HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
W.P.No.25357 of 2016
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed for the following relief: "...to issue an appropriate Writ order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the 3rd respondent passed in D.Dis.(H)2623/2015 dated 16.06.2016 and set aside the same as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971...."
This Court has heard Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 8.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 16.06.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent herein. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the petitioners have purchased the properties on 28.04.1988 and on 12.05.1998 respectively. They have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. They have also been issued pattadar passbook and the record of rights book. The names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records etc. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that suddenly in the year 2015, an appeal was filed by the unofficial respondents seeking cancellation of pattadar pass book etc., issued to the petitioners. Learned counsel points out 2 that pattadar pass book is only a reflection of the entries made in the revenue records and the appeal that is filed is not maintainable at all. It is also argued that after such a lapse of time, an appeal cannot be entertained by the 3rd respondent. It is also vehemently argued that direct appeal cannot be filed before the Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer. The Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short „the Act‟) provides a step by step procedure. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act to highlight the procedure to be followed for filing of an appeal. He also relies upon section 5 (b) etc., of the Act to show that against an order passed by the Tahsildar alone, there is an appeal provided. Learned counsel also states that once there is a disputed question of title, only a civil Court can decide the issue. He relies on two Division Bench judgments of combined high Court reported in Ratnamma v. Revenue Duivisional Officer, Ananthapur District and others1 and Smt. P.Ghousia Begum and others v. Basireddy Rukminamma and others2. Therefore, learned counsel urges that the writ petition should be allowed.
Learned Government Pleader supports the actions taken by the 3rd respondent and argues that the petitioners were given an opportunity of participating in the hearing and that there is no infirmity in the award.
1 2015 (5) ALT 228 (D.B) 2 2018 (5) ALT 148 (D.B) 3 Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy argues on behalf of the unofficial respondents. He also supports the order that is impugned and argues that the respondents have valid and clear title to the property and that the entries that are made in the pattadar pass books etc., were made without considering the record. He states that it is also clearly averred in para 6 of the counter affidavit that the 4th respondent without considering the relevant records and following the procedure has granted pattadar pass books to the petitioners. He also states that the impugned order is a reasoned order passed after hearing all the parties. He relies upon the conclusion of the impugned order which states that both the parties can make a fresh claim with documents before the Tahsildar, who shall then carry out the enquiry and issue pattadar pass books. Hence, he submits that there is no final adjudication of the rights of the parties and the writ is not maintainable.
In rejoinder, Sri P.Gangi Rami Reddy, learned counsel submits that even such a direction participating a fresh enquiry cannot be given by the sub-collector and that the entire procedure adopted is incorrect.
This Court after hearing both the learned counsels notices that it is crystal clear that an appeal was directly filed before the 3rd respondent in this case. In the opinion of this Court and particularly after considering the provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, that the appeal is misconceived and should not have been entertained. An appeal 4 as per section 5(b) of the Act shall lie before the Revenue Divisional Officer/Joint Collector only against an order passed by the Tahsildar. Similarly, under section 5 (5) of the Act also, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer against an order of the Mandal Revenue Officer making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make an amendment. Thus, it is clear that the Revenue Divisional Officer by himself does not have „original‟ jurisdiction to entertain any complaint or grievance.
Apart from this, in view of the case law cited, it is also clear that a person aggrieved should question the entries in the record of rights. The entries in the pattadar pass book and title deed books are in a sense consequential acts and they merely reflect the original entries in the revenue records. Therefore, a person aggrieved by any such amendment, change, incorporation in the revenue records must challenge the said entries themselves. The appeal in this case is against the grant of pattadar pass books and title deed. The record of rights or the passbook is not conclusive for the ownership or title. The Division Bench judgment in Ratnamma's case (1 supra) clearly supports the stand. Apart from this, once there is a serious issue about the title, it is only a competent civil Court that can decide the same. This conclusion is supported by the judgment reported in Smt. P.Ghousia Begum's case (2 supra).
In the case on hand, the counter of the respondents clearly states that the petitioners vendors do not have title to the 5 property and that the respondents have got better title. In the opinion of this Court, this is a mater which can and must be decided by a competent civil Court only. This is not a matter which can be decided either by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or by the Revenue Divisional Officer while deciding the appeal.
It is also clear that the challenge is made in the year 2015 which is after a great deal of delay. First petitioner acquired the property in 1998 and the 2nd petitioner acquired the property in 2005. The challenge is in 2015. This delay has not been explained or even considered.
Both the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are Division Bench judgments. This Court is bound by them. In line with those two judgments, this Court holds that the appeal filed is misconceived as it is against the issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed book. As there are issues of title etc., involved, it is only a competent civil Court that can decide the matter as to who has pattadar title.
Lastly, the direction given in the impugned order in this case is for the parties to attend an enquiry before the Tahsildar. Since the order itself is held to be patently without jurisdiction, the direction also cannot be implemented. Even otherwise, since the issues of title etc., are there, this Court holds that it is only a competent civil Court that can decide the matter of better title among the petitioners and the unofficial respondents. 6
Therefore, for all these reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 16.06.2016 is set aside. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.
________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J Date: 22.08.2022 KLP