Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gangulu Krishnaiah, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 April, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.1674 OF 2015
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following relief:
""to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
respondents particularly the order of the 2nd respondent in his
R.Dis.E2/83/2011 dated 10.02.2014 confirming the orders of
the 3rd respondent vide R.Dis.ROR/G/741/2006 dated
06.05.2010 in all respects with only modification that the
petitioners have to approach Civil Court for declaration of their
title though there is no revision filed by 5th and 6th respondents
and further no appeal is maintainable against the endorsement
of the 4th respondent dated 11.07.2006 before 3rd respondent as
illegal unjust arbitrary and against Section 82 of the A P Rights
in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and consequently
setaside the orders of 2nd respondent in his R.Dis.E2/83/2011
dated 10.02.2014 confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent
vide R.Dis.ROR/G/741/2006 dated 06.05.2010 in so far as
directing the petitioners to approach Civil Court seeking
declaration and keeping pattadar pass books and title deeds of
the petitioners under abeyance in respect of the petitioners land
of Ac.3-54 in Sy.No.659 of Mamillapalli Village, C K Dinne
Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District."
The facts of the case in nut-shell are that, the ancestors of
the petitioners purchased land of an extent of Ac.3-54 cents in
Sy.No.659 of Mamillapalli Village, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R.
Kadapa District. The fourth respondent/Tahsildar after conducting
thorough enquiry, issued an Endorsement vide Ref.No.B/179/06
holding that the ancestors were in possession during their life time.
Later, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the same
for more than 100 years and the same devolved upon these
petitioners. It is also stated that the petitioners have mortgaged the
land for obtaining bank loans and the petitioners also possessed
tax receipts, but passbooks were not granted to fifth respondent, as
he did not produce any evidence in support of title to the property.
MSM,J
WP No.1674 of 2015
The third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer vide
Ref.No.ROR/G/741/2006 directed both the parties to approach
Civil Court on the ground that, both parties have not produced
documents to prove their title and kept the pattadar pass books
and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners in abeyance.
The second respondent - Joint Collector disposed of the
revision in R.Dis.E2/83/2011 modifying the orders of the third
respondent, stating that the revision petitioner and his successors
in interest are entitled to approach competent Civil Court for
declaration of their right and seek amendment of the entries in the
records of rights in the event of their success in the suit.
Since the representation of Respondent No.5 dated
28.07.2006 is treated as an appeal, writ petition is filed challenging
the action of the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer as an
appeal under Section 5(5) of The Andhra Pradesh Record of
Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short „ROR
Act‟). Such action is questioned in the present writ petition.
Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit admitting that,
representation made by Respondent No.5 was treated as an appeal
under Section 5(5) of ROR Act and also admitted that, Respondent
No.5 have also filed an appeal on 28.07.2006 under Section 5(5) of
ROR Act with the same prayer made in the earlier representation,
thereby, issued notice as part of enquiry in the appeal directing the
petitioner to appear before the third respondent, either in person or
through an Advocate. Hence, there is no illegality and requested to
dismiss the writ petition.
MSM,J
WP No.1674 of 2015
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
The petitioner and family members succeeded the property
admeasuring Ac.3-54 cents in Sy.No.659 of Mamillapalli Village,
C.K. Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. In terms of Section 4(1)
of ROR Act, intimation was given to the Recording Authority i.e
Tahsildar to mutate the name of these petitioners and for issue of
pattadar pass books and title deeds under Section 6-A of ROR Act,
by following procedure under the Rules. Respondent No.4 did not
issue pattadar pass book in favour of fifth respondent holding that
the petitioners mortgaged the land for obtaining bank loans, as
such pattadar passbooks cannot be granted.
Respondent No.5 submitted a representation dated
28.07.2006 to the third respondent and the same is treated as an
appeal under Section 5(5) of ROR Act. Treatment of application as
an appeal under Section 5(5) is impermissible under law and in the
absence of any order passed by the fourth respondent, an appeal is
not maintainable, in view of the law declared by the Division Bench
of this Court in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmavaram1. Therefore, treating the representation made by
Respondent No.5 dated 28.07.2006 as an appeal under
Section 5(5) is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction in terms of
the judgment of the Division Bench in Ratnamma v. Revenue
Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram (referred supra). Hence, the
same is set-aside. However, the appeal, if any filed and pending if
2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB)
MSM,J
WP No.1674 of 2015
any, may be disposed of in accordance with law, subject to
limitation.
In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the
proceedings R.Dis.E2/83/2011 dated 10.02.2014 and
Ref.No.RGR/G/721/2006 dated 06.05.2010, as illegal and
arbitrary; while setting-aside the order passed by the
respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer based on the representation
made by Respondent No.5 dated 28.07.2006 as an appeal under
Section 5(5). However, the appeal/revision, if any filed and pending
if any, may be disposed of in accordance with law, subject to
limitation. It is made clear that the parties can redress their
grievance, if any, before competent authority/court. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any,
shall stand closed.
_____________________________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 22.04.2022
SP
