Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Thetala Subbaraju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 August, 2024

Author: R. Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R Raghunandan Rao

APHC010364772023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

WRIT APPEAL NO: 778/2023

Between:

Thetala Subbaraju and Others ...APPELLANT(S)

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. VAKATI VENKATA GNANUSHA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. VAJJHALA SATYANARAYANA PRASAD

2. GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
An extent of Ac.70.00 cents of land in Sy.Nos.131-3, 139-13,

141-6, 141-7, 143-11, 143-13, 144-4, 145-4, 149-4, 149-6 & 149-7 situated at

A. Venkampeta Village, Makkuva Mandal, Vizianagaram District is said to be

the subject matter of the present litigation.

2. The un-official respondents herein, primarily respondent No.5,

had sought survey of the said land on the ground that the said land was their
2

ancestral property and under their cultivation for the last 60 years. The 5th

respondent also sought changes in the record of rights on the ground that the

names of the appellants herein had been incorporated without notice to them

and without giving them an opportunity to show their claim in title over the

land.

3. Thereafter, the 5th respondent had approached this Court by way

of W.P.No.25096 of 2020 seeking a direction to the Tahsildar and Mandal

Surveyor of Makkuva Mandal to conduct a survey as per the F-line application

submitted by the 5th respondent to the said authorities. This Writ Petition was

disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated

28.12.2020 directing the said respondent authorities to consider the

application of the 5th respondent herein and to take a decision in accordance

with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.

4. Apart from the above Writ Petition, the 5th respondent had filed an

application dated 19.02.2020 before the District Collector, Vizianagaram and

the Tahsildar, Makkuva Mandal for updating and rectifying the record of rights

under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadaar

Passbooks and Title Deeds Act, 1971 [for short "the ROR Act"] and the Rules

thereunder. Thereafter, the 5th respondent had approached this Court, by way

of W.P.No.24959 of 2020 contending that the said application has not been

considered and for a direction to the concerned authorities to consider the

said application.
3

5. A learned Single Judge of this Court had disposed of this Writ

Petition by way of an order dated 29.12.2020 in the said order, the learned

Single Judge recorded the fact that the matter had also been moved before

the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) who had directed the

District Collector to take appropriate action and that the District Collector had

addressed a communication to the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry in terms of

the ROR Act. The learned Single Judge after recording the above facts

disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Tahsildar to take

appropriate action on the application of the petitioner dated 19.02.2020.

6. After the passing of these orders, the 5th respondent & 26 others

filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram Manyam

District. The relief sought in the appeal is as follows:-

"1. The Honourable Court may call for revenue record i.e. settlement fair adangal, 1-
B, Adangal of Addumanda Village of Makkuva Mandal with regard to schedule
property and inspect it in and pass necessary orders.
2. The Honourable Court may peruse any registered documents infavour of the
respondents by the appellants or their ancestors with regard to the schedule
property.

3. The Honourable Court may peruse the list of documents and may pass orders
infavour of the appellants.

4. The Honourable Court may peruse the orders of the Honourable High Court in Writ
Petitions filed by the appellants.

5. The Honourable Court may cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued
infavour of the respondents and direct the Tahasildar, Makkuva to incorporate the
names of the appellants in the record of rights and to issue pattadar pass books and
title deeds individually for the schedule properties.

Therefore, the appellants pray that the Honourable Court may be pleased to cancel
the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued infavour of the respondents with
regard to schedule property and incorporate the names of the appellants in the
record of rights and issue pattadar pass books and title deeds infavour of the
appellants, in the interest of justice."
4

7. The appellants herein, after receipt of a show-cause notice given

by the Revenue Divisional Officer had approached this Court by way of

W.P.No.8806 of 2023 contending that the said appeal is not maintainable and

without jurisdiction as the relief sought in the appeal was in relation to

cancellation of the pattadar pass books and title deeds of the appellants. The

appellants relied upon a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the

case of Ratnamma Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur District &

Ors1. A learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of this Writ Petition by an

order dated 12.04.2023, holding that this objection could be raised before the

appellate authority itself and with a further direction to the Appellate

Authority/Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously

as possible strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) months

from the date of receipt of this order.

8. The appellants, aggrieved by this Order have filed the present

Writ Appeal.

9. Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

Smt. Vakati Venkata Gnanusha, learned counsel for the appellants and

Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

Sri V. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned counsel for the private respondents.

10. The Division Bench, in Ratnamma Vs. Revenue Divisional

Officer, Ananthapur District & Ors case had held that the appeal under section

1
2015 (5) ALT 228 (D.B)
5

5(5) (presently numbered as 5(4)) of the ROR, Act is maintainable only

against a change in the record of rights and an appeal against issuance of

pattadar pass books or title deeds would not be maintainable. The Division

Bench took this view on the ground that issuance of a pattadar pass book and

title deed is only a consequential action based upon change in the record of

rights and an appeal against consequential action without challenging the

primary change in the revenue record would not be maintainable.

11. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants

would contend that the relief sought in the appeal is primarily a relief for

cancellation of the pattadar pass books and title deeds and as such, the

Judgment of a Division Bench in case of Ratnamma Vs. Revenue Divisional

Officer, Ananthapur District & Ors would be applicable. He would further

contend that the appeal under section 5(5) (presently numbered as 5(4)) of

the ROR, Act is not maintainable on various other grounds including the fact

that there is no mention of an order against which the appeal is being filed.

12. Sri. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

private respondents would contend that the relief sought in the appeal, though

inartistically framed, is for change in the record of rights and the same falls

squarely within the ambit of Section 5(5) (presently numbered as 5(4)) of the

ROR, Act. He would further submit that further relief sought is consequential

to the main relief and as such, the appellate authority would have jurisdiction.
6

13. The question of whether the appeal encompasses an appeal

against an order amending the record remains open. The provisions of

Section 5(5) (presently numbered as 5(4)) of the ROR, Act reads as follows:-

Section-5. Amendment and updating of record of rights:-
(1)....
(2)
(3)
(4) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-sections (1), 2(a) and the
amendments of R.O.R under sub-section (3), above may prefer an appeal before the District Revenue
Officer within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of such order or amendment of
R.O.R. the Appellate Authority shall dispose the appeal preferably not later than 6 months from the
date of filing of such appeal.

14. The aforesaid Section provides for an appeal against an order

passed by the primary authority. There is an issue as to whether there is any

order passed against which the appeal is being filed. As this is a question of

fact, this Court is not going into the same here.

15. In the circumstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of leaving it

open to the appellants to raise all objections relating to maintainability of the

appeal and all objections relating to the merits of the case before the appellate

authority and the appellate authority shall consider both objections, relating to

maintainability as well as merits of the appeal. There shall be no order as to

costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.

________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.