Sec.3 & Sec.9 of ROR Act - third parties names were shown against their properties - made an application before the collector - collector directed the RDO to decided the matter treating it as an appeal - R.D.O gave directions to the Tahasildar - No remedy - A.P.High court held that since the entires not made for the first time with in one year from the date of notification as per sec.3 of R.O.R. Act - Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to made any corrections in the entiries with out permission from Collector - Hence the Collector is the appropriate authority to decide the same as per sec.9 and as such directions given to dispose the application within 3 months- 2015 A.P. msk law reports



On noticing that some third parties names were shown 
against their properties in the revenue records, the petitioners
approached the District Collector bringing the said fact to his
notice and sought necessary corrections in the revenue records.

It is not in dispute that as on the date of application by the
petitioners to the District Collector, third parties names were
appearing in the revenue records against the properties to which
the petitioners are claiming right.  In other words, the petitioners
are seeking substitution of their names in the place of the names
already recorded in the revenue records.  
Entries in the revenue
records reflecting a partys name relate to the proceedings of the
Tahsildar under Section 3 of the Act. 
 It is not the case of the
petitioners that at the time when the names of the said third
parties were initially recorded (the date & details of which are not
mentioned by the petitioners in the writ petition), the claim of the
petitioners was also there before the Mandal Revenue Officer, who
was exercising powers under Section 3 of the Act.

A perusal of Sections 3 to 5 and 9 of the Act leave no
manner of doubt that the Tahsildar is not vested  with any
powers to make  corrections either  suo motu or on an
application except at the time of  making entries for the
first time in terms of the notification issued under Sections
3(1), 3(2) of the Act.  
Any corrections in relation to the
entries could be made in the given circumstances
satisfying  Section 3(3) of the Act  within one year. 
If the
case requiring corrections of the revenue records beyond
the time limit of one year,  necessary orders can be passed
only by the District Collector in exercise  of the revisional
powers and the Tahsildar is not vested with any such
power.  
In that view of the matter, liberty is given to the
petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent-District
Collector, and submit an application ventilating his
grievance and seek redress.  
On submission of such 
application, the 2nd respondent-District Collector shall
dispose of the same within a period of six months.

In the circumstances, the District Collector is directed to
call for the record and exercise powers conferred upon him under
Section 9 of the Act to redress the grievance of the petitioners
within a period of 3 months from today. 2015 A.P. msk law reports

Popular posts from this blog

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more