IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16209 np 9nop AMARAVATI fo Mi O Between: Arekufi Sujatha, W/o. Sambi Reddy, aged' about Bank, Tadikonda Village, Tadikonda Mandal 51 years, R/o. Near SBH Guntur District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. The Joint Collector, Guntur District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, 5. The Tahsildar, Tadikonda Mandal Guntur District Guntur District 6. Damineni Venkateswarlu, S/o. Hanumaiah D.No.12-112, beside Ramalayam street, mandal, Guntur District. aged about 74 years, R/o Ponekallu village, Tadikonda 7. Damineni Ravi, S/o. venkateswarlu, aged about 52 years, R/o D No 12- 112, beside Ramalayam street, Ponekallu village, Tadikonda mandal Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the circumstances stated i be pleased to issue nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court a Writ, Order or direction may particularly one in the more declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in passing order in revision case Rc.No.2773/2021-D5 dated 16-05-2022 without proper verification of record also without considering settled law as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutiona l and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India in utter violation of earlier orders of this Hon'ble court and principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the order in revision case Rc.No..2773/2021-05 dated 16-05-2022. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to allow the Photostat copies of the entire bundle in WP No. 16209 of 2022 as well as counter and vacate the stay petition therein for reconstruction of bundle. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order in dated 16-05-2022 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 17-06-2022 passed in WP.No. 16209/2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ADITYA HARSHA VARDHAN REPRESENTING M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7: SRI PENUMAKA VENKATA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER Rc.No.2773/2021-D5 revision APHC010275932022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HnS-Vin [3332] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16209/2022 Between: Arekuti Sujatha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.PENUMAKA VENKATA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: Impugning the orders of the Joint Collector vide Rc.No.2773/2021 - D5 dated 16.05.2022, being without proper verification of record and without considering settled law, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Aditya Harsha Vardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2 Sri Penumaka Venkata Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 & 7 and Sri Venkata Satya Narayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the writ affidavit submitted that as against the mutation of entries made in favour of the unofficial respondents, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same allowed under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1971). Aggrieved by the same, the unofficial respondents herein preferred a revision before the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector, allowed the said revision vide impugned orders dated 16.05.2022 setting aside the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer in a casual way without proper application of mind and the same has not to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 3. was 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.6 & 7 in elaboration to what has been stated in the counter contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer, without having any right allowed the appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971, filed by the writ petitioner cancelling the entries in favour of respondent Nos.6 & 7 vide orders P- dated 13.07.2021. Questioning the said proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, unofficial respondent Nos.6 & 7 preferred and the revisional authority by duly taking into consideration the material available on record has rightly allowed the revision. He further contended that in fact the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.69 of 2015 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Guntur, for declaration of title and recovery of possession and the same is pending adjudication. It is settled principle that when a declaratory suit is pending before the trial Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer has no right to entertain ROR case. If at all the petitioner has any grievance against mutation of entries they can approach the revenue authorities subject to the outcome of the suit but cannot assail the same before this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. a revision 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader on the counter submitted that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to declare the rights of the property and it cannot be decided in the summary enquiry provided under the provisions of the Act, 1971. The Revenue Divisional Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding the title in favour of the petitioner herein. The Joint Collector taking due note of all the facts and material available on record has rightly allowed the revision by passing the impugned order. Further, once a declaratory suit is pending before the competent Civil Court, the revenue authorities are precluded from entertaining any ROR case. The petitioner has not raised any justifiable grounds warranting the interference of this Court, as such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Tadikonda Mandal, vide Rc.No.49/2020 dated 24.09.2020, mutating the names of the unofficial respondents in the revenue records, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, Guntur, vide ROR D.Dis.No.2982/2020-A. The said appellate authority/Revenue Divisional Officer, has set aside the Tahsildar proceedings by order dated 13.07.2021 against which the unofficial respondents herein preferred a revision before the Revisional Authority & Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Guntur. The Revisional Authority, after taking into consideration the flow of title and possession in favour of the Revision petitioners/respondent Nos.6 & 7 herein, allowed the revision by order dated 16.05.2022. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition is filed. 8. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the petitioner vide in O.S.No.69 of 2015 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Guntur, for declaration of title and recovery of possession is pending consideration. It is well settled that once a declaratory suit is pending before the competent Civil Court, the revenue authorities are precluded from entertaining ROR case in view of Section 8(2) of the Act, 1971. In fact, the said ground has been raised by the unofficial respondents herein before the Revisional Authority and the Revisional Authority after taking into consideration all these aspects came to a conclusion that the Revenue Divisional Officer has simply given a finding that the Tahsildar has issued proceedings without following the instructions issued by the District Collector. The Joint Collector after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the relevant legal principles under Section 9 of the Act, 1971, allowed the revision by setting aside the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelling the entries earlier recorded in the name of the unofficial respondents and directed the Tahsildar, Tadikonda to restore the same. 9. Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, reads as follows:- // any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 i 6 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration." In the case of V.Gowtham Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial, Karimnagar District\ relevant para reads as follows:- 10. "Under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act, there is a bar against filing of any suit against the Government or any Officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to any entry made in any record of rights or to have any such entry omitted or amended. However, under Sub-section (2) thereof, it specifically contemplates that any person aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by any entry in the record of rights, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act. Further it also states that the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. Therefore, ultimately it is the finding of the Civil Court which governs the field and which has to be given effect to by the authorities and make entries accordingly. It is not too late in the day to take judicial notice of proceedings being initiated under the provisions of the Act where either a civil proceedings is already pending or where a serious dispute of title is involved. Having regard to the fact that the authorities constituted under the aforesaid statute would not venture to go into such serious questions nor can decide thereupon, yet the parties are taking recourse to such proceedings. Ultimately after exhausting the remedies under the Act, the parties are approaching the Civil Court whereby there is any amount of duplication in the entire process apart from the time consumed thereunder. In the circumstances, wherever there is a serious dispute of title or claims of any rival title, it would not only be proper for the authorities to refrain from proceeding with the enquiries as such under the provisions of the Act but also pragmatic for the parties to approach the Civil Court for establishing their right, title and interest of whatsoever nature. Though the proceedings now are at the threshold i.e., at the stage of issuance of a show cause notice, but one cannot lose sight of the fact that ultimately the authorities would have to fall back on the finding of the Civil Court. In view of the same, the entire exercise by the authorities under the Act would be a mere farce and nugatory." In view of the above, civil disputes should be redressed by the Civil Courts only but not by the authorities under the Revenue Courts. If 11. a declaratory suit is pending, the revenue authorities are precluded from 2003 (1) ALT 615 '■ir'- 1 entertaining the grievances under ROR. In the present case, a declaratory suit is pending, in the said circumstances the revenue authorities are precluded from touching revenue records and they have to act subject to the outcome of suits before the Civil Court. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioners have not raised any appropriate and valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court, the writ petition can be disposed of by passing the following order: The petitioner is at liberty to approach the revenue authorities subject to the outcome of the suit in O.S.No.69 of 2015 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Guntur. It is needless to observe that the trial Court shall proceed with the suit uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made in this order.” 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER SEC To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. The Joint Collector, Guntur District 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District % 5. The Tahsildar, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District 6. One CC to M/s. Pillix Law Firm, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. One CC to Sri Penumaka Venkata Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Three CD Copies. gi HIGH COURT DATED:20/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.16209of 2022 X 2 6 MAR 2025 ^ a C® ^ . Current section DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS