Dr. Kanagala Chakradhara Rao vs Joint Collector, Krishna ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9456 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

                            W.P.No.16847 of 2008

O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari

questioning the order dated 12.03.2008 of the 1st respondent

and also the order dated 09.07.2007 of the 2nd respondent.

The issue in this writ petition arises out of the order passed

under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,

1971 (for short 'the Act').

2. The writ petitioner is one K.Chakradhara Rao, who died

and his legal representatives are now pursuing the matter.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be arrayed as in

the writ petition itself.

3. The writ petitioner's case is that the order dated

09.07.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional

Officer and the confirmatory order dated 12.03.2008 passed

by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector are contrary to law and

the Act. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property

and in possession of the same. Pattadar passbooks were also

issued to him. Based on a representation filed by the 2nd

respondent, notice was issued and the petitioner's pattadar

passbook and record of rights books were cancelled.

Thereafter he filed a revision which was dismissed by order

dated 12.03.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that

passbooks were issued to him in 1995 and basing on a

representation on 03.05.2007, action was taken. According

to the writ petitioner, the action is hopelessly barred by time

and contrary to settled law. In addition, he also submits that

the pattadar passbook and the record of rights book cannot

be challenged directly as they are merely reflecting the main

entries in the revenue records. Basing on a Division Bench

judgment in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer,

Dharmavaram, Anantapur District and others 1, it is

submitted that it is the entries that should be challenged and

not the issuance of the 'pattadar passbooks'. It is also

submitted that the counter affidavits filed in this case

including the one by the newly added subsequent purchaser

shows that there are complicated questions of fact and law to

be decided and that civil suits which are admittedly pending.

Therefore, it is submitted that both the impugned orders

1 2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB)

dated 09.07.2007 and 12.03.2008 are incorrect and should

be set aside.

4. Respondent No.4, who is a subsequent purchaser, has

been impleaded and he has filed comprehensive counter

affidavit. A reading of the counter affidavit shows that he is

also asserting independent title to the property and is

questioning the petitioner's title. It is also mentioned that civil

suits are pending for declaration of title and also for

permanent injunction. In the counter affidavit three suits

are mentioned viz., O.S.No.34 of 2007, O.S.No.53 of 2008 and

O.S.No.39 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Nuziveedu, Krishna District. It is also mentioned that the

newly added respondent has independent possession, title

etc., and also has pattadar passbooks in his favour. It is

argued that the power of revision was rightly exercised in this

case.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue supported the

orders impugned and stated that the parties were given an

opportunity of being heard and thereafter the orders were

passed and that therefore, this Court should lightly interfere.

6. This Court notices that time and again similar matters

are coming up. Merely on the basis of a representation which

is not as per the statute, revisions/appeals are being

entertained and orders are being passed by the Revenue

Officers. Pattadar passbooks issued in 1995 are sought to be

cancelled in 2007 basing on a representation. The Division

Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in Ratnamma'

s case (1 supra) very clearly held that the entries in the

pattadar passbooks are merely a reflection of the original

entries in the revenue records. It is these entries which

should be cancelled.

7. In the case on hand also, a written representation dated

03.05.2007 was given which was entertained resulting in the

order dated 09.07.2007. This was also confirmed in the

subsequent order dated 12.03.2008, in the revision. After

the writ petition was filed, it transpired that the property was

sold to the newly added respondent No.4. He has entered

appearance and filed a detailed counter affidavit setting up

independent title for himself and also pointing out the

pendency of three suits on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Nuziveedu, Krishna District. He also argues that the Sub-

Collector, Vijayawada also issued a notice contemplating to

cancel the pattadar passbooks etc., issued to him. It is lastly

mentioned that the suit for declaration is filed by the writ

petitioner himself and the same is pending. In the written

note submitted by the petitioner also, the pendency of these

suits is mentioned.

8. This Court, after considering the case law on the subject

and in particular Ratnamma' case (1 supra) and the other

judgments on the subject, is of the opinion that entertaining a

revision so many years after the pattadar passbooks were

issued and that too only against the issuance of pattadar

passbooks and record of rights book is not correct. The

challenge as per the statute should be the entries which are

made in the records and within the statutory periods as

prescribed in the Act/the Rules and the judicial

interpretation.

9. This Court also notices that there are a number of

disputed questions of fact and law to be decided including the

flow of title, by the writ petitioner/his legal heirs and also by

the deceased-3rd respondent and the 4th respondent. Hence,

this Court is of the opinion that it should not express any

opinion on merits of the matter.

10. This Court however notices that the exercise of

jurisdiction by the authorities leading to the passing of the

orders dated 09.07.2007 and 12.03.2008 is ex facie incorrect

and contrary to law. It is directly opposed to the periods of

limitation which by a process of judicial interpretation held to

be three years, even otherwise the action taken in 2007 is not

taken within a reasonable time. The law on the subject is

also clear. It is the primary entries that have to be cancelled

and not the passbooks per se. To the same effect is the

judgment of the Division Bench of A.P. High Court in

Y.C.Balakrishna and another v. Y.Somaiah and others2.

11. Therefore, both the impugned orders dated 09.07.2007

passed by the 2nd respondent and the order dated 12.03.2008

in R.Dis.No.5684/2007 (D2) by the 1st respondent are set

aside. The property is directed to be kept in a disputed

register. Subsequent corrections, modifications and changes

can be made depending upon the results of the suits and

2018 (2) ALD 440

particularly the suit for declaration said to be pending on the

file of the Senior Civil Judges Court, Nuziveedu.

12. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions

if any shall stand dismissed.

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date: 08.12.2022 KLP