Revenue Authorities Not Empowered To Decide Complex Questions Of Title And Possession Involving Ancestral Property: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has upheld the order of the Single Judge wherein it was held that revenue authorities do not have the power to decide complicated questions of title and possession.“Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and observations made by the learned Single Judge and that since the petitioners claim that they and respondents No.3 and 4 share a common...
The Telangana High Court has upheld the order of the Single Judge wherein it was held that revenue authorities do not have the power to decide complicated questions of title and possession.
“Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and observations made by the learned Single Judge and that since the petitioners claim that they and respondents No.3 and 4 share a common lineage whereby the subject lands were considered as ancestral properties, the order dated 24.07.2000 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the consequential order dated 10.11.2000 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, are found to be without and excess of their jurisdiction.” the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar observed.
It also said that although pattas are solid evidence of title, the principle cannot be applicable to ancestral property.
“The judgment of Pramila Modi (one supra) referred by the learned counsel for the Appellant/respondent No.3 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case referred (one supra), it is the case that transfer of patta is nothing but a title. However, in the present case, the subject lands were alleged to be ancestral properties and the parties herein have common lineage. As such, the properties classified as ancestral properties cannot be claimed by any individual where complex questions of disputes of title exists which are for beyond the scope of summary enquiry.”
The appeal was filed against the findings of a Single Bench, holding that the Revenue Authorities do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon title dispute.
The dispute arose in relation to shares owned in a Hindu ancestral property. The appellant contended that he was the sole owner and possessor of the property in dispute. Per contra, the respondents contended that they along with the appellant were equal shareholders of the property.
The appellants claimed that the name of the respondents was wrongly entered in khasra pahani and the correctness of the same was challenged by filing an appeal under Section 15(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulation of 1358 Fasli (for short, ‘Regulation of 1358-F’) in the year 1988. It was their further claim that the appeal had been dismissed in 1989 on account of the respondents filing a partition suit before the trial court, however, when that was dismissed for default, the appeal before the Joint Collector was reopened. The Joint collector advised the appellant to agitate his plea before the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) who held that only the grandfather of the appellant was the owner of the disputed suit land owing to his name reflecting in the Pattas.
The appellant vehemently argued that patta was solid evidence of title, and relied on State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Pramila Modi and others.
The respondents claimed their lineage through their grandfather and contended that their names were also entered into the khasra pahani of 1954-55 as ‘owner’ and the same would reflect on the revenue records. They contended that the suit for partition before the civil court that was initiated by them was dismissed on account of a compromise deed that was entered into between the appellant and the respondents, wherein the appellant conceded to the respondents owning 50% of the disputed property.
The respondents further contended that appellant had approached the joint collector under section 15(2) of the ROR 1358 Fasli, once the civil suit was dismissed.
It was brought to the notice of the Court that by the time such a petition was filed, the 1358 F Act had been repealed and substituted by the ROR Act, 1971. Nonetheless, the joint collector erroneously converted an application filed under 15(2) of the 1358 F Act, into a revision filed under section 9 of the 1971 Act, which was per se without jurisdiction.
Lastly, the respondents contended that the MRO, was wrong in holding that the appellant is the sole owner, on account of being in possession. It was the claim of the respondents that since the property was ancestral, the possession of one owner would amount to the joint possession of all the owners.
The Single Bench, after hearing both the sides passed an order in favour of the respondents.
The Division Bench of the High Court conceded with the view taken by the Single Judge, that the Joint Collector did not have the power to convert an appeal under the old Act into a revision of the 1971 Act and moreover, the Revenue officials do not have the jurisdiction to try a complex matter, which involved a title dispute on account of common lineage and ancestral property to begin with.
“Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.12.2008 passed in W.P. No.23945 of 2000 by the learned Single Judge and we concur with the findings made therein by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
WRIT APPEAL No.142 of 2009
Counsel for Petitioner: B.Venkateshwar Rao for M.V. Durga Prasad
Counsel for Respondent: Allam Ramesh for G.P. for Revenue, V.Rama Krishna Reddy