AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioners are before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 28.12.2012 which is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. By the said endorsement, the respondents have intimated the petitioners that the request made for change of revenue entries to the name of the petitioners cannot be accepted and an appropriate order be obtained in civil proceedings. The case of the petitioner is that the property bearing No. 1088/995/1 measuring East to West 91 ft North to South 101 ft was purchased by the petitioners under sale deeds dated 22.08.2007 and 23.08.2007 from its erstwhile owner Sri B. Venkatapathi Naidu. The petitioners contend that one Smt. Achchamma acquired the property under a grant order dated 04.01.1932 issued by the Tahsildar and thereafter the property was bequeathed in favour of the vendor of the petitioners by a WILL dated 04.06.1951. The said Smt. Achchamma died on 26.06.1956. Therefore, the vendor of the property became the owner of the property. Thereafter the petitioners contend that the revenue entries were changed to the name of the vendor of the petitioners and in that regard the extracts, as at Annexures-D and E are relied on.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the petitioners have purchased the property under registered sale deeds, they have acquired title to the property and the respondents are not justified in directing the petitioners to secure their right declared in a Civil Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that having produced all the materials claiming ownership to the property the only action that was required to be made by the respondents was to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue register. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Real Estate Agencies Vs. Govt. of Goa and Others,
Learned counsel for the respondent while justifying the endorsement issued would rely upon the entries made in the assessment list wherein originally as against the property bearing No. 1088/995/1, the name of the Medical Officer Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital is indicated and subsequently without any orders being there to that effect, the name of the vendor of the petitioner has been indicated for the very same property. It is therefore contended that in such circumstance when the property stood in the name of the Government Hospital the vendor of the petitioners could not have secured the revenue entries without appropriate orders. Therefore, at this juncture, the petitioners cannot claim any right to the property Hence, the learned counsel seeks to justify the endorsement issued to the petitioners.
In the light of the above, the endorsement dated 28.12.2012 would indicate that the same does not disclose the reasons except to state that the petitioners would have to get their right decided in the Civil Court. Be that as it may, the nature of the contentions which has been put forth by the respondents cannot be ignored. At the same time, the contention put forth by the petitioners claiming right to the property under the documents relied on by the petitioners cannot be brushed aside at this juncture. Keeping in view the nature of the contentions put forth by the respondents stating that the name of the Medical Officer has been indicated in the revenue records, though at the first instance there is nothing to indicate that any proceedings have been held to enter the name of the vendor of the petitioners, at this juncture since it has come to light that an earlier entry which existed has been changed without any explanation, in this regard, even if the petitioner seeks change of revenue entries based on certain documents, the appropriate course for the respondents is to issue notice to the person in whose name the property stood earlier, inquire as to how the same was transferred to the name of the vendor of the petitioner and find out whether the said entry is disputed. On issuing notice to the person in whose name the entry stood and on securing the documents relating to ownership, if such documents are in conflict with the documents relied on by the petitioners, only in such circumstance, the petitioners have to be relegated to the civil proceedings as otherwise if the claims are distinct and different certainly the claim of the petitioners would have to be considered.
In such circumstance, to set aside the endorsement in its entirety and to direct the respondents to make entries will not arise. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in any event would not be of assistance since in the said proceedings apart from the documents, the person claiming right had also the order of the Court in his favour. In the instant case, that situation would arise only if there is a conflict with regard to the claim which would be made by the person in whose name the entry stood earlier. Only at that juncture, the endorsement could be issued to the petitioners. Hence, though I see no reason to quash the inconsequential endorsement at this juncture, a direction is issued to the first respondent to receive all the documents that would be submitted by the petitioners to establish their right over the property bearing No. 1088/995. On receipt of the documents, the respondents shall issue notice to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital B.B. Road, and indicate to them the claim made in respect of the said property. If any claim is thereafter made by the said hospital to the very same property if need be, necessary spot inspection may also be held and if in such circumstance, there is a dispute with regard to the title, certainly the respondents would be justified in relegating the parties to the Civil Court. As otherwise, if there is no dispute with regard to the identity and ownership of the property, the respondents would take steps to examine the request of the petitioners and grant the request in accordance with law. To enable the said procedure to be completed in a time frame, the petitioners shall now once again file all the relevant documents on which the petitioners place reliance to claim right over the property along with a certified copy of this order with the first respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent shall thereafter issue notice to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital B.B. Road, in respect of the claim made by the petitioners and thereafter consider the matter as indicated above. The entire process in any event shall be completed in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, but later than three months from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished to the second respondent.
In terms of the above, these petitions stand disposed of. No costs.