9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of High Court's decision to quash orders and grant ryotwari patta. 2. Admissibility and reliability of additional documents in writ jurisdiction. Detailed Analysis: 1. The main issue in this appeal was the validity of the High Court's decision to quash the orders passed by the appellants and grant ryotwari patta to the respondents for approximately 340 acres of land. The respondents claimed rights under the Andhra Pradesh Muttas Regulation, which entitled a ryot in a Mutta to a ryotwari patta if found in lawful possession for a continuous period preceding the notified date. The single Judge found the respondent entitled to ryotwari patta based on possession since 1951. The Division Bench upheld this finding as a question of fact. However, the Supreme Court noted allegations of tampering with land records. The Deputy Director's affidavit revealed discrepancies in the survey land registers, casting doubt on the respondent's possession claim. 2. The second issue revolved around the admissibility and reliability of additional documents in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court deliberated on whether the High Court erred in admitting photostat copies without determining their genuineness or allowing secondary evidence. The Court highlighted the critical nature of the authenticity of documents, especially if tampering was suspected. Despite the usual non-interference with the High Court's discretion, the Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental importance of ensuring the integrity of evidence. Consequently, the Court directed the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement to examine the original records, affording both parties an opportunity to present evidence and ascertain the authenticity of the documents filed by the respondents. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the single Judge and Division Bench. The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement was tasked with reevaluating the dispute, focusing on the genuineness of the documents in question. The judgment emphasized the need for a thorough examination of original records to determine the validity of the respondent's claims. The parties were instructed to bear their own costs in the matter.
|
