D. SUDHAKAR REDDY Vs. THE JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the Orders of Joint Collector passed in file No.F3/5382/2007-F3/36/ROR/2007, dated 26.06.2008, whereby the learned Joint Collector has set aside the Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, (in short, 'R.D.O.'), in file No.A3/2385/05, dated 31.05.2007.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioners who claim to be the legal heirs of one Sri Ranga Reddy, the original owner and pattedar of the land in Sy.No.15, admeasuring Acs.18.01 gts., situated at Osman Nagar Village, Ramachandrapur Mandal, Medak District. The said Sri Ranga Reddy was survived by a son " Hanmanth Reddy, and after the death of Hanmanth Reddy, the property devolved on the writ petitioners as well as respondents No.5 to 9. On verification of the revenue records, Sy.No.15 was sub-divided into Sy.No.15/E for an extent of Acs.5.20 gts., and the name of the respondent No.4 herein was incorporated in pattadar as well as possessor columns. The further case of the petitioners is that no notice was issued to the petitioners nor any enquiry was conducted by the M.R.O., before incorporating the name of the respondent No.4 herein i.e. G.Laxma Reddy in the revenue records and the same is without any legal basis, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbook Act, 1971 (in short, 'ROR Act'), and therefore, the same is non est in the eye of law.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal before the R.D.O., and the said appeal was numbered as A3/2385/2005. After issuance of the notice to the respondent No.4, the 4th respondent filed his counter stating that original landlord Sri Ranga Reddy had one daughter by name Ratnamma and one son by name Hanmanth Reddy. During the life time of Hanmanth Reddy, the respondents No.5 to 9 herein have agreed to give a share to the daughter of Ranga Reddy in the ancestral property and pursuant to the same, they have deposed before the revenue authorities on 20.04.1986. Based on the said statement made by respondents No.5 to 9, the mutation was effected in the name of Veera Reddy, the father of the respondent No.4, who is none other than the husband of Ratnamma. The M.R.I., who inspected the spot, had found that the respondent No.4 was in physical possession and enjoyment of the subject land and the respondent No.4, in turn, has sold the land in favour of one Ravi Kumar through registered sale deed, dated 21.09.2005. It is further contended that the appeal was filed by the petitioners after lapse of almost 15 years and the same is barred by limitation. As a matter of fact, the appeal ought to have been filed within a period of sixty days. It is further contended that the petitioners and their fathers, who are arrayed as respondents No.5 to 9, are all well aware of all these proceedings before the revenue authorities and at no point of time, they have raised any dispute regarding the corrections made in the year 1986 itself. The respondent No.4 is in physical possession and enjoyment of the property, and his name continued in the revenue records right from the year 1990-91 and pattedar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in the name of the respondent No.4.