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

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more