Hyderabad: Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court declared that issuance of pattadar passbooks or making entries therein are consequential to the amendments or updating of the record of rights provided for U/s 5 of the Act. There is no question of issuance of pattadar passbook or amending entries made therein unless corresponding entries are made in the record of rights. The record of rights is maintained by the concerned or instrument left with the person in whose favour it is issued. She responds that when a pattadar passbook has been issued, the same cannot be cancelled automatically unless the civil court finds that there is no justification for issuance of the same, and the presumption of correctness in issuance of pattadar passbook in favour of the person is always in an act and action of the government, but recording is not conclusive as it may be corrected and rectified by the civil courts, and unless a competent civil court decides the actual title of the property in favour of any person, consequential measure for issuance or cancellation of pattadar passbook does not arise, the judge accordingly set aside an order made by the revenue authorities cancelling pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners.
The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Vuppu Shivanagaiah and others challenging the order of the joint collector Warangal (Urban), who, by an order on July 20, 2017, cancelled the stated revenue records. The petitioners stated they are the owners of Ac.0-08 guntas of the land in Bheemaram village of Hasanparthy mandal in Warangal district having purchased the same in 1980. The petitioners constructed a tin shed and obtained water connection by paying necessary taxes to the gram panchayat. Thereafter in 2005 a regular enquiry was conducted by the then mandal revenue officer (tahsildar) Hasanparthy and after due enquiry, the tahsildar had issued pattadar passbook and title deed jointly in favour of the petitioner and petitioner’s mother Vuppu Badramma. However, one P. Saraswathia approached the RDO claiming the said property. The RDO found that the subject land was not agricultural land and the claim of both the parties were based on different documents and their rights cannot be decided under A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971. Instead of approaching the civil court, Saraswathia approached the joint collector who, while directing the party to approach the competent civil court for redressal, proceeded to unilaterally cancel the pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of the petitioner in 2005 on the fictitious ground that the file pertaining to issuance of pattadar passbook was not traceable in the office.
Justice Nanda found the order of the joint collector requesting the parties to approach the civil court was in accordance with law. She, however, faulted the authority on the second limb of the direction and said “If any pattadar passbook and title deed came into existence illegally, it does not have value in the eyes of the law and accordingly canceling the said patta passbook is a unilateral decision taken by the joint collector without assigning any reasons in arriving at such a conclusion ignoring the available material on record”. The Judge accordingly modified the order of the joint collector.
Illegal construction of rice mill: Notice to collector
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court issued notice to the district collector, Kamareddy and other officials pertaining to the alleged illegal construction of a rice mill. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, was dealing with a writ plea filed by Surkanti Ram Reddy and others.
The petitioners pointed out that a rice mill being installed by Kuchadri Venkateshwara Industries at Kamareddy was illegal and that such construction was affecting the welfare and health of the residents staying nearby. The petitioners contended that their representations were not considered by the district collector and other officials, which was affecting their livelihood and crops of adjacent landowners and villagers. The bench while admitting the matter directed the issue of notice to Kuchadri Venkateshwara Industries and the officials.
Endowments dept asked to clarify on land-grab charges
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court required the endowments department to respond on alleged illegal grabbing of private land at Malkajgiri. The judge also gave time to the assistant commissioner,
