Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Varalakshmamma vs State Of Gujarat And on 19 November, 2024
APHC010084752024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 4949/2024
Between:
1. VARALAKSHMAMMA, W/O. LATE SRI NARASIMHAPPA AGED
ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
2. SMT. BHUDEVAMMA,, W/O. LATE SRI NAGIREDDY, AGED ABOUT
60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
3. SMT. VARADAMMA,, W/O. LATE YERRAGUNTAPPA, AGED ABOUT
58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
VIRUPASAMUDRARN VILLAGE, H/O. VALASA VILLAGE,
AMARAPURAM (M), SATYA SAI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT., SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SATYASAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTI.
3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SATYASAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTI.
4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SATYASAI
DISTRICT.
5. THE TAHSILDAR, AMARAPURAM MANDAL, SATYA SAI DISTRICT.
6. NAGENDRAPPA, , S/O. YERRAGUNTAPPA, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC.
AGRICULTURE, R/O. VIRUPASAMUDRARN VILLAGE, H/O. VALASA
VILLAGE, AMARAPURAM MANDAL, SATYA SAI DISTRICT.
2
GRKP,J
W.P.No.4949 of 2024
7. ADIMURTHY, S/O. YERRAGUNTAPPA, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC.
AGRICULTURE, R/O. VIRUPASAMUDRARN VILLAGE, H/O. VALASA
VILLAGE, AMARAPURAM MANDAL, SATYA SAI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M CHINNAPA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M KARIBASAIAH
2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of Sri M. Chinnapa Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, Sri K.
Arjun Chowdary, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri M.Karibasaiah, Learned
Counsel appearing for the Unofficial Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following prayer:
” It is prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue any writ,
order or direction preferably a writ in a nature of mandamus declaring
the order in proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in
Rc.No.1647/2020/D4 dated 24.12.2022 passed by the 3 rd respondent in
so far as directing the Tahsildar to keep the subject land in dispute
register as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of
the Constitution of India apart from the same is with jurisdiction and the
same is liable to be set-aside by this Hon‟ble Court and consequently
direct the respondent No.4 and 5 to restore the names of the petitioners
in revenue records i.e., 1B and Adangal in respect of the lands in
Sy.No.439 an extent of Ac.13.12 cents, Sy.No.21-1, 2, 3B, 1B extent of
Ac. 8.00 cents Sy.No.8-5-A2 an extent of Ac.0.43 cents, Sy.No.8-1 an
extent of Ac.2.75 cents, Sy.No.20-1B an extent of Ac.0.43 cents,
3
GRKP,J
W.P.No.4949 of 2024Sy.No.20-26 an extent of Ac.0.41 cents, Sy.No.124-1 an extent of
Ac.0.18 cents, Sy.No.125-8 an extent of Ac.0.17 cents and Sy.No.125-
3-B an extent of Ac.0.74 cents i.e., total extent of Ac.26.55 cents
situated in Valasa Village, Amarapuram Mandal, Satya Sai District and
to pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, Learned Counsel briefed by Sri M.Chinnapa
Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, has submitted that the
issues which arise in the present case are two fold: (i) that the Joint Collector
does not have the jurisdiction to entertain and pass the impugned Order under
Section 9 of the Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred as „the Act‟); and, (ii) that the impugned Order passed by
the Joint Collector dated 24.12.2022 bearing Rc.No.1647/2020/D4 has
prejudiced the Writ Petitioner in as much as the Writ Petitioner has been
prevented from availing crop loans.
4. From the Record, the genesis of the case appears to be that there is a
Partition Suit subsisting between the Writ Petitioners and the unofficial
respondents herein. Although no details have been furnished by the Writ
Petitioners in respect of the Suit bearing O.S.No.39 of 2013 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, in the impugned Order, at para-3 under head
“Brief History of the case”, the Joint Collector has referred to the pendency of
the above Suit. The Writ Petitioners have stated in the Affidavit filed in support
of the Writ Petition that the Suit is pending and that in view of the Impugned
Order where the Joint Collector has directed the Revenue Authorities to place
the subject land in Dispute Register, the Writ Petitioners are unable to renew
4
GRKP,J
W.P.No.4949 of 2024
their Crop loans within the stipulated time. In Para-9 and 10 of the Affidavit
filed in support of the Writ Petition, it has been clearly stated that the
Petitioners are unable to renew their Crop loans till the finalization of the
Partition Suit bearing O.S.No.39 of 2013 and that the same has been pending
adjudication for the last eleven (11) years. It is also submitted that the
Petitioners have obtained the Crop loans earlier by mortgaging the subject
lands with Canara Bank, Valasa, Satya Sai District and that for the current
renewal, the Banker is insisting the Writ Petitioners to furnish the latest 1-B so
as to enable the Bankers to renew the Crop Loan within the stipulated time
and also to avail benefits i.e., Crop Insurance and other benefits issued by the
Government from time to time.
5. The instant lis between the Parties is to the effect that some of the Suit
subject lands are recorded in the Revenue Records in the name of the Writ
Petitioners herein and that the Writ Petitioners have obtained Pattadar Pass
Books and Title Deeds relating to their respective shares. The Unofficial
Respondents herein (Plaintiffs in the Suit) have approached the Revenue
Divisional Officer by filing an Appeal bearing Rc.No.1908/2019/B seeking
cancellation of the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds which were issued to
the Petitioners in pursuance of the proceedings of the Tahsildar. The Sub-
Collector, having considered the fact that a Suit for Partition is pending
between the Parties, had rejected the Appeal with an observation that the
Parties may approach the Competent Authority for necessary mutation based
on the final outcome in the Suit vide Order passed by the Sub-Collector dated
5
GRKP,J
W.P.No.4949 of 2024
27.12.2019 (Ex.P3). Having been aggrieved by this Order passed by the Sub-
Collector dated 27.12.2019, the Unofficial Respondents herein have filed
Revision Petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 bearing
Rc.No.1647/2020/D4. The Joint Collector, having considered the observations
made by the Sub-Collector in the Impugned Order therein dated 27.12.2019,
was pleased to uphold the observations/directions rendered by the Sub-
Collector and had further directed the Tahsildar, Amarapuram to keep the
subject lands in the „Dispute Register‟ against O.S.No.39 of 2013 till the
disposal of the Civil Suit. It is further observed that action shall be taken based
on the Civil Court Orders. The Operative portion of the Order is usefully
extracted hereunder:
” ORDER:
1. The orders passed by the Sub-Collector, Penukonda
Rc.No.1908/2019/B, dt: 30.12.2019 are hereby upheld.
2. The Tahsildar, Amarapuram is hereby directed to keep the subject
lands in dispute register against O.S.No.39/2013 till the disposal of
the civil suit and action shall be taken based on the civil court
orders.
Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed off.”
6. Although, the Writ Petitioners are satisfied with the findings rendered by
the Sub-Collector dated 27.12.2019/30.12.2019 (Ex.P3) and the Proceedings
of the Joint Collector dated 24.12.2022 (Ex.P2), they were compelled to
approach this Court having been aggrieved by the 2 nd direction of the Joint
Collector (in the Impugned Order): directing the Tahsildar to keep the subject
lands in the Dispute Register against O.S.No.39 of 2013 till the disposal of the
6
GRKP,J
W.P.No.4949 of 2024
Civil Suit and that the action shall be taken based on the Civil Court Orders.
The Writ Petitioners are aggrieved by this observation, because, as stated in
Para Nos. 9 and 10 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, that
Writ Petitioners are unable to renew the Crop loans since the subject lands
are noted in the „Dispute Register‟. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would
submit that the Writ Petitioners have been availing Crop loans till now
because their names were mutated in the Revenue Records as well as
Petitioners were in possession of the Pattadar Pass Books and the Title
Deeds.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has assailed the second direction
given by the Joint Collector by contending that it is beyond the jurisdiction of
the Joint Collector but have issued such a direction to the Tahsildar to place
the subject lands in the Dispute Register till the final decision in the Partition
Suit on the ground that Section 9 of the Act, provision for Revision, does not
empower the Joint Collector to issue such directions in the Non-Revisional
jurisdiction. Section 9 of the Act of 1971 is usefully extracted hereunder:
” 9. Revision:- The Collector may either suo motu or on an application
made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording
Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under
Sections, 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or
maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or
propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in
respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision,
order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or
remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly:
Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall
be passed under the Section unless he had an opportunity of making a
representation.”
7
GRKP,J
W.P.No.4949 of 2024
8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the following
Judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court on the proposition that when a power is
conferred on an Authority, the said Authority shall either exercise the power in
the manner as provided by law or does not exercise such power at all:
(1) In Deepak Babaria and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and
Others: 2014 3 (SCC) 5021, Para No.61 of the Judgment is usefully
extracted hereunder:
“61. It is well settled that where the statute provides for a thing to be
done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and
in no other manner. This proposition of law laid down in Taylor v.
Taylor21 was first d adopted by the Judicial Committee in Nazir Ahmad
v. King Emperor22 and then followed by a Bench of three Judges of this
Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh 23. This
proposition was further explained in para 8 of State of U.P. v. Singhara
Singh24 by a Bench of three Judges in the following words: (AIR p. 361)“8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor21 is well
recognised and is founded on sound principle. Its
result is that if a statute has conferred a power to
do an act and has laid down the method in which
that power has to be exercised, it necessarily
prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner
than that which has been prescribed. The
principle behind the rule is that if this were not so,
the statutory provision might as well not f have
been enacted.”
This proposition has been later on reiterated in Chandra Kishore Jha v.
Mahavir Prasad25, Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka26 and
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd.27.”
(2) In T.Ravi and another Vs. B. Chinna Narasimha and others:
2017 7 SCC 3422, Para No.33 of the Judgment is usefully extracted
hereunder:
1
2014 3 (SCC) 502
2
2017 7 SCC 342
8
GRKP,J
W.P.No.4949 of 2024“33. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the sale was
subject to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the TP Act. It
was further submitted that the said provision is clear and unambiguous
and the statutory explanation to the provision makes it clear that the
pendency of the suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from
the date of presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding
in the court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or
proceeding has been disposed of by a decree or an order and complete
satisfaction of order or discharge of such order or decree has been
obtained or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of
any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof. Thus, the
transfer if any made in contravention of Section 52 renders it
subservient to the rights of the parties in litigation so that the rights
would eventually be determined in a suit. Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v.
Nanak Builders and Investors (P) Ltd.19 has been relied on in which this
Court has laid down thus: (SCC pp. 415-16. paras 26-29)
“26. It would also be worth discussing some of the relevant laws
in order to appreciate the case on hand. Section 52 of the
Transfer of Property d Act speaks about the doctrine of lis
pendens. Section 52 reads as under:
52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.-
During the pendency in any court having authority within the
limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or
established beyond such limits by the Central Government of
any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which
any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in
e question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise
dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to
affect the rights of any other party thereto under the decree
or order which may be made therein, except under the
authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, the pendency
of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from
the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of
the proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction, and to
continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by
a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or
discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has
become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any
period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by
any law for the time being in force.”
It is well settled that the doctrine of lis pendens is a doctrine
based on the ground that it is necessary for the administration of
9
GRKP,J
W.P.No.4949 of 2024
justice that the decision of a court in a suit should be binding not
only on the litigating parties but on those who derive title
pendente lite. The provision of this section does not indeed annul
the conveyance or the transfer otherwise, but to render it
subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation.
27. Discussing the principles of lis pendens, the Privy Council in
Gouri Dutt Maharaj v. Sk. Sukur Mohammed20 observed as
under: (SCC OnLine PC: IA p. 170)
“… The broad purpose of Section 52 is to maintain the status
quo unaffected by the act of any party to the litigation
pending its determination. The applicability of the section
cannot depend on matters of proof or the strength or
weakness of the case on one side or the other in bona fide
proceedings. To apply any such test is to misconceive the
object of the enactment and, in the view of the Board, the
learned Subordinate Judge was in error in this respect in
laying stress, as he did, on the fact that the agreement of 8-
6-1932, had not been registered.’
28. In Kedar Nath Lal v. Ganesh Ram²¹ this Court referred the
earlier decision in Samarendra Nath Sinha v. Krishna Kumar
Nag22 and observed: (Kedar Nath Lal case21, SCC p. 792, para
17)
“17…. “16….. The purchaser pendente lite under this
doctrine is bound by the result of the litigation on the
principle that since the result must bind the party to it so
must it bind the person deriving his right, title and interest
from or through him. This principle is well illustrated in
Radhamadhub Holder v. Monohur Mookerji23 where the
facts were almost similar to those in the instant case. It is
true that Section 52 strictly speaking does not apply to
involuntary alienations such as court sales but it is well
established that the principle of lis pendens applies to such
alienations. (See Nilakant Banerji v. Suresh Chunder
Mullick24 and Moti Lal v. Karrab-ul-Din25.)” (Samarendra
Nath case22, AIR p. 1445, para 16)’
29. The aforesaid Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act
again came up for consideration before this Court in Rajender
Singh v. Santa Singh26 and their Lordships with approval of the
principles laid down in Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami27
reiterated: (Rajender Singh case26, SCC p. 711. para 15)
“15. The doctrine of lis pendens was intended to strike at
10
GRKP,J
W.P.No.4949 of 2024
attempts by parties to a litigation to circumvent the
jurisdiction of a court, in which a dispute on rights or
interests in immovable property is pending by private
dealings which may remove the subject-matter of litigation
from the ambit of the court’s power to decide a pending
dispute or frustrate its decree. Alienees acquiring any
immovable property during a litigation over it are held to be
bound, by an application of the doctrine, by the decree
passed in the suit even though they may not have been
impleaded in it. The whole object of the doctrine of lis
pendens is to subject parties to the litigation as well as
others, who seek to acquire rights in immovable property,
which are the subject-matter of a litigation, to the power and
jurisdiction of the court so as to prevent the object of a
pending action from being defeated.” “
9. It is an admitted fact that the subject lands are part of the Suit Schedule
Property and that there is a lis for Partition subsisting between the Writ
Petitioners and the Unofficial Respondents herein. Notwithstanding the fact
that the names of the Writ Petitioners are recorded in the Revenue records
and that the Writ Petitioners have obtained the Pattadar Pass Books, finally
the ownership shall be determined by the Civil Court in the Partition Suit and
that at this stage, it is beyond anyone‟s comprehension as to how a
Preliminary Decree and Final Decree would be passed by the Competent Civil
Court. It may be a fact that the Writ Petitioners have been availing crop loans
and also have been renewing the crop loans from year to year till now. But the
fact remains that the Writ Petitioners were availing such facilities by
mortgaging the subject land with the Canara Bank (as stated in the Para-10 of
the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition).
10. On perusal of the Provision, this Court is of the opinion that the
Collector or the Joint Collector acting on behalf of the Collector, as in the
11
GRKP,J
W.P.No.4949 of 2024present case, has power to modify or annul or reverse or remit the matter for
reconsideration after satisfying himself with regard to the facts of the case
before him.
11. Having considered the above Provision, this Court is of the opinion that
the Judgments cited by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would not
apply to the facts of the present case in as much as the Joint Collector has
acted within the powers conferred on him under Section 9 of the Act of 1971.
In so far as the sudden inconvenience caused to the Writ Petitioners on
amount of second direction in the Impugned Order, this Court, having noticed,
the averments made by the Writ Petitioners in Para No.10 of the Affidavit filed
in support of the Writ Petition, wherein it has been categorically stated that the
Writ Petitioners were mortgaging the subject lands for availing crop loans as
well as for renewal of crop loans and for the other benefits, this Court is of the
opinion that the second direction issued by the Joint Collector in the Impugned
Order was very much necessary for safeguarding the interests and rights of all
the parties. This is because it would only ensure that the subject land shall not
be put in any kind of „peril‟ not only by the Writ Petitioners but also by the
Unofficial Respondents. The effect of placing the property/land in the „Dispute
Register‟ by indicating the reason of the pendency of the Partition Suit, as in
this case, it is to protect the interest of the rival parties and to ensure that the
rightful owner would have the right to approach the Authorities basing on the
finality in the Civil Court Orders.
12
GRKP,J
W.P.No.4949 of 2024
12. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is no
infirmity in the Impugned Order. The Joint Collector has rightly directed the
Tahsildar to keep the subject lands in the Dispute Register till the disposal of
O.S.No. 39 of 2013 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit.
13. Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
_________________________________
GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, JDt:19.11.2024
UPS