Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Udumula Siva Reddy, Guntur Dist vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd 6 Ot on 6 December, 2022

Bench: V.Sujatha

        HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
              WRIT PETITION No.31158 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 order issued by the 2nd Respondent in Revision Petition Rc.No.3718/2015D5 dated 22/08/2015 confirming the order of the 3 rd Respondent issued in his Proceedings Rc No 3368/2014A dated 30/01/2015 as illegal arbitrary contrary to records and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said orders and pass ..."

The brief facts which lead to filing of the present Writ

Petition are that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds said

have been issued to the respondents No.6 and 7 by the 4th

respondent in the year, 1999 and as per RSR of Nallapadu

village, the survey No.156 and 2016 are classified as patta land

and as per Adangal the names of respondents No.6 and 7 have

been entered in the Adangal to an extent of Ac.1.05 cents each

in survey No.156/A.

Later on the representation of the 5th respondent dated

12.08.2014 claiming an extent of Ac.2.10 cents in Survey

No.156/A situated at Nallapadu, Guntur Rural, Guntur District

as his property and requested for cancellation of the pattadar

passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of respondents No.6

and 7 before the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent initiated the

proceedings. On that as the petitioner who is also having share

along with respondents No.6 and 7, filed implead petition in

pending ROR proceedings and also filed written arguments on

30.10.2014. But the 3rd respondent passed the proceedings vide

in Rc.No.3368/2014-A, dated 30.01.2015 by cancelling the

pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the

respondents No.6 and 7 and issued pattadar passbook and title

in favour of the 5th respondent,, by exercising the powers

conferred under Section 5 of the A.P.Rights in Land and

Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 r/w Rule 22-A (1 to 4) detailed in

A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Rules, 1989.

On perusal of the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, it

shows that they are one sided and non-consideration of claim of

petitioner and though the 3rd respondent in his proceedings

referred the pendency of suit in O.S.No.136/2009 filed by the

petitioner, he ought to have issued notice to the petitioner and

consider the claim of the petitioner.

Being aggrieved by the orders of the 3rd respondent, the

petitioner filed W.P.No.8684 of 2015 before this Court and this

Court on 31-03-2015, disposed of the Writ Petition by ordering

as follows:

'liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority by way of filing a revision along with an application seeking stay of the order under challenge, within a period of ten(10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such filing the revisional authority shall take on file the revision and dispose of the stay application or preferably the revision itself, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the revision. Till such time orders are passed either in the stay application or the revision, whichever is earlier, there shall be status quo with regard to entries in the revenue records.

On that the petitioner preferred Revision vide

Rc.No.3718/2015-D5 and respondents No.6 and 7 also filed

Revision vide Rc.No.1640/2015-D5 before the 2nd respondent

and the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order on

22-08-2015, which is as follows:

„in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 9 of the AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 read with Rules 23(1 to 4) detailed in AP Rights in Land and Pattaar Passbook Rules, 1989, after hearing the arguments of the counsels of the Revision Petitioners and respondents and after examining the materials produced before this Court and available in the Lower Court file and the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur in Rc.No.3368/2014-A, dated 31.05.2015 for cancelling Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds issued in favour of Sri.Udumala Muraliswara Reddy S/o. Sambi Reddy bearing No.654375 with Khata No.1082 to an extent of Ac.1.05 cents in survey No.156/A and to Sri Udumula Raghunadha Reddy S/o. Sambi Reddy bearing No.654371 with khata No.1083 to an extent of Ac.1.05 cents in survey No.156/1 of Nallapadu Village, Guntur Mandal is uphold. Hence, the Revision Petition filed by Sri Udumula Raghunadha Reddy and Udumula Muraliswara Reddy and Udumula Siva Reddy are hereby dismissed‟.

Being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is

filed.

Heard Sri.Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Revenue, for Respondents. Though notice was ordered none

appeared for the unofficial respondents No.5 to 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 Pattadar 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 Pattadar 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 Pattadar 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 3rd respondent being RDO., cannot take a

complaint directly as an appeal 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 respondents No.6

and 7, vide PPB No.G654371 with Khata No.1083 and PPB No.

G654375 with Khata No.1082 on their 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 5th respondent's representation/appeal challenging the

issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed, in favour of the

respondents No. 6 and 7, is not maintainable in law,

in as much 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

proceedings in Rc.No.3368/2014-A dated 30.01.2015, 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 respondent No.3 is competent to treat the

representation/application submitted by respondent No.5,

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

.2015(1) ALT 361

Rights or refusing to make such an amendment within a period

of sixty(60) days from the date of communication of the said

order.

In the present case, the 5th respondent instead of

challenging the original order passed by the Tahsildar, granting

pattadar pass book in favour of the respondents No.6 and 7,

has requested the 3rd respondent to cancel the pattadar

passbooks issued in favour of the respondents No.6 and 7, by

making complaint dated 17.06.2013 to the 3rd respondent.

Further, the 3rd respondent in its proceedings did not consider

the contentions of the petitioner, who is also having share in the

subject land along with respondents No.6 and 7 and 3rd

respondent passed proceedings without issuing any notice or

opportunity of hearing to him, though the 3rd respondent

mentioned in its order pendency of suit proceedings vide

O.S.No.136/2009 filed by the petitioner and it is also mentioned

that in his proceedings about the report of the 4th respondent

that:

„as per the RSR of Nallapadu Village, the survey Nos. 156 and 204 are classified as patta land and as per Adangal the names of Udumula Raghunadha Reddy and Udumula Malleswara Reddy have been entered in the Adangal to an extent of Ac.1.05 cents each in survey No.156/A and raised Cotton crop in the above said land. On perusal of the document No.3421/1936 it is not notred that the land is joint and self acquired by Sri.Udumula Koti Reddy S/o. Appi Reddy and Sri Udumula Narsi Reddy

S/o. Govinda Reddy. Sri.Udumula Chenna Reddy and Udumula Koti Reddy are having right over an extent of Ac.1.00 cents only survey No.156/A and the petitioner is also having right over an extent of Ac.2.10 cents in survey No.2.10 cents.

However, in the absence of any order passed by the

Mandal Revenue Officer, entertaining an appeal under Section

5(5) of the Act, treating the complaint/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 Vs. RDO., Dharmavaram".

Therefore, by applying the principle laid down in the said

judgment, the 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.

Accordingly, the consequential orders passed by the 2nd

respondent/appellate authority is not valid and without