Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

B.E.Veerkumar vs The Joint Collector, on 5 December, 2022

Bench: V.Sujatha

        HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
              WRIT PETITION No.27593 of 2015

ORDER

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, seeking the following relief:-

"....to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent Joint Collector, Kurnool in No.D5/2907/2011 dated 31.3.2012 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same..."

The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that he purchased

an extent of Ac.0.91 cents in Survey No.160A/3 from the

husband of 6th respondent by name Govindaiah Shetty during

his life time vide registered sale deed No.1995 of 2009 dated

06.04.2009 for valuable consideration of Rs.69,000/- and since

then the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of

the subject land. Evidencing the same, the revenue authorities

also issued Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed in favour of the

petitioner.

While the matter stood thus, on the request made by

unofficial respondents 2 to 5 seeking cancellation of pattadhar

passbook and Title Deed in his favour, the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Adoni, vide his proceedings No.D.Dis/(E)1667/2010

dated 18.06.2011, cancelled the pattadhar passbook and title

deed of petitioner without considering the relevant documents

and records relating to the issue and also about informing

pendency of O.S.No.274 of 2011 on the file of Principal Junior

Civil Judge at Adoni. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred appeal

before the 1st respondent and the same was dismissed by the 1st

respondent vide his proceedings in D5/2907/2011 dated

31.03.2012. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition

is filed.

Heard Sri.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Revenue, for respondents No.1 and 7.

At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the Writ

Petitioner reiterated the contentions of the Writ Petition and

contended that the impugned order is not maintainable and

also draws the attention of this Court the relevant

provisions of the Act are as under.

Section 3(3) of A.P.Rights in Land and Pasttadar Pass books of 1971, any person effected by an entry in record of rights, may apply for rectification before the concerned MRO., within a period of one year from the date of the notification issued under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3.

Section 4 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pasttadar Pass books of 1971, if any person acquires

any right over any land either by succession, survivorship etc., it shall be intimated to the MRO., within 90 days from the date of such acquisition.

Section 5 of the said Act, on receipt of such intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred in Section 4, the concerned MRO., after enquiry may amend and update the records of the rights.

Then only against an order of the MRO., either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the RDO., within a period of 60 days under Section 5(5) of the said Act.

Rules 15 to 17 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pasttadar Pass Books rules, 1989 deals with rectification of entries in record of rights. Rule 21 provides an appeal to be preferred against an order of MRO., regarding amendment in record of rights.

Further, the Revenue Divisional Officer, cannot take a

complaint directly the case on file under the provisions of

A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books of 1971, unless an

order for amendment/rectification is passed by the MRO. The

pattadar passbook and title deed was issued in favour of the

petitioner in the year, 2009 only on his application and only

after conducting any enquiry, any amendment or rectification

shall be done, if any objection/complaint is filed within a period

of one(01) year.

The third parties application challenging the issuance of

pattadar pass book and title deed, in favour of the petitioner, is

not maintainable in law, in as much as the entries in the

revenue records have not been

challenged. The act of Revenue Divisional Officer in taking up

the application of third parties on file and issuing proceedings

No.D.Dis/(E) 1667/2010 dated 18.06.2011 is illegal, arbitrary

and relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported, in

"Ratnamma Vs. RDO., Dharmavaram"1, wherein it was

observed that:

„The Revenue Divisional Officer, has no authority to treat

the representation/complaint as an appeal in the absence

of any order passed by the Tahsildar, by exercising power

under Section 5(5) of the Act read with Rules, 1989‟

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Revenue, supported the Impugned Order

In view of the submission of both side counsel, the only

question is whether Revenue Divisional Officer, is competent to

treat the representation/application submitted by third parties,

.2015(1) ALT 361

which is having no statutory basis, take the case on file 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(60) days from the date of communication of the said

order.