Thota Ravi Shankar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8892 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
                      MAIN CASE NO.: W.P. No.37592 of 2022

                                 PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.     DATE                                     ORDER                                  OFFICE
No.                                                                                     NOTE


1.    21.11.2022   CMR, J

                          Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue takes
                   notice for respondents 1 to 3 and requests time to file counter-

affidavit.

Issue notice to respondents 4 and 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to respondents 4 and 5 by registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service in the Registry.

List the matter after two (2) weeks.

________ CMR,J

I.A.No.1 of 2022

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the land covered by Sy.No.178-1B in an extent of Ac.2.50 cents of Pernamitta Village, Santhanoothalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. It is stated that pattadar passbooks were issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said land long back in the year 1999. While so, the unofficial respondents 4 and 5 appears to have preferred an appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act'), against issuance of the said pattadar passbooks to the petitioner, to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer entertained the said appeal and cancelled the said pattadar passbooks by the impugned order.

Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed.

The chief contention of the petitioner is that no appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act lies against issuance of the pattadar passbooks and only at best, revision lies to the District Collector. Therefore, the petitioner has been questioning the very maintainability of the said appeal which was disposed of under the impugned order against the petitioner.

This Court, by relying on the earlier judgment of Division Bench rendered in the case of Ratnamma v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District, reported in 2015 (6) ALD 609 (D.B.), held in W.P.No.22741 of 2017 that Section 5(5) of the Act provides an appeal against an order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment and it is stated that revision lies against such an order to the District Collector. Further stated that the representation of the third parties cannot be treated as an appeal. Therefore, in view of the said law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner could make out a strong prima facie case for adjudication in the main Writ Petition whether the order that is impugned in the Writ Petition is legally sustainable or not.

Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be interim suspension of the impugned order, dated 11.10.2022, passed by respondent 1, till the next date of hearing.

________ CMR, J AKN