e11si24, 1:12AM. (eDJLaw Journal ‘This Product is Licensed to BMS College of Law, Bangalore @ coitawournal Citation : CDJ 2010 APHC 173 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Case No: Writ Appeal No.1980 of 2002 Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PV. SANJAY KUMAR, Parties : Ande Gangaiah (died) Per LRs & Another Versus M. Krishna Reddy & Others Appearing Advocates: For the Petitioner: K, Raghuveer Reddy, Counsel For the Respondent: E. Manobar, Senior Counsel, V, Hari Haran, Counsel, G.P. for Revenue. Date of Judgment : 23-10-2009 Head Note Constitution Of India — Article 226 - the ultimate question which boils down is whether the proceedings as initiated by the respondents | and 3 in the writ petition herein is valid - , having regard to the fact that there is no challenge in any manner in regard to those sale deeds which can be dated back to the year 1965 and the purchases made by Sri $.Prabhudas and Sm. Kamalamma and the title of these very persons as acquired by their son was transferred to the writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 herein under 4 different registered sale deeds, it can safely said that the writ petitioners are having the valid ttle traceable to their vendors. Whereas compared to the same, the appellants herein does not possess any valid piece of document to give effect to or transfer right, title of whatsoever nature in their favour. Therefore, it cannot be said that vised vis the claim put forth by the writ petitioners, under those registered purchases, the appellants hold any valid ttle nor can it be registered. Therefore, mere claim that their names were entered in the revenue records would in no way conifer any right. It is now well established that entries in the revenue records would not confer any right nor would take away any right existing in a rightfal owner. Thus, the restitution of rights could not have been interdicted in any manner nor can said to have been effected as set forth by the appellants herein, Though the appellants claim is based on entries in faisal patti and other pahanis etc., however, the correctness of all these entries would certainly rest upon the valid title held by the parties and not otherwise. As long as there exist a valid title by the vendors and there i a valid and genuine transfer without any blur or blemish, it cannot be said that the title of the writ petitioners can be in any manner lesser to that of the appellants herein. In fact, these registered documents only go to show that the wrt petitioners are having far better tile than the claim as set forth by the appellants herein, In these circumstances, as rightly held by the leamed Single Judge, though on a different reasoning, the impugned orders of the Joint Collector are totally misdirected and misconceived and have been rightly set aside. The leamed Single Judge has gone into detail on all these aspects and gave a valid reason in support of the said findings. hitps:fw w w.cdllaw journal comvsearchdlsplay php?id=244888 wae11si24, 1:12AM. (eDJLaw Journal Comparative Citations: 2010 (1) ALT 204, 2010 (1) ALD 3 Judgment : This appeal is at the instance of the respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition aggrieved by the Judgment and orders passed in W.P.No.25692 of 2001 along with a revision in C.R.PNo.52 of 2002 dated Sth September, 2002 by the leamed Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed at the instance of the respondents | to 3 herein. ‘The brief'set of events, which lead to the present proceedings are, that initially one Sri Syed Mohammed was the absolute owner of the agricultural land which is dry admeasuring to an extent of Ac.9-39 gts in Sy.Nos.95, 96, 97, 98 and 99 situate at Medpally village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He sold the said land to one Sri Prabhudas and his wife Smt Kamalamma under a registered sale deed dated 15-4-1965, However, the mutation was not effected in their names in the revenue records except to the cextent that the possession column recorded their names. Meanwhile, one Ande Gangaiah and Ande Pentaiah got their names entered in the revenue records as pattedars and possessors without right, title or interest of whatsoever nature. As per the writ petitioners, subsequent to the death of Sri Prabhudas and his wife Smt. Kamalamma their son S. David succeeding to the said property sought to alienate the same, hence, he sought for the pattedar passbooks from the revenue authorities. However, on an enquiry, having found that the names of Ande Gangaiah and Ande Pentaiah were shown as pattedars and possessors in the record, he filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy seeking for correction of entries in the revenue records so as to efféct his name and delete the said names of Ande pentaiah and Ande Gangaiah, Accordingly, he sought for issuance of pattedar pass books under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar pas Books Act, 1971. It is stated that after holding an enquiry, the said Mandal Revenue Officer by order dated 24-6-2000 directed deletion of those two names and substituted with that of Sri S.David. Accordingly, the said MrDavid sold the said land under four different registered sale deeds to MrM.Krishna Reddy and two others ie, the writ petitioners. Therefore, these purchasers once again approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar mandal for the purpose of deletion of the name of the vendor and to incorporate their names. Accordingly, the said Mandal Revenue Officer as per the order dated 1-2-2001 directed the deletion of the name of the vendor and incorporated with that of the said purchasers in the pahani for the year 2000-2001 onwards and issued pattedar pass books and other tile deeds. There upon, the said Ande Gangaiah and Ande Pentaiah filed the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the said order, and it was dismissed as per the orders dated 3-5-2001. Aggrieved there by, the said persons approached the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district by way of a revision, who by an order dated 3-12-2001 allowed the revision and set aside the orders and directed restoration of the names of those two persons viz, Ande Gangaiah and Ande Pentaiah in the record. These proceedings of the Joint Collector dated 3-12-2001 are assailed in the present writ petition. ‘The said purchasers have also filed a revision CRP.No.52 of 2002 and the s the writ petition and disposed of me was taken up together with The main ground urged on behalf of the appellants in this appeal is primarily to the effect that the appellants names found support and base ffom the faisal patti entries and therefore the Mandal Revenue Officer in exercise of any such powers going by the application filed by the petitioner could not have meddled with and he has no jurisdiction to interfere with the same. Further, even the said application is barred, since it is fled beyond the period of one year. Apart fiom that, itis also contended that these entries in fivour of the appellants have been in existence all along for several years almost touching sixteen years, and therefore, the hitps:fw w w.cdllaw journal comvsearchdlsplay php?id=244888 218e11si24, 1:12AM. (eDJLaw Journal remedy sought by the application is hopelessly barred by delay and laches. Further, itis also pointed out that there has been some misunderstanding in regard to the appeals filed treating that as one, but, however there are two appeals fled, and therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the Joint Collector. It is also the case of the appellants that there has been no notice to the appellants before the Mandal Revenue Officer and the merits have not been properly considered nor looked froma valid angle. MrE.Manohar, the earned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents herein sought to sustain the orders of the leamed Single Judge and submitted that the wait petitioners are the absolute rightful owners having purchased the same under registered documents from the then owners, who have sold the same to them, and therefore, their claim is perfectly justified, whereas the claim of the appellants herein is totally baseless and there is absolutely no valid right, title, interest of whatsoever nature which is enforceable in law apart from the fact that there are not in possession, and therefore, the approach of the Joint Collector in allowing the revision was not correct and has been rightly interdicted therewith, It is also pointed out that except making a bald and sweeping clim, no document is forthcoming on behalf of the appellants nor the same is filed at any stage before any authorities. Hence, their claim cannot be sustained in any manner of whatsoever nature. Further, it is also pointed out that the Joint Collector has totally gone out side the scope of the proceedings in reversing the orders of the primary authority. On these and other detailed submissions made ffom both sides by the respective senior counsel, the ultimate question which boils down is whether the proceedings as initiated by the respondents 1 and 3 in the writ petition herein is valid? As already stated above, there is no serious dispute in regard to the aforesaid-checkered ficts and events, Admittedly, the original owner is Syed Mohammed who in tum sold to Sri Prabhudas and his wife Smt. Kamalama. After their death, their son MrS.David has succeeded to the property. Though the appellants sought to set up their claims only on the ground of an agreement, however, admittedly no such document has been fled nor produced at any stage. Even in this Court, nothing has been pressed into service in support of such agreement, Even the alleged agreement as claimed by the appellants is stated to be only from said Prabhudas, and thus, it emerges that both the parties are claiming through one common vendor. Now, itis to be seen as to whose title is valid, perfect and enforceable. There is no dispute to the fact that the said Syed Mohammed has sold the land to Sri Prabhudas and Smt Kamalamma as long back as on 15-4-1965 and after their death their son S.David stepped into their shoes as far as title is concemed. Therefore, having regard to the fact that there is no challenge in any manner in regard to those sale deeds which can be dated back to the year 1965 and the purchases made by Sri S.Prabhudas and SmiKamalamma and the title of these very persons as acquired by their son Mr.8. David was transferred to the wrt petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 herein under 4 different registered sale deeds, it can safely said that the wrt petitioners are having the valid tile traceable to their vendors. Whereas compared to the same, the appellants herein does not possess any valid piece of document to give effect to or transfer right, tile of whatsoever nature in their favour. Therefore, it cannot be said that vis-a-vis the claim put forth by the writ petitioners, under those registered purchases, the appellants hold any valid tile nor can it be registered. Therefore, mere claim that their names were entered in the revenue records would in no way confer any right It is now well established that entries in the revenue records would not confer any right nor would take away any right existing in a rightful owner. Thus, the restitution of rights could not have been interdicted in any manner nor can said to have been effected as set forth by the appellants herein, Though the appellants claim is based on entries in fasal patti and other pahanis etc., however, the correctness of all these entries would certainly rest upon the valid ttle held by the parties and not otherwise. As long as there exist a valid title by the vendors and there is a valid and genuine transfer without any blur or blemish, it cannot be said that the title of the writ petitioners can be in any manner ksser to that of the appellants herein, In fact, these registered documents only go to show that hitps:fw w w.cdllaw journal comvsearchdlsplay php?id=244888 iae11si24, 1:12AM. (eDJLaw Journal the writ petitioners are having far better title than the claim as set forth by the appellants herein. In these circumstances, as rightly held by the leamed Single Judge, though on a diferent reasoning, the impugned orders of the Joint Collector are totally misdirected and misconceived and have been rightly set aside, The leamed Single Judge has gone into detail on all these aspects and gave a valid reason in support of the said findings. Having regard to nature of proceedings, regarding the entries in the revenue records, the ttle as contemplated under the laws plays @ vital role and will have a pivotal bearing on the claims and ultimate conclusion to be drawn, As long as there is no enforceable right, it is not open for the appellants either to justify their claim or resist that of the others. The title, as validly conferred would be the factor to be weighed with and not mere entries. Even for any litigant, trying to raise a dispute, there should be a sustainable right which can be carried with safely for the purpose of revenue proceedings. AS itis, mere agreement would not confer any right as per the provisions of the ‘Transfer of Property Act, nor can wield any resistence to or against a ttle under the registered transferred deeds, by or from the same vendor or predecessor in tile. It can’t even be called a litigious claim or right of whatsoever nature. Be that as it may, as stated above, apart from the reasons which are already given by the lkamed Single Judge, the factum of valid title been held by the respondents, the appellants could not in any way disgorge their claim in any mamner. In view of such prima facie ttle vesting with the respondents/w2it petitioners, absolutely there is no claim nor right much less enforceable in fivour of the appellants so as to maintain any of these proceedings or assail the correctness of the claim as sought to be enforceable by the writ petitioners, For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the above appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs CDJLawJournal hitps:fw w w.cdllaw journal comvsearchdlsplay php?id=244888 ala