Chelamkuri Sridevi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8896 AP

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
                MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.No.37564 of 2022

                          PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.     DATE                              ORDER                              OFFICE
No.                                                                           NOTE


1.    21.11.2022 CMR, J

                                W.P. No.37564 of 2022

                      Learned Government Pleader for Revenue takes
                notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and requests time to

seek instructions.

Issue notice to respondent Nos.5 and 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice on respondent Nos.5 and 6 by registered post with acknowledgement due and file proof of service in the Registry.

List the matter after two weeks.

________ CMR, J I.A. No.1 of 2022

It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner of the land in question in an extent of Acs.3.03 cents covered by survey No.204 (Old) and 216/1 (New) of Tallavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal and that Pattadar Pass Books were also issued to the petitioner in respect of the said land. Unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 have preferred an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, the PPB Act) against the issuance of PPBs and Title Deeds (TDs) for the said land to the petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bheemunipatnam-respondent No.3 has issued the impugned notice to the petitioner in the said appeal.

Challenging the legal validity of the said notice, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for Certiorari. It is her case that no appeal lies under Section 5(5) of the PPB Act against issuance of PPBs and TDs. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Common High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, rendered in the case of Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, reported in 2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB).

Therefore, as the petitioner is before this Court, with the contention that the appeal preferred by respondent Nos.5 and 6 under Section 5(5) of the PPB Act itself is not maintainable, and that the notice issued in the said appeal is ex facie unsustainable in law, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the said notice till the next date of hearing, as the very maintainability of the said appeal is to be decided in this writ petition, in view of the said plea taken by the petitioner.

________ CMR, J vasu