Muthineni Venkateswarlu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3524 AP

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                   WRIT PETITION NO.3465 OF 2020
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India seeking the following relief:

"to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order dt.27.12.2019 vide Rc.No.727/2018-G, passed by the 3rd respondent, in Appeal Case No.4/18 filed by the 5th respondent and quash the same as the same is without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 apart from being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India."

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners are

the absolute owners and possessors of an extent of Ac.5.79 cts of

agricultural land situated in Sy.Nos.302/A1 (Ac.0.94 cts), 302/A3

(Ac.1.22 cts), 306/1B (Ac.1.81 cts), 302/A3 (Ac.1.35 cts), 306/51A

(Ac.0.44 cts) of Vinukonda Revenue Village, Vinukonda Mandal,

Guntur District. They got this property by way of two registered sale

deeds dated 13.08.2008 (Document No.945 of 2008), and Document

dated 12.05.2008 (Document No.3131 of 2008), from their vendor

M.Narsaiah. He purchased the same on 11.11.1999 under registered

sale deeds and the petitioners were issued Pattadar Pass Books and

Title Deeds by respondent No.3. Since the date of purchase the

petitioners have been in uninterrupted and peaceful possession

thereof, which is also evidenced by pattadar pass book standing in

their name and the Adangal pertaining to the said land. Their names

were entered in the Record of Rights, under the provisions of the A.P.

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter

referred to as "the Act"), vide proceedings of the Tahsildar,

Vinukonda, respondent No.4, datead 11.10.2017. The unofficial

respondent No.5 has approached the District Collector, respondent MSM,J WP_3465_2020

No.2 and filed a representation in Mee-Kosam Programme for

cancellation of petitioners' Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds. The

same was forwarded by the District Collector, respondent No.2 to the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, respondent No.3) for further

action on the representation filed by respondent No.5. The same was

taken on file as an appeal (Appeal Case No.4/18 in Rc.No.727/

2018-G) under Section 5(5) of the Act, by respondent No.3, though

such an appeal is not maintainable in law, inasmuch as the entries

made in the Record of Rights (Form-1B) were not challenged in the

said representation/appeal and only the act of issuance of pattadar

pass book was challenged after lapse of appeal time. No delay

condonation petition was filed, though the statute prescribes a

limitation of 60 days for filing such an appeal." Unofficial respondent

No.5 did not choose to challenge the statutory entries maintained

under the Act (or the proceedings ordering such entries).

The respondent filed the representation/appeal "for

cancellation of pattadar pass books and Title Deeds" issued in favour

of the petitioners. The same was taken-up as an appeal in Appeal

Case No.4/18 in Rc.No.727/2018G, and the same was allowed by

respondent No.3, on 27.12.2019. Respondent No.3 has no

jurisdiction to pass such an order against the petitioners. Such an

appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is not maintainable for

cancellation of pattadar pass book, inasmuch as the act of issuance

of pattadar pass book by the primary authority - Tahsildar,

Vinukonda, respondent No.4 was only consequential act upon the

entries made in the revenue records. The claim of the unofficial

respondent No.5 appears to be that he has allegedly purchased the

said property. If respondent No.5 has any claims, whatsoever, over

the subject property, he has to establish such alleged claims, before MSM,J WP_3465_2020

the appropriate civil court and not before the authorities under the

Act. At any rate, the appeal filed by him, which is now numbered and

taken-up by the appellate authority, respondent No.3 is not

maintainable in law. When a statute prescribes a particular thing to

be done in a particular manner, it shall be done only in such manner

and not otherwise. A simple representation, described as "complaint

petition", in the impugned order dated 27.12.2019, made at the

"Meekosam" forum, does not constitute a statutory appeal and the

same cannot be the basis for taking up of any statutory appeal. At

any rate, no statutory appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act, is

maintainable against issuance of pattadar pass book.

A reading of the representation, dated 17.01.2018 made by

respondent No.5 shows that the same is against the issuance of

pattacar pass book and nothing else. In the said representation, the

said individual has also mentioned Khata Number as 1203,

indicating that he is conscious of the entries in the revenue records.

Further, in the impugned order, dated 27.12.2019, respondent No.3

had cancelled the entries in the revenue records and directed both

parties to approach the civil Court. If at all, any one aggrieved by

order has to approach the civil court, it has to be the unofficial

respondent (respondent No.5).

The appeal, as filed, challenging the issuance of pattadar pass

book, in favour of the petitioners, is not maintainable in law,

inasmuch as the entries in the revenue records have not been

challenged. The act of respondent No.3 in taking up the

representation of respondent No.5 as an appeal vide impugned

proceedings is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principle laid

down by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at MSM,J WP_3465_2020

Hyderabad in "Ratnamma v. R.D.O., Dharmavaram1", requested to

set aside the impugned proceedings.

Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended

that the order passed by respondent No.3 is contrary to the principle

laid down in the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

at Hyderabad in "Ratnamma v. R.D.O., Dharmavaram" (referred

supra) and that the Revenue Divisional Officer, respondent No.3 has

no authority to treat the representation as an appeal in the absence

of any order passed by the Tahsildar, respondent No.3, by exercising

power under Section 5 (5) of the Act read with Rule 19 of the Andhra

Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989 (for

short "the Rules"), requested to grant relief as claimed in the writ

petition.

Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for respondent

No.5, contended that the name of respondent No.5 is mutated in the

revenue records and the petitioners claiming that their names were

mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings dated 11.10.2017,

but no copy is placed on record till date, in support of their

contention. Therefore, in the absence of any order passed in favour of

the petitioners mutating their names, respondent No.5 is disabled to

prefer an appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act, thereby respondent

No.5 made a representation in "Meekosam" (Spandana programme)

complaining about the issue of pattadar passbooks etc., requested to

cancel pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners and the

same was rightly taken as an appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act

and respondent No.3 passed the impugned order. Therefore, there is

no error in the order passed by respondent No.3, requested to

dismiss the writ petition.

2015 (1) ALT 361 MSM,J WP_3465_2020

Sri Narasimha Reddy. G.L., learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Revenue supported the impugned order, requested to

pass appropriate order.

Submission of representation by respondent No.5 in

Meekosam (Spandana programme) complaining about the change of

entries in the revenue records, issue of pattadar passbooks etc. to

respondent No.2; forwarding the same to respondent No.3 by

respondent No.2, and respondent No.3 treated the same as appeal

case No.4/18 in Rc.No.727/2018-G and passing of impugned order

dated 27.12.2019 by respondent No.3 are not in quarrel.

The question is whether respondent No.3 is competent to treat

the representation/application submitted by respondent No.5 in

Meekosam, which is having no statutory basis, as an appeal in the

absence of any order passed by the Tahsildar?

Section 5 (5) of the Act deals with appeal, which is as follows:

"(5) Against every order of the [Mandal Revenue Officer] either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, [an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such authority as may be prescribed], within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final."

The Revenue Divisional Officer is entitled to exercise appeal

jurisdiction only against the order passed by the Mandal Revenue

Officer either making an amendment in the record of rights or

refusing to make such an amendment within a period of sixty days

from the date of communication of the said order.

In the facts of the present case, order passed by the Tahsildar

was not challenged, but respondent No.5 requested to cancel

pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners by making MSM,J WP_3465_2020

representation dated 17.01.2018 in "Meekosam" programme. The

contents of the representation are as follows:

"I am resident of Vinukonda. I have an extent of Ac.1.76 cents of land in Sy.No.306/8 of Vinukonda. I obtained pass book and title deed for this land. When I have taken 1B through Mee-Seva for the purpose of Bank Loan, in the said 1B, only Ac.1.40 cents was entered. When I enquired personally, the extent of Ac.0.36 cents of land, which was decreased from my extent, was entered to Khata No.1203 in Sy.No.306/8A1. I request you to kindly verify how the land was derived to him and delete the said land from Khata No.1203 on which I have complete right, and add the same in my Khata No.371 and do justice to me."

A bare look at the contents of the said representation, it is not

an appeal questioning the issue of Pattadar Passbooks, title deeds or

entering the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, but

indirectly respondent No.5 requested to conduct enquiry as to how

Ac.0.36 cents is included in Khata No.1203 in Sy.No.306. Though it

is indirectly an appeal, but not against any order passed by the

Tahsildar.

In the absence of any order passed by the Tahsildar,

entertaining an appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act treating the

representation as an appeal is illegal and contrary to the law laid

down by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad in "Ratnamma v. R.D.O., Dharmavaram" (referred

supra). Therefore, by applying the principle laid down in the said

judgment, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is liable to

be set aside as it is without jurisdiction since the order passed by the

Tahsildar is not under challenge in the said appeal. Even otherwise,

the appeal has to be preferred within 60 days as prescribed under

Section 5 (5) of the Act. Order passed by the Tahsildar is not placed

on record by either of the parties. In the absence of any order passed

by the Tahsildar, treating the representation as an appeal under MSM,J WP_3465_2020

Section 5 (5) of the Act is a grave illegality committed by respondent

No.3.

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 requested this Court to

direct the petitioners or the Tahsildar to produce the proceedings

dated 11.10.2017 to enable respondent No.5 to file appeal against

such order.

This Court cannot issue such direction to the petitioners or to

the Tahsildar to produce the copy of the order dated 11.10.2017 to

enable respondent No.5 to file an appeal against the order dated

11.10.2017. Moreover, in the absence of order passed by the

Tahsildar, no direction need be issued as claimed by the learned

counsel for respondent No.5.

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 also pointed out certain

discrepancies in IB register and other documents, but those

contentions are not relevant for deciding the present issue.

In the present case, no order was passed by the Tahsildar and

representation cannot be treated as an appeal under Section 5 (5) of

the Act, therefore, the impugned order is liable to set aside.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order

dated 27.12.2019 passed by respondent No.3 in Rc.No.727/2018-G

in Appeal Case No.4/18 while granting liberty to respondent No.5 to

take appropriate action in accordance with law. No costs.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand

closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 15.09.2021 Ksp