P.Nirmala vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8289 AP

             THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

            WRIT PETITION No.8744 and 3043 OF 2021


COMMON ORDER:

      Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the

same, these two writ petitions disposed of together with a common order.


2.    Both the writ petitions are filed assailing the order passed by the

Revenue Divisional Officer in Proceedings R.Dis.H/2377/2015 dated

02.12.2020 and to set aside the same and consequently, direct the

respondent to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records.

3. The case of the petitioners in W.P.No.8744 of 2021 is that the

petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of the lands, admeasuring

Ac.0.29 cents in Sy.No.141/7 and Ac.1.03 cents in Sy.No.141/1A. Their

grand fathers, one late Srinivasulu Reddy, Apthiri Siva Reddy and father

of the petitioners purchased the aforesaid lands from its lawful owner one

Sri Konappacharyulu through a registered Sale Deeds vide Doc.Nos.1117

of 1936 and 2654 of 1963 respectively. Since then, father of the petitioners

was in possession and enjoyment and also got issued Pattadhar Pass

Books and title deeds in his favour vide Khata No.723 and his name was

also mutated in revenue records. After his demise the petitioners

succeeded the property and continuing the possession.

4. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.3043 of 2021 is that the

petitioner has purchased the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-17 cents

in S.No.141/1, Ac.0-33 cents in S.No.141/2 Ac.0-03 cents in S.No.141/3,

Ac.0-13 cents in S.No. 141/4, Ac.0-30 cents in S.No. 141/5 and Ac.0-34

cents in S.No.141/6 of Durgasamudram village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal

from one M.Srinivasulu Chetti under registered Sale Deed bearing

Document No. 2129/2006 dt.13-9-2006. The Tahsildar has entered the

name of the petitioner in adangal and issued pattadar pass book and title

deed with Khata No.714 in favour of the petitioner. Since then the

petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the above said land.

While so, the unofficial respondent filed an application before the Tahsildar

for issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed for the lands to an extent

of Ac.1-07, 0-17, 0-17, 0-16, 0-34 and 0-29 in S.Nos.141/1A, 141/1B,

141/2A, 141/2B, 141/6 and 141/7 respectively of Durgasamudram village,

Tirupathi Rural Mandal. The Tahsildar except to an extent of Ac.0-29 cents

in S.No.141/7 has rejected the claim of unofficial respondent for issue of

pattadar pass book and title deed vide endorsement Roc.7 (R)162/2015

dt. 21-7-2015 on the ground that the flow of title and the documents do not

tally; pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to the petitioner

herein and to one A.Siva Reddy in respect of the above lands.

5. Admittedly that the unofficial respondent has filed an appeal under

Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971

in R.Dis.No.H/2377/2015 before the Revenue Divisional Officer

questioning the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar denying his claim

against father of writ petitioners and another writ petitioner for issuance of

pattadar passbooks and title deeds and to cancel the existing records in

favour of petitioners for an extent of Ac.1.91 cents in Sy.No.141/A, 1B, 2A,

2B and 6 of Durgasamudram village. But the Revenue Divisional Officer,

without considering the submissions made by the petitioners in the appeal

erroneously passed an order dt.02-12-2020 directing the Tahsildar,

Tirupati Rural to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds standing

in the name of the father of the petitioners and one Smt. P.Nirmala

another writ petitioner and directed to issue pattadar pass books in the

name of unofficial respondent.

6. The unofficial respondent claimed title in respect of the subject land

and other lands through one Sri S.V.K.S Srinivas and he purchased the

lands from the said person under Doc.No.1823/2005. But neither the

name of the unofficial respondent nor his vendor's name, are shown in the

revenue records till date and he has not made any application till 2015.

7. Sri P.Gangi Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in

W.P.No.3043 of 2021 submitted that no appeal is provided under section

5(5) of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 [for short

referred as ROR.Act] against rejecting the order refusing to issue pattadar

pass book and title deed. The impugned order directing the Tahsildar to

issue pattadar pass books in favour of unofficial respondents and cancel

the existing passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners is

passed without any jurisdiction; unless and until the title of unofficial

respondent is decided by the competent civil court the order of the

Revenue Divisional Officer is illegal.

8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

it is not the case of the unofficial respondent herein, either the father of the

petitioners or the petitioner played fraud or misrepresentation, there is no

such allegation in the appeal. In the absence of any such pleading and

evidence the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is absolutely

illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of ROR Act and without

jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

9. It is pertinent to mention that the father of the petitioners in

W.P.No.8744 of 2021 filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer

questioning the issuance of Pattadar Pass Books in favour of

Smt.K.Sunanda and K.Venkata Reddy in respect of Sy.No.141/1 of Durga

Samudram Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal. The Revenue Divisional

Officer allowed the said appeal and directed the Tahsildar to conduct

enquiry and issue pattadar pass books and title deed while cancelling the

pattadar pass books issued in favour of K.Sunanda vide order in

D.Dis.No.H/1375/2010 dtd.27-02-2011. And in the de nova enquiry

conducted by the Tahsildar it was found that the petitioners are the

absolute owners and possessors of the subject lands and thereafter

issued pattadar Pass books and title deeds in favour of the father of

petitioners vide proceedings in D.Dis(D) 674/2010 dt 27-08-2012.

10. It is further submitted that one Smt.P.Nirmala, who is the 1st

respondent in the appeal filed by the unofficial respondent, assailing the

order passed in the appeal directing to cancel pattadar pass books and

title deed issued in her favour, she filed the W.P. No 3043 of 2021 and this

Court was pleased to grant interim suspension on 09-02-2021. Despite the

interim order/suspension granted by this Court, Tahsildar in collusion with

unofficial respondent mutated the name of unofficial respondent in the

revenue records. Since the petitioners were also parties to the appeal filed

by unofficial respondent and despite stay order granted by the court

against that order, mutation of records by Tahsildar is nothing but violation

of the orders of this court.

11. The unofficial respondent in both the writ petitions, filed counter

submitting that the writ petitioners in W.P.No.8744 of 2021 already filed

revision vide No.D4/327861/2021 before the 2nd respondent-Joint

Collector, assailing the same order and pending revision, they filed the

present writ petition. Hence Petitioners cannot be permitted to pursue two

proceedings simultaneously.

12. It is further submitted in the counter that the unofficial respondent is

the absolute owner of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.07 cents in

Sy.No. 141/1A, Ac.0.17 cents in Sy.No.141/1B, Ac.0.17 cents in

Sy.No.141/6 and c 0.29 cents in Sy.No.141/7 of Durga Samudram village

lands of Tirupati Rural Mandal originally belonged to one

M.S.V.K.S.Srinivasan, who inherited it from his ancestors. On 02.06.2005,

the unofficial respondent purchased the subject lands from its lawful

owners under Regd. Sale Deed vide Doc. No.1823/2005. Since then, the

unofficial respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of the land

from the date of purchase. Thereafter, he made an application before the

Tahsildar for grant of Pattadhar Passbook and Title deed for the subject

lands to which Tahsildar issued an endorsement on 21.07.2017 stating

that request for Pattadhar Pass Book and Title Deed to an extent of

Ac.0.29 cents in Sy.No.141/7 is considered and for the remaining extent it

was rejected stating that would be considered soon after submitting the

registered documents. Aggrieved by the said endorsement 5 th/ unofficial

respondent filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer herein, in

which writ petitioner filed counter and nowhere petitioners contested about

maintainability of the appeal, on the other hand, after losing his claim, the

writ petitioners now raised the question of maintainability in the writ

petition.

13. It is also submitted that the writ petitioner under law is estopped

from raising the plea of maintainability after contesting the matter before

Revenue Divisional Officer. In the appeal filed by father of the petitioners

neither the unofficial respondent nor his vendor was party to the said

appeal, as such those orders are not binding on them. There is no res

judicata on the authorities to decide who is entitled for mutation in R.O.R.

Having invoked the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer against

issuance of Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds and having invited the

orders, now the petitioners cannot contend that respondent appeal is not

maintainable.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed reply to the counter of

unofficial respondent denying the averments made in the counter as false,

baseless and devoid of merits. It is submitted in their reply that when an

appeal was filed by the father of the petitioners, wherein Revenue

Divisional Officer ordered to issue pattadar Passbook, after due enquiry

conducted by the Tahsildar. Thus it is very clear that right from the year

1936, the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the said lands;

the Revenue Divisional Officer having knowledge of the dispute with

regard to the same land, which was adjudicated by the then Revenue

Divisional Officer in the year 2011, which become final, strangely

entertained the appeal and passed impugned order. Whenever Revenue

Divisional Officer changes his place, the record shall not change according

to their whims and fancies. Further submitted that the unofficial

respondent alleged to have purchased the property in the year 2005 and

he filed the appeal in the year 2017 after long lapse of 12 years, which

was entertained by the 3rd respondent even though he does not have any

jurisdiction.

15. The Revenue Divisional officer filed counter alleging that the

unofficial respondent herein filed 6A claim under the provisions of Act,

1971 before the Tahsidlar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, through Mee Seva along

with connected documents on 19.06.2015 for grant of Pattadar Pass Book

and Title Deed; the village accounts and the copies of the registered

documents enclosed to the application, shows that the title and flow of

documents tallies for an extent of Ac.0.29 cents in Sy.No.141-7 and the

documents not tallies for the rest of the lands. Since the claimed lands are

already stands registered in the names of one Sri Siva Reddy vide Khata

No.723 for an extent of Ac.1.03 cents in Sy.No.141/1A and Smt.P.Nirmala

vide Khata No.714 for an extent of AC.0.17 cents in Sy.No.141/B, 0.17

cents in Sy.No.141/2A, 0.16 cents in Sy.No.141/2B, 0.34 cents in

Sy.No.141/6 of Durgasamudram village. Therefore, the application for

issue of Pattadar passbook and Title Deed to an extent of Ac.0.29 cents in

Sy.No.141/7 was considered. The lands to an extent of Ac.1.91 cents

comprised in Sy.No.141/1A, 2A, 2B and 6 not considered and the same

will be considered soon after submitting the registered documents from the

title holders. To that effect an endorsement dated 21.07.2015 vide

Roc.7(R)/162/2015 has been issued by the then Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural.

16. It is further submitted that aggrieved by the endorsement of the

then Tahsildar, unofficial respondent filed an appeal under section 5 (5) of

the A.P. Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971; that, the

subject land in Sy.No.141 was subdivided to 141-1 to 8, S.No.141-1 to 7

correlated to Paimoish No.272 or Old Sy. No.19 with an extent of Ac.1.24,

0.33, 0.03, 0.13, 0.30, 0.34, 0.29 cents are classified as Inam Dry and in

the Column No.12 Remarks it is noted as "DHARMADAYAM" i.e., Service

Inam as per Fair Adangal of Durgasamudram Village of Tirupati Rural

Mandal.

17. It is further submitted in his counter that the land in S.No.141-8

Ac.1.50 cents are classified as Anadeenam Punja AWD, and correlates

with Paimoish No. 273, but no PaimoishNo.272 or Old Sy.No.19. Further

the then Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri granted Ryotwari Patta to

Sri.S.V.K.S.Varadacharyulu, Sri. Aparthi Srinivasulu Reddy for Paimoish

No.272 old Sy.No. 19 of Durga Samudram village. The unofficial

respondent has purchased the land in S.No.141/1 to 141/7 which tallies

with Paimoish No.272 and old S.No. 19. A registered sale deed executed

in favour of Apthiri Srinivasa Reddy by Kumara Srinivasa

KonappaCharyulu S/o SrinivasaChninnalacharyulu for the lands in

Paimoish No. 273 before settlement operations. After Survey Settlement

Operations conducted during the year 1963 the said Paimoish No 273

along with P.No. 272 correlates with S.No. 141-8 with an extentof Ac. 1.50

cents and is classified as Assessed Waste Dry i.e., Government land.

18. It is therefore clearly established that A. Srinivasulu Reddy is not

having any right over the land in S.No. 141-1 to 7 which tallies with

Paimoish No.19. Similarly, he cannot get any right over the land in

S.No.141/8 tallies with Paimoish No 273 and P.No. 272, since the land

was already classified as AWD during survey settlement operations in

1963. Further submitted that in view of the above facts, the unofficial

respondent/5th respondent herein (appellant) established the right over the

suit land as the vendor of the appellant S.V.K.S. Srinivasan succeeded the

estate of his father, has got right in the schedule mentioned lands and

accordingly the unofficial respondent (appellant) is entitled to get pass

book for the Survey number 141/1 to an extent of Ac.1-24 cents, 141/2 an

extent Ac.0.33 cents, survey numbers 141/6 an extent of Ac.0.34 cents. In

the circumstances stated above and in view of the facts of the case, the

impugned order vide R.Dis. H/2377/2015 Dated: 02.12.2020 has been

issued with specific affirmation directing the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural

Mandal to cancel the Pattadhar Pass-books and title deeds issued in the

name of Apthiri Siva Reddy to an extent of Ac.1-07 cents in S.No. 141/1

through vide Katha No. 723, and P.Nirmala an extent of Ac.0-17 cents in

Sy. No. 141/2A and an extent of Ac.0-16 cents in Sy.No. 141/2B and an

extent of Ac. 0-34 cents in Sy.No.141/6 through vide Katha No. 714 and

directed to issue Pattadar Pass Book to the appellant/C.Rajasekhar Reddy

to an extent of Ac. 1-24 cents in Sy.No. 141/1, in an extent of Ac. 0-33

cents in Sy.No.141/2, and an extent of Ac. 0-34 cents in Sy.No.141/6 as

and when the appellant files 6A claim for the above land under the

provisions laid under ROR Act. Since the petitioner has filed revision

under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 without utilizing the said provision, the

petitioner has rushed up to this Court. Thereby prayed to dismiss the writ

petition.

19. Learned counsel for petitioners has contended that the appeal

under Section 5(5) of ROR Act is not maintainable against the rejection

order passed under section 6-A of the Act. It is contended that when an

application is made with regard to Section 4(1) intimating the Tahsildar,

then an order has to be passed under Section 5(3) or against the

amendment made under Section 5(1) of the Act. Only against that an

appeal can be filed under section 5(5) of the Act but not against the order

under Section 6A. In the case on hand no order was passed under Section

5(3) of the Act, it was an endorsement given by the Tahsildar rejecting the

application under Section 6A. Hence no appeal can be filed against such

endorsement under section 5(5) of the Act.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred the judgment of Division

Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer1, wherein the

court observed that -

" Now, we construe the scope of Section 5(5) of the Act and whether an appeal against the order under section 6-A is provided or the remedy of appeal under section 5(5) can be inferred as held in N.Balreddy's case.

From a bare reading of Section 5(5) of the Act, it can be held that against every order of recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal to the RDO, is provided within the time stipulated in the Section. Under the Act, making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make amendment in record of rights is a crucial stage and a substantive decision rendered by the recording authority. Therefore, right of appeal is provided against such decisions. Likewise, from the reading of Section 5(5) of the Act, it cannot be construed that Section 5(5) provides remedy of appeal against orders under Section 6-A of the Act. Issuance of PPB/TD or making entries therein is always a step consequential to the record of rights prepared. Therefore the plain reading of Section 5(5) makes it clear that appeal against order under Section 6-A is not maintainable."

2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 282

21. By referring to the above para in Ratnamma's case, learned

counsel contended that appeal filed under section 5(5) of the Act is not

maintainable against an order passed under section 6-A. An appeal under

section 5(5) of the Act, 1971 is maintainable only against determination of

rights under Section 5(1) or order passed under 5(3) of the Act but not

against the order under Section 6-A.

22. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the decision

passed by this court in W.P.No.11746 of 2021 wherein Ratnamma's case

also referred and held that -

"from the reading of the Section 5, clause five of the Act, it cannot be construed that Section 5 (5). Provides a remedy of appeal against orders under section 6-A of the act. Issuance of PPB/TD or making entries therein is always a step consequential to the record of right prepared. Therefore, the plain reading of Section 5(5) makes it clear that appeal against order under Section 6A is not maintainable."

23. The second contention of the petitioners is that once pattadar pass

books are issued, they cannot be cancelled without any order from the

competent civil court.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioners further reliedon the decision

passed in Ghousia Begum v. BasireddyRukminamma2 wherein it was

held that -

"8. According to us, when the pattadar passbook has been issued, the same cannot be cancelled automatically unless civil court found that there is no justification for issuance of the same. The presumption of correctness in issuance of pattadar pass book in favour of the person is always in the act and action of Government.

2013 SCC OnLine AP 1252

But recording is not conclusive as it may be corrected and rectified by the civil court. Unless a competent civil court decides the actual title of the property in favour of any person, consequential measure for issuance or cancellation of pattadar passbook does not arise. Therefore, we uphold the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, as we do not find any illegality in the judgment."

25. By virtue of the above referred judgments, it is contended that the

revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title which involves

serious dispute. If once pattadar passbooks have been issued, it cannot

be cancelled until and unless a competent civil court decides. So in the

present case pattadar passbooks issued in favour of father of petitioners in

the year 2012 by revenue authorities vide proceedings in D.Dis(D)

674/2010 dated 27-08-2012 and cancelling them based on the order of

Revenue Divisional Officer without having any order or decree from the

competent civil court is not in accordance with law.

26. In Ratnamma's case this court also observed that -

"It is well settled that the right of appeal must find its source in legislative authority. The right of appeal accrues to the litigant when it is expressly provided for in the statute and axiomatic that the right of appeal is a substantive right and must be conferred by a statute. As already held, appeal is provided for against the original proceedings or substantive determination under Sections 4, 5 and 5-A of the Act. The Legislature in its wisdom and noticing the purpose of issuing PPB/TD did not provide right of appeal against mere issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act. Therefore, on the literal construction of Sections 3 to 6-A of the Act, it can be held that the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is not provided against the issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act. By treating the action under Sections 5 and 6-A of the Act as single or mutually dependent, in our considered view, the remedy of appeal against mere issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act is not available."

27. In view of the above judgment, it is contended that when the statute

does not provide any specific provision for appeal, litigant cannot choose

to file an appeal under another Section.

28. On the other hand, Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondent more specifically

contended that the order has been wrongly passed under Section 6A,

wherein the respondent filed application under form 6A as per Section 4(1)

of the Act, 1971. The unofficial respondent made application under Form

6A as per section 4(1) of the Act and Rule 18 of Act intimating Tahsildar

regarding the right of acquisition. When the unofficial respondent filed an

application under Form 6A, the official respondents considered it as

application under Section 6A and rejected. If the unofficial respondent filed

the application under Section 6A questioning the issuance of Pattadar

Pass books, then the appeal is barred. But an appeal cannot be barred

challenging the rejection order against the request for mutation of names

in the records.

29. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent vehemently argued

that Section 6A is different from form 6 A. Section 6A is consequential

action after affecting mutation in revenue records. Before issuing pattadar

passbooks and title deeds under Section 6A authorities shall update ROR.

The unofficial respondent herein never sought for cancellation of pattadar

pass books or title deeds but only made an intimation through from 6 A.

Against that appeal lies only under Section 5(5) of the Act. Hence, the

respondent has rightly filed appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act to the

Revenue Divisional Officer.

30. Learned senior counsel also referred to the Ratnamma's case

(cited supra) and stated that when a procedure has been given in the

statute, an appeal must be provided against the grievance caused

consequent to that procedure. The respondent preferred an appeal on

rejection order against Form 6A application and the statue has provided

appeal under section 5(5) of the Act. Hence the unofficial respondent has

rightly chosen to file appeal provided under Section 5(5) of the Act.

31. Learned senior counsel contended that though issuance of pass

book is a consequential step after mutation of records, they are

inseparable, as held in the case of N. Bal Reddy v. Revenue Divisional

Officer, Hyderabad3 wherein this Court held as under :-

"7. The Act provides for making and amendment of entries in record of rights in respect of lands on the strength of claims made by individuals from time to time. The Act was amended through Act 1 of 1989, by substituting Section 6-A of it. This Section enables the passbook holder, to have entries of alienation etc., recorded in the same. It is true that no separate provision is enacted for providing appeal against the orders passed or action taken under Section 6-A of the Act. The omission does not appear to be accidental. Issuance of pattedar passbooks or making entries therein is always a step consequential to the amendments or updating of the record of rights provided for under Section 5 of the Act. There is no question of issuance of pattedar passbooks or amending entries made therein, unless corresponding entries are made in the record of rights. While record of rights are maintained by the concerned revenue authorities, pattedar passbook is a document or instrument left with the person in whose favour it is issued. Both of them can be compared to the Balance Sheet maintained by a bank in respect of an account

2004 SCC OnLine AP 75

holder, and the passbook issued to him respectively. The entries in both of them are required to be in consonance with each other. One does not have any existence independent of the other. It has also come on record that the proceedings that were challenged before the first respondent were comprehensive in nature, in that; they dealt with amendment of entries in the record of rights and issuance of pattedar passbooks. It is a single but comprehensive step. Part of it fits into Section 5, and rest of it fits into Section 6-A of the Act. It cannot be said that part of the matter, which provides for issuance of pattadar passbooks, is separable and is an independent exercise."

32. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the appellate authority,

after conducting a due enquiry and verifying the records came to a

conclusion in favour of petitioners. Hence scope of filing petition under

Article 226 is very less unless a question of law is raised.

33. One of the parties to the appeal availed Section 9, remedy of

revision, against an order which is having common nucleus. When one

party failed to invite interim order they approached the authority. Since

revision is pending and as long as it is about question of facts, this court

cannot go into the merits of the case.

34. In the identical issue this court in W.P.No.18106 of 2020 between D.Bavamma and Ors. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., observed that -

"Section 4 of the Act obligates any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring MSM,J WP_18106_2020 any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Mandal Revenue Officer within ninety days from the date of such acquisition, and the said Mandal Revenue Officer shall give or send a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation to the person making it.

35. Even in Ratnamma's the court also observed that -

"...The remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is provided against the decision to incorporate changes in the record of rights under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The remedy of appeal at that stage fits into the scope of intimation under Section 4 of the Act and consequence of accepting the intimation."

36. It is further observed in the above judgment that -

"That apart, as per Section 4 of the ROR Act any person acquiring by succession, survivorship etc. any right as owner, pattadar/mortgagee shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right to the Recording Authority. On receipt of such intimation, the recording authority shall determine as provided under Section 5 and shall carry out the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. Against such order passed by the recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act to the Revenue Divisional officer and the decision of the appellate authority shall be final subject to the provisions of Section 9 providing for a remedy of Revision to the Collector."

37. By virtue of the above observations made by this Hon'ble court if an

application is made under Section 4(1) of the Act, through Form 6 A, an

order has to be passed under Section 5(3) either accepting or rejecting the

said right of acquisition. But the respondent authority has passed order

under Section 6-A, which is mistake on part of the authorities. Petitioner

has no remedy other than filing appeal under section 5(5) against the

rejection endorsement. Hence, appeal is filed before Revenue Divisional

officer under Section 5(5) of the Act.

38. In view of the above facts and law, the relevant provisions of

A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 [ROR.Act] are

extracted here under:-

"4. Acquisition of rights to be intimated. -

(1) Any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Mandal Revenue Officer within ninety days from the date of such acquisition, and the said Mandal Revenue Officer shall give or send a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation to the person making it:

5. [Amendment and updating of Record of Rights]. -

(1) On receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4, the [Mandal Revenue Officer] shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence therefor and shall carryout the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination:

Provided that no order refusing to make an amendment in accordance with the intimation shall be passed unless the person making such intimation has been given an opportunity of making his representation in that behalf.

....

(3) The [Mandal Revenue Officer] shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) issue a notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. A copy of the amendment and the notice aforesaid shall also be published in such manner as may be prescribed. The [Mandal Revenue Officer] shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit. ..

(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.

6. Presumption of correctness of entries in record of rights. - Every entry in record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or until it is otherwise amended in accordance with the provisions of this Act. [Any mortgage or charge created earlier to a mortgage or charge created in favour of a credit agency shall lose its priority if it is not entered in the pattadar pass book.

[6A. Pass Book holder to have entries of alienation etc., recorded in Pass Book:] -

(1) Every Owner, Pattadar, Mortgagee, or tenant of any land shall apply for the issue of a pass book to the Mandal Revenue Officer on payment of such fee as may be prescribed. [The owner-pattadar shall apply for the issue of a title deed in addition to a pass-book.] [Provided that an occupant of an inam land is also eligible to apply for the issue of a [pass book and title deed] as an occupant:] [Provided further that] where no application is made under this sub-section the Mandal Revenue Officer may suo motu issue a Pass Book after following the procedure prescribed under sub-section (2) and collect the fee prescribed therefor.

(2) On making such application, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall cause an enquiry to be made in such manner as may be prescribed and shall issue a [title deed and pass book] in accordance with the Record of Rights with such particulars and in such form as may be prescribed:

Provided that no such [title deed and pass book] shall be issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer unless the Record of Rights have been brought Part date.

Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other persons having charge of his property shall intimate the fact of such acquisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer."

39. Form 6A, which provides as follows:-

"Intimation by any person regarding Acquisition of Rights" (See Rule 18& Section 4(1) of the Act)

To .................

The Recording Authority/Tahsildar, .................. Mandal .................... District.

I, Sri/(Smt/Kum.)........................ Son of/[ daughter of/wife of] .......... resident of village.........in Mandal............................intimate to you the acquisition of the following property in the village of ............. in ....................Mandal...........................in..................... District by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of the land. Details are furnished below:

Providing names of the District: Mandal: and Village.

Mentioning "S.No and Sub-Division extent of Land Details of Acquisition" in tabular form."

40. Based on the above pleadings and the provision of law, learned

counsel for the petitioners contended that appeal preferred by the

respondents is not maintainable as per the ratio decided Division Bench of

this Court in Ratnamma's case. In fact, the unofficial respondent made an

application under Section 6 of the ROR Act and the same was rejected by

Tahsildar vide orders dated 21.07.2017 rejecting for issuance of pattadar

pass books and title deeds in favour of the respondents herein. Only

remedy available to the unofficial respondent is that he should have

approached the competent civil court by filing an appropriate application.

41. He further contended that as per Section 4 of the ROR, after

acquiring the rights over the property as occupant, they should have made

an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer within 90 days from the date

of such acquisition. Consequently, the Mandal Revenue Officer, on

perusal of information or intimation of the fact of acquisition of rights shall

determine and carry out the record of rights in accordance with such

determination.

42. As per Section 5(5) of the Act against the every order of the Mandal

Revenue Officer /Tahsildar either making an amendment in the revenue

records or refusing to make such an amendment shall lie to the Revenue

Divisional Officer or such authority within a period of 60 days from the date

of communication of such order.

43. Further Section 6A deals with grant of passbooks, every

owner/pattadar shall apply for issuance of passbooks to the Mandal

Revenue Officer/Tahsildar on payment of such fee, on receipt of such

application, the authority shall cause an enquiry, in such a manner as

prescribed and shall issue a title deed and pas books in accordance with

record or rights with such particulars.

44. In the instant cases, as per the application made by the unofficial

respondent, the Tahsildar in the impugned order dated 21.07.2017 has

rightly rejected the application for issuance of Pattadar pass books and

title deeds in favour of the unofficial respondent herein.

45. On the identical issue arose before this court, the Division Bench

has considered the provisions of the Act and held that the Act has not

provided any remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, as against

the issuance of pattadar passbooks/title deeds under Section 6A of the

Act.

46. In view of the ratio decided by the Division Bench in Ratnamma's

case [cited supra], the impugned action of the 3rd respondent in

entertaining the appeal is illegal and contrary. In the instant case, the

unofficial respondent filed an application for grant of pattadar pass books

and based on the record, which was rejected by the 4th respondent-

Tahsildar in its order dated 21.07.2017 through an endorsement. Against

the same, the unofficial respondent preferred an appeal before the 3rd

respondent and the same was allowed vide impugned order, by

entertaining the appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, which is contrary to

the provisions of the Act as well as the ratio decided by this court in the

above said judgments. Hence, as observed by the Division Bench, the

Revenue Divisional officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the order passed

under Section 6A of the ROR Act when the same authority has passed the

impugned order, hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly,

the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

47. Sri T.Balaji, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in

W.P.No.8744 of 2021 has adopted the arguments made by the other

counsel Sri P.Gangi Rami Reddy and submitted that though the petitioners

has filed revision before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, aggrieved by

the orders of the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, dated

02.12.2020 but when there is jurisdictional aspect was involved, as per

the provisions of the Act and also as per the ratio decided by this Court,

they have filed the present writ petition questioning the orders passed by

the 3rd respondent, dated 02.12.2020.

48. Replying to the said contentions raised by the petitioners, learned

senior counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondent has

submitted that the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions with

malafide intention. In fact, the petitioners in W.P.No.8744 of 2021 have

preferred a revision before the 2nd respondent -Joint collector aggrieved

by the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 02.12.2022 when

they have failed to get the orders from the competent authority as per the

provisions of the Act, the other writ petitioner has filed the present W.P.

No.3043 of 2021 to raise the jurisdictional aspect, assailing the very same

orders.

49. Learned senor counsel agreed with the observations of the Division

Bench of this Court in Ratnamma's Case [cited supra], he also relied on

the very same judgment and submitted that the petitioners have made an

application under Form 6A, but not under Section 6A and also placed the

application made by the unofficial respondent under Form 6A along with

their counter. Form 6A is made under Section 4(1) of the Act. Under

Section 4(1) of the ROR Act, clearly stipulates that after acquiring the

rights, one should have to make an application before the competent

authority, on receipt of said application, the authority has to pass an order

under Section 5(1) of the Act. If any order passed under Section 5(1) of

the Act there is a remedy of appeals to the Revenue Divisional Officer or

such authority under Section 5(5) of the Act. Hence, in the instant case,

the petitioners made an application under Form-6 A which is under

Section 4(1) of the Act. Though they have made an application under

Form 6A, but the authorities have passed an order rejecting grant of pass

Books under Section 6A.

50. It is fault of the officer but not of the unofficial respondent. When

they have rightly made an application under Form 6A, if any order passed

under said Section, there is a remedy under Section 5(5) of the Act, to

prefer an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer. In the very same

judgment, the paragraph referred supra held that - it is well settled that the

right of appeal must find its source in legislative authority. The right of appeal

accrues to the litigant when it is expressly provided for in the statute and

axiomatic that the right of appeal is a substantive right and must be conferred by

a statute. As already held, appeal is provided for against the original proceedings

or substantive determination under Sections 4, 5 and 5-A of the Act. The

legislature in its wisdom and noticing the purpose of issuing PPB/TD did not

provide right of appeal against mere issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of

the Act. Therefore, on the literal construction of Sections 3 to 6-A of the Act, it

can be held that the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is not

provided against the issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act. By

treating the action under Sections 5 and 6-A of the Act as single or mutually

dependent, in our considered view, the remedy of appeal against mere issuance

of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act is not available.

51. As per the above observations, the intention of the legislature in its

wisdom is that appeal is a substantive right and accordingly appeal is

provided against the original proceedings or substantive determination

under Section 4 and 5 A of the Act. Hence, the in the instance case, the

petitioners have made an application in Form 6A under Section 4(1) of the

Act, the Tahsildar passed an order under Section 5 (1) of the Act, hence,

rightly the unofficial respondent filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the

Act. In view of the above, the unofficial respondent has no other remedy

except appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act as against the orders passed

by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar in the application made by the petitioners

under Section 4(1) of the Act,.

52. Learned senior counsel also contended that in view of the factual

disputes, the matter has to be decided based on the record. Already the

petitioners have preferred a revision before the competent authority i.e.,

Joint Collector/2nd respondent herein and the same is pending. Hence,

this court ought not to have entertained the writ petition and the same may

be rejected on the ground of availing alternative relief by the petitioners.

53. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and on

perusal of the material on record, though the petitioners contended that

the orders passed by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar is under Section 6A, on

perusal of the application made by the unofficial respondent along with the

counter, it clearly discloses that they have made an application to the 4th

respondent-Tahsildar in Form 6A which is under Section 4(1) of the ROR

Act.

54. In the said circumstances, as observed by the Division Bench in

Ratnamma's case [referred supra], once any order is passed under Section

5(1) of the Act, the remedy is available under Section 5(5) of the Act.

Accordingly, the unofficial respondent has filed an appropriate application

under Section 5(5) of the Act as against the order passed under Section

4(1) of the Act in Form 6A of the Act.

55. In view of the above observations, both the Writ Petitions are

dismissed. The petitioners in W.P.No.8744 of 2021 are at liberty to pursue

their statutory remedy, which is pending before the 2nd respondent-Joint

Collector. It is needless to mention that the 2nd respondent may decide

the revision filed by the petitioners on merits without influenced by the

observations made in this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

56. Though the petitioner in W.P.No.3043 of 2021 has not preferred

any revision, considering the revision field by the other parties against the

very same impugned order, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a

revision before the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Act.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also

stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH

Date: 03.11.2022 Pnr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.8744 and 3043 OF 2021

Date: 03-01-2022

Pnr