Bhupathi Varalamma vs Joint Director and Others

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 21.4.2000 issued by respondent No. 1.

At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner and respondent No. 4. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3 and perused the record.

The petitioner, who claimed to have purchased extents of Ac.0.78 cents and Ac.0.22 cents in R.S. Nos. 578/1 and 578/3 respectively of Kodur Village from respondent No. 4 and his father under an agreement of sale dated 9.4.1980, for a consideration of Rs. 6,500/- approached respondent No. 3 for grant of pattadar passbook and title deed in her favour vide her application dated 26.3.1998. After issuing notice to respondent No. 4, his father having already died, respondent No. 3 addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Avanigadda to furnish a report on the stamp duty and registration fees for the purpose of validation of agreement of sale which was found by him to be genuine. On receipt of the report, respondent No. 3 validated the document in exercise of his power u/s 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ''the Act'') and issued a certificate to that effect. Respondent No. 3 also issued pattadar passbooks and title deed in favour of the petitioner.

The Revenue Divisional Officer-respondent No. 2 issued notice dated 25.3.2000 to the petitioner, wherein it is stated that against the order of respondent No. 3, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal through his Advocate Sri M. Ramdas and the petitioner was asked to appear before him on 31.3.2000 at 11.00 am, for hearing. In the meantime, respondent No. 4 approached respondent No. 1 by way of a revision petition against the order of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 1 entertained the said revision petition and after notice to and hearing the parties passed order on 21.4.2000, wherein he set aside the orders of respondent No. 3 passed in favour of the petitioner and relegated the parties to the civil Court to get the dispute settled. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

I have carefully perused the record. u/s 5(5) of the Act, against every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such authority as may be prescribed, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9 be final. u/s 5-A of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer is empowered to regularize the documents, which purported to alienate or transfer the interest in the property and which are not registered documents. An aggrieved party is entitled to file an appeal against such an order to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Thus, if respondent No. 4 felt aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No. 3, he had remedies of appeal available under the above two provisions. Indeed one such remedy was evidently availed by respondent No. 4 as could be seen from a copy of notice dated 25.3.2000 said to have been issued by respondent No. 2 and filed by the petitioner. None of respondents 1 to 3 filed any counter-affidavit denying respondent No. 2 issuing such a notice. As a fact in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 4, he admitted that he filed an appeal before respondent No. 2, but as nothing was forthcoming, he approached respondent No. 1 by way of revision.

Ordinarily when the aggrieved party is provided with a remedy of appeal, it is not permissible for the revisional authority to entertain a revision filed either pending appeal or bypassing the remedy of appeal. Only in exceptional situations where the authority which passed the order patently lacked jurisdiction to pass order and to prevent abuse of power exercised by such an authority and miscarriage of justice being caused to the aggrieved party, that the revisional authority may entertain a revision petition. A reading of the order passed by respondent No. 1 clearly shows that the order of respondent No. 3 was not set aside on the ground that he lacked the jurisdiction or that he abused his powers. Respondent No. 1 went into the merits of the pleas raised by the respective parties and arrived at the conclusion that on the facts of the case respondent No. 3 ought to have relegated the parties to the civil Court without deciding the disputed questions. In my considered view, these grounds on which the revision petition is entertained and allowed do not justify respondent No. 1 to make a departure from the ordinary rule that the parties shall first avail the remedy of appeal, which is always considered an effective remedy, before entertaining the revision. By ignoring the appeal already filed by respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 not only prevented the appellate authority from adjudicating the issue but also denied the remedy of revision to one of the parties who may be aggrieved by the decision that may be taken by respondent No. 2 in the appeal. In this view of the matter, the order of respondent No. 1 is set aside. Respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 on merits, without being influenced by any of the observations or conclusions arrived at by respondent No. 1 in his order date 21.4.2000.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.