U.Dharma Teja vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5443 AP

        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

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.

2015 (5) ALT 228 (D.B)

2018 (5) ALT 148 (D.B)

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

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

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.

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