S.V. Subbaiah vs Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. 8 Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1636 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                WRIT PETITION NO.17922 OF 2017

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 Writ of Mandamus, assailing the proceedings in Ref.No.H/1582/2013 dated 27.08.2015 issued by the respondent No.3 ordering for cancellation of the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds issued in favor of the petitioner through Patta No 41 (PPB/TD bearing No.425257) for the land in an extent of Ac.0-49 cents in Sy.Nos.472/12, Sy.No.472/13, Sy.No.472/14, Sy.No.472/14 of Gudur Village fields, Kadapa Mandal, Y.S.R District at the instance of the respondent No.5 as arbitrary illegal without jurisdiction colorable exercise of power contrary to the provisions of A.P Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 and the A.P Right in Pattadar Pass Book Rules 1989 and settled principles o of legal position apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same"

The petitioner purchased land of an extent of Ac.0-49

cents in Sy.Nos.472/12, Sy.No.472/13, Sy.No.472/14,

Sy.No.472/14 of Gudur Village fields, Kadapa Mandal, Y.S.R District

from the husband of Respondent No.5 through Registered Sale Deed

bearing Document No.8057/2004 dated 18.11.2004. Respondent

No.5 had purchased the same from one Kareti Subbarayudu through

Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.4313/1979 dated

03.09.1979. The petitioner acquired rights over the land and

intimated the same to Respondent No.4/Tahsildar and requested to

mutate his name in the revenue records and also to issue pattadar

pass book and title deeds in respect of the subject land. After

following necessary procedure, Respondent No.4 mutated the name

of the petitioner in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass

book and title deed in his favour vide Patta No.41. As no appeal was 2 MSM,J WP No.17922 of 2017

filed against the issuance of pattdar pass book and title deeds, the

entries made in favour of the petitioner attained finality.

While so, Respondent No.5 filed suit O.S.No.1094 of 2007 on

the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa for cancellation of

Sale Deed dated 18.01.2004 and for permanent injunction

restraining the petitioner and his men from interfering with his

alleged possession and enjoyment and also for mandatory injunction

for return of pattadar pass book and title deed, but here, the Trial

Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated

29.10.2010, holding that the Sale Deed dated 18.01.2004 is valid

and the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject land and

Respondent No.5 cannot seek for return of pattadar pass book and

title deed issued in favour of the petitioner.

Thereupon, Respondent No.5 submitted a representation to

Respondent No.2/District Collector, who in turn forwarded the same

to Respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, stating that the land

was allotted to Schedule Caste people during the year 1941 and

subsequently the land was purchased in the year 1979 and the

petitioner has fraudulently got registered the same.

Basing on the representation of Respondent No.5, Respondent

No.3/Revenue Divisional officer entertained the representation as an

appeal and issued the impugned proceedings ordering for

cancellation of the pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour

of the petitioner. The present writ petition is filed challenging the

proceedings in Ref.No.H/1582/2013 dated 27.08.2015 passed by the

Revenue Divisional Officer/Respondent No.3.

No counter affidavits are filed.

                                       3                                MSM,J
                                                           WP No.17922 of 2017

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated

the contentions urged in the petition while relying on the Division

Bench judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad in Ratnamma vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and two others1. Basing on

the principle laid down in the above judgment learned counsel for

the petitioner requested to set-aside the impugned order passed by

the third respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer declaring the same

as illegal and arbitrary.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

contended that, the subject land belongs to the Government and the

same cannot be recorded in the name of the petitioner by mutating

the name and admitted that the issue involved in this matter is

covered by the judgment in Ratnamma's case (referred supra).

Admittedly, the petitioner obtained pattadar pass book and

title deed in his favour, as pleaded in Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit

filed along with the petition. While so, Respondent No.5 filed

O.S.No.1094 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Kadapa seeking cancellation of Sale Deed dated 18.01.2004 and for

permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and his men from

interfering with his alleged possession and enjoyment and also for

mandatory injunction for return of pattadar pass book and title deed.

But, the Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree

dated 29.10.2010, holding that the Sale Deed dated 18.01.2004 is

valid and the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject land and

Respondent No.5 cannot seek for return of pattadar pass book and

title deed issued in favour of the petitioner. In view of the

uncontroverted facts, it is clear that, the petitioner obtained pattadar

2015 (6) ALD 609 (D.B.) 4 MSM,J WP No.17922 of 2017

pass book and title deed way back in the year 2006. But,

Respondent No.5 submitted representation before the second

respondent/District Collector, who in-turn, forwarded the same to

the third respondent /Revenue Divisional Officer. The third

respondent treated the application submitted by Respondent No.5 as

an appeal.

According to Section 5(5) of the Act, against every order passed

by 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. But, here, no order was passed by the Tahsildar mutating the

name of the petitioner, instead, Respondent No.5/third party

submitted a representation to the second respondent/District

Collector, who in-turn forwarded the same to the third

respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional

Officer treated the representation made by the third party in an

appeal without considering the limitation prescribed under

Section 5(5) of the Act.

Section 5(5) of the Act provides an appeal against an order

passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment

in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, a

revision lies against such an order to the District Collector. It is not a

question of amendment of entries in the revenue records to treat the

representation as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, but, it is

an order passed under Section 6-A of the Act, against which a

revision lies under Section 9 to the District Collector, but no appeal 5 MSM,J WP No.17922 of 2017

is provided. The issue is covered by the judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer,

Dharmavaram2.

In view of the law declared by the Division Bench judgment of

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in

Ratnamma's case (referred supra), no further adjudication is

required in this matter, since the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa

cannot treat the representation submitted by the third party i..e

Respondent No.5 as an appeal, in view of the plain language

employed in Section 5(5) of the Act.

Hence, applying the principle laid down in the Division

Bench judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad in Ratnamma's case (referred supra), the order passed by

the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa in Ref.No.H/1582/2013

dated 27.08.2015 is declared as illegal, arbitrary and without

jurisdiction.

In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the action of

the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, as illegal

and arbitrary, while setting-aside the same. However, it is left open

to the Tahsildar, Kadapa Mandal to take appropriate action in

accordance with law. No costs.

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any,

shall also stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date:07.04.2022

SP

2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB)