point would be incidental to the main point raised by learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned Counsel for second respondent.