Judgment:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.22974 of 2013 Dated:10-10-2013 Kommineni Haribabu...Petitioner Tahsildar, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District and others ..Respondents ^Counsel for the Petitioner: Sr.Malladi Pavan Kumar Aditya !Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: Sr.N.Bharat Babu Head note: ?.Cases referred: The Court made the following: ORDER
: This writ petition is filed for certiorari to quash proceedings bearing R.Dis.No.D4/6818/2011, dated 10.07.2013, of respondent No.3, whereby he has dismissed the petitioner's revision petition for default.
The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as under: The petitioner claims ownership and possession in respect of Ac.0.01 cents in Sy.No.661/3, Ac.0.01 cents in Sy.No.661/6, Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.662/2J.Ac.0.22 cents in Sy.No.662/2K, Ac.3.04 cents in Sy.No.370, Ac.1.09 cents in Sy.No.673/11, Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No.688/5, Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.731/1B, totally admeasuring Ac.6.50 cents, of Mungilipattu Kothapalli Village, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District.
Based on a gift deed stated to have been executed by his grandmother in respect of the above-mentioned properties, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds.
In the year 2005, respondent No.1 has issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioner.
Respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.64 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati for declaration of title in respect of the above- mentioned lands.
The said suit is pending.
Pending the suit, respondent No.4 sold the properties to third parties on 01.01.2010.
The petitioner filed O.S.No.199 of 2000 in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati seeking partition of the properties based on Will, dated 10.02.2007, against respondent No.4 and the same is pending.
Respondent No.4 filed an appeal before respondent No.2 for cancellation of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner.
By order dated 20.05.2010, respondent No.2 has cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds and directed respondent No.1 to conduct a de novo enquiry and issue pattadar passbooks to the persons who are held entitled to the same.
Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.3.
The said revision petition was dismissed for default by respondent No.3 by the impugned proceedings.
I have heard Sr.Malladi Pavan Kumar Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (AA) for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sr.N.Bharat Babu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
A perusal of the order of respondent No.3 impugned in this writ petition shows that he has not decided the revision petition on merits.
Respondent No.3 purportedly relied upon Order IX Rule 3 of CPC for dismissing the revision petition.
Respondent No.3 not being the civil Court, all the provisions of the CPC will not be applicable except to the extent that the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder made CPC applicable.
Section 10 of the Act made applicable the provisions of CPC for summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath and requiring the discovery and production of documents of witnesses to the proceedings before the recording authority or appellate authority or any other authority for the purpose of holding any enquiry under the Act.
Section 10(c) also made any other provision of CPC as prescribed applicable to the proceedings under the Act.
Rule 28 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 vested some powers in the recording authority, appellate authority or any other officers holding enquiry which are vested in the civil Court by the CPC for the purpose of entering upon and inspecting any land or taking or cause to take measurements thereof.
On a compendious reading of these provisions, it is evident that only a few provisions of CPC are made applicable to the proceedings under the Act.
The provisions of Order IX CPC not having been made applicable to the proceedings under the Act, invoking the said provision for dismissing the case for default by respondent No.3 cannot be sustained.
Even in the absence of the parties, respondent No.3 ought to have applied his mind and passed an order either confirming or reversing the order of the lower authorities on merits.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to respondent No.3 for fresh disposal on merits, after hearing the petitioner as well as respondent No.4.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.28187 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J dated:10-10-2013