Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Randhi Sridhar Prabhu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 June, 2024

                                                   1


                    HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO


                     WRIT PETITION Nos.6384 and 15878 of 2023

COMMON ORDER :

Writ Petition No. 6384 of 2023 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India for the following relief:-

"to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ nd of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 respondent in rejecting the request of the rd petitioner for cancelling the pattadar passbooks stands in the name of the 3 respondent for the property situated in Sy.No.29, 77, 119/3, 102, 23/11/1B and 103 respectively to an extent of Ac 0.39 cents, Ac.2.17 cents, Ac 0 06 cents Ac.0.29 cents, Ac.0.66 cents, Ac.1.16 cents and Ac.0.07 cents respectively totalling Ac.4.80 cents of Nunaparthi Village, Achuthapuram Mandal, Anakapalli District, through Endorsement in Rc.No.30/2023/A, dated 01.03.2023 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 and also contrary to the Judgment in Rathnamma Vs RDO nd Dharmavaram and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2 respondent to rd cancel the pattadar passbooks stands in the name of the 3 respondent for the property situated in Sy.No.29, 77, 119/3, 102, 23/11/1B and 103 respectively to an extent of Ac 0.39 cents, Ac.2.17 cents, Ac 0 06 cents Ac.0.29 cents, Ac.0.66 cents, Ac.1.16 cents and Ac.0.07 cents respectively totalling Ac.4.80 cents of Nunaparthi Village, Achuthapuram Mandal, Anakapalli District as per law and pass such other order or orders......."

Writ Petition No. 15878 of 2023 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India for the following relief:-

"to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ nd of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 respondent in proposing to incorporate th the name of the 4 respondent in the revenue records and proposed to issue pattadar passbooks and Title Deeds for the land in Sy.No.29, 77, 119/3, 102, 23/11/1B and 103 respectively to an extent of Ac 0.39 cents, Ac.2.17 cents, Ac 0.06 cents, Ac.0.29 cents, Ac.0.66 cents, Ac.1.16 cents and Ac.0.07 cents respectively totalling Ac.4.80 cents of Nunaparthi Village, Achuthapuram Mandal, Anakapalli District, without notice, without enquiry to the petitioner, and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, when the W.P.No.6384 of

2023 is pending on the file of the Hon'ble High Court, A.P at Amaravati for the very same subject property is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Aritlces nd 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 2 respondent th not to incorporate the name of the 4 respondent in the revenue records and proposed to issue Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds for the land in Sy.No.29, 77, 119/3, 102, 23/11/1B and 103 respectively to an extent of Ac 0.39 cents, Ac.2.17 cents, Ac 0.06 cents, Ac.0.29 cents, Ac.0.66 cents, Ac.1.16 cents and Ac.0.07 cents respectively totalling Ac.4.80 cents of Nunaparthi Village, Achuthapuram Mandal, Anakapalli District and pass such other order or orders......."

2. Since the facts and issue involved in both the Writ Petitions, I find it

expedient to decide these matters by a Common Order.

3. The precise case of the petitioner in both the writ petitions is that one

Sri Rama Chandra Rao and his wife Randhi Parvathi have adopted the

petitioner as their son. While so, on 23.07.1997 the mother of the petitioner by

name Randhi Parvathamma died intestate. The father of the petitioner have

executed a Registered Will dated 11.06.1998 (Doc.No.230/98) in favour of the

petitioner bequeathing his various properties owned by him in favour of

petitioner including the subject lands. Subsequently, the father of the petitioner

died on 16.07.2021, since then the petitioner is in physical possession and

enjoyment of the properties bequeathed upon him under the Will executed by

his father. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application to the 2nd

respondent requesting to mutate the name of the petitioner in all the revenue

records and issue pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour. The 2nd

respondent without assigning any reasons, rejected the application on

14.11.2022. Thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.41526 of 2022 before this

Court and the same was disposed of. Pursuant t the directions of this Court,

the 2nd respondent after issuing notice to the petitioner, rejected the request of

petitioner vide endorsement dated 01.03.2023 on the ground that the

petitioner shall file appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapalli to

cancel the Pattadar Pass Books. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed

W.P.No.6384 of 2023.

4. While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent is neither owner nor

possessor of the subject property. The 2nd respondent instead of taking the

decision on the documents furnished by the petitioner, relegated the petitioner

to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapalli for

cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds stands in the name of the

3rd respondent. In fact, no appeal lies for cancellation of pattadar pass books

before the Revenue Divisional Officer as held by the division bench of this

Court in Rathanamma v. RDO, Dharmavaram. The 3rd respondent with a view

to defeat the right of the petitioner over subject land, without any right over the

subject property, executed a Gift Deed in favour of the 4th respondent for the

entire subject property, as if he is the owner of the property on the strength of

alleged and fabricated Memorandum of Understanding Agreement dated

03.10.2006. Pursuant to the same, the 4th respondent has approached the 2nd

respondent to mutate his name in all the revenue records and also issue

pattadar pass book and title deed for the subject property. Therefore, in action

of the 2nd respondent is questioned in this writ petition and requested to allow

the writ petitions as prayed for.

5. Heard Mr. V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Revenue for the respondents 1

and 2 and S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4.

6. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

contents urged in the writ affidavit. Whereas, 2nd respondent filed counter-

affidavit and mainly contended that the petitioner made an application for

issue of pattadar pass book for the subject land and the same was rejected,

as already pattadar pass books have been issued to various pattadars for the

subject land. Aggrieved by the same, he filed W.P.No.41526 of 2022 and this

Court remand back to the 4th respondent for passing fresh order, after giving

due opportunity to the petitioner and other interested parties. Accordingly, the

matter has been taken up for enquiry and during enquiry, the petitioner and

the interested party one Sri Ramesh Venkata Reddy filed their statements,

where it was found that there was a dispute between the petitioner and Sri

Reddy Venkata Reddy and their family members, who are claiming the subject

lands was acquired through hereditary. On verification, it was found that Sri

Reddy Venkata Ramesh has already obtained pattadar pass books for the

subject lands and pattadar pass books cannot be issued to the petitioner

without cancelling the same under A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar, Pass

Books Acts, 1971 (in short "the Act"). Hence request of the petitioner was

rejected under endorsement dated 01.03.2023 and granted liberty to the

petitioner to prefer appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapalli.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the W.P.No.6384 of 2023. If the

petitioner feels that the pattadar pass books are wrongly issued to the 3 rd

respondent, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate

Authority for cancellation of same, but the petitioner without availing such

remedy straight away filed this writ petition is not accordance with law.

Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

7. Per contra, the 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavit and mainly

contended that he was the biological son of Late Sri Reddy Satyanarayana

and Late Smt. Ammaji. Late Sri Randhi Ramachandra Rao, being the elder

brother of his biological mother Ammaji and Smt. Parvathi being the younger

sister of his biological father Reddy Satyanarayana got married, but did not

have children. Upon a request made, his biological parents have given the

petitioner in adoption to them in 1956. Around 12 years thereafter, the

petitioner was also adopted by Late Sri Randhi Ramachandra Rao and Late

Sri Randhi Parvathi. His biological parents are Late Randhi Varahalu and Smt.

Suryakantham. The 3rd respondent residing at Kolkata by virtue of his

profession and he used to visit the parents from time to time. The biological

father has passed away in 1982. Subsequently his grandfather Sri Reddy

Suryanaryana has executed a Registered Will dated 27.11.1985

(Doc.No.84/85) bequeathing his properties in favour of the 3rd respondent, his

brother, Mr. Prakash, his nephew, Mr. Kiran and to his daughter (adoptive

mother) Smt. Parvahtmma. By virtue of said Will, the 3rd respondent have

inherited an extent of Ac. 10.00 cents. Subsequently the adoptive mother and

father passed away on 23.07.1997 and 16.07.2001 respectively, they did not

execute any testamentary documents bequeathing their properties.

Subsequently at the request of adoptive parents of the 3rd respondent, he

changed his surname from Randhi to Reddy in the year 2003 by swaring an

affidavit before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata and made public

notification to that effect in news papers also. The petitioner taking advantage

of the 3rd respondent not residing at Visakhapatnam without consent of his

adoptive father Sri Ramachandra Rao have created a spurious document

claiming title over the subject property. Subsequently family arrangement was

done in between the petitioner and 3rd respondent and agreed to share the

properties and given consent. The 3rd respondent approached the revenue

authorities with all documents applied for mutation of his name for the land an

extent of Ac. 29.82 cents, which the 3rd respondent is in possession and

enjoyment of the same. Upon verification of the same, the 2nd respondent has

mutated the name of the 3rd respondent in all revenue records after due

enquiry and consequently issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his

favour. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is wrong and same is illegal and

arbitrary. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

8. Perused the record.

9. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record

the decision of learned Division Bench of this Court in "Ratnamma v.

Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District and

Others"1, wherein it was held as follows:

"25. 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 Section 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 the fact situation of the present case the appeal filed in Rc.No.(B)154/1999 is not maintainable against the issuance of PPB/TD to petitioner and accordingly held as not maintainable. As already observed, this Court has not examined the rival claims of parties on merits and the findings are limited to the extent of deciding the maintainability of appeal under Section 6-A of the Act in Rc.No.(B) 154/1999. The 3rd respondent is at liberty to pursue other available remedies under the Act or common law remedy, if the circumstances so warrant".

10. Further, he relied on a decision of this Court in "Chinnam

Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga

2015(6) ALD 609 (DB)

Reddy District and Others2", wherein the Hon‟ble Full Bench of this Court,

held as follows:

"10......An order passed against a person, whose name already exist in the Record of Rights without giving him notice of the proposed amendment and effective opportunity of hearing is liable to be declared nullity on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem, which, as mentioned above, represent the most important facet of the rules of natural justice. It need no emphasis that the rules of natural justice are applicable in all judicial and quasi judicial proceedings. The rule of hearing is also applicable in purely administrative proceedings and actions where any public authority passes an order affecting the rights of any individual......

11. From the above discussion, it is clear that the requirement of issuing 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 is independent of the requirement of publication of notice in accordance with the second part of Section 5(3) read with Rules 19 and 5(2) of the Rules. The language of Form-VIII in which the notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of the substantive provision contained in Section 5(3), which, as mentioned above, casts a duty on the recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment"

11. Upon perusal of the material available on record would show that

the petitioner and 3rd respondent have disputes with regard to properties of

their parents under the guise of alleged Will said to have been executed by

their parents. Further, as per counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent, the

pattadar pass books and title deed pass books issued to various persons,

therefore, as per Section 5(5) of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books

Act, 1971, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such

2007(6) ALD 348 (FB)

authority as prescribed within a period of 60 days from the date of

communication of the order/ decision of the appellate authority thereon shall

subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final. As per Section 6 of „the Act‟ the

2nd respondent has only power to correct clerical errors, if any, in the pass

books, therefore, the 2nd respondent is not competent authority to cancel the

same.

12. In the instant case, the petitioner has also produced legal heir

certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 25.04.1998; Family

Memer Certificate duly obtained from Village Ward Secretariat dated

12.10.2022 and obtained Succession Certificate vide S.O.P.No.4 of 2006 on

the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and also

filed copy of Pattadar Pass Book stands in the name of Ms. Randhi

Parvathamma, W/o Ramachandra Rao. In view of the above said documents

and the alleged Will placed on record, the claim of the petitioner cannot be

rejected.

13. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent relied on a decision of this

Court in "Smt.P. Ghousia Begum and Others v. Basireddy Rukminamma

and Others"3, wherein the Hon‟ble Division Bench held as follows:-

"7. According to us, when the pattadar pass book 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. But recording is not conclusive as it may be

W.A.No.1821 of 2013, dated 19.11.2013

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 pass book 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'.

14. Therefore, the 3rd respondent vehemently opposed to allow the writ

petition on the ground that the petitioner made an application to mutate the

name of the petitioner pursuant to succeeding to the properties of his parents

is made in the year 2022 i.e after 21 years. Therefore, it appears there is

abnormal delay in making application before the 2nd respondent, instead of

approaching within 90 days as prescribed under law. Further, it is noted that

there was a family arrangement between the petitioner and the 3rd

respondent; thereby the 3rd respondent obtained Pattadar Pass Book for the

land allotted to him as claimed by him.

15. It is very clear that as per statement of 2nd respondent Pattadar

Pass Books have been issued to various persons with regard to subject land

is concerned, therefore, the petitioner had any grievance; he can approach

competent authority for redressal of grievance for cancellation of pattadar

pass book and title deed. The 3rd respondent had also filed several documents

along with counter-affidavit, which has to be scrutinized while considering the

issue between the petitioner and 3rd respondent. In such circumstances, no

order or direction can be issued to the respondents as prayed for in this Writ

Petition. The petitioner has to take appropriate legal steps to work out his

remedies in accordance with law. But in the instant case, the petitioner did not

take such steps within time and finally approached this Court at belated stage.

Therefore, there are latches on the part of the petitioner in taking necessary

legal steps in the matter.

16. As per Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (in short „CCLA‟)

Circular vide CCLA‟s Circular Ref.No.LR-II/ROR-II/144/2021, dated

19.03.2024, wherein it is clearly mentioned in Clause-A that the lands may be

placed in the dispute register, which reproduced hereunder:

A: Lands may be placed in the dispute register only under the following circumstances, and under no other circumstances.

a. In civil suits/ WPs/ WAs where there is a direction by the competent civil court/ Hon'ble High Court, directing the Tahsildar/ Collector to place the said land in the Dispute register.

b. In the case of Title Suits, where there is a specific direction from the Civil Court.

c. If the family members of a deceased pattadar are unable to come to a settlement AND the Tahsildar is unable to obtain a Joint Statement from all the family members regarding settlement of the lands of deceased pattadar, the same may be included in dispute register. In case of a civil court order deciding upon the succession or the family members coming to an agreement on the division of property, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the dispute register and incorporate the same in the revenue records. d. Cases where an ROR appeal/ review has been filed and is pending before the DRO/ JC respectively, and there is a clear direction from the DRO/ JC directing that the said land be included in the dispute register, the said lands may be included in dispute register till the appeal/ review is finally decided and orders passed. After orders as are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the dispute register and incorporate the orders in the revenue records.

e. Cases where an Inam appeal/ review is pending with RDO/ Commissioner- Appeals respectively, and there is a clear direction from the RDO/ Ciommissioner- Appeals directing that the said land be included in the dispute register, such lands shall be included in the dispute register. After orders are

passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the dispute register and incorporate the orders in the revenue records.

f. Cases where an Estate abolition appeal/ review is pending with CSSLR/ Commissioner-Appeals respectively, and there is a clear direction from the CSSLR/ Commissioner- Appeals directing that the said land be included in the dispute register. After orders are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the dispute register and incorporate the orders in the revenue records.

g. Cases under the AP Assigned Lands (POT) Act 9/77, where Appeals/ Reviews/ Revision are pending with Joint Collector/ Commissioner- Appeals/ Government respectively, and there is a clear direction from the Joint Collector/ Commissioner -Appeals/ Government directing that the said land be included in the dispute register, such lands shall be included in the dispute register. After orders are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the dispute register and incorporate the orders in the revenue records. h. Cases under Regulation 2/70, where Appeals/ Reviews are pending with CSSLR/ Commissioner- Appeals respectively, and there is a clear direction from the CSSLR/Commissioner- Appeals directing that the said land be included in the dispute register, such lands shall be included in the dispute register. After orders are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the dispute register and incorporate the orders in the revenue records."

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there is a

dispute with regard to subject land between the petitioner and unofficial

respondent. Therefore, if the court feels that the parties can avail alternative

remedy to resolve the dispute between the parties before competent authority,

requested to issue a direction to the official respondents to hold the property

by making an entry in the dispute register till attains finality of the cases

between the parties, so as to prevent alienations or creating third parties

interest over the subject property by either of the parties in view of CCLA‟s

Circular dated 29.04.2024 (cited supra).

18. However, this Court opined that the parties can avail alternative

remedy to approach competent for a for redressal of their grievance with

regard to subject property in accordance with law, in the light of the decision

Smt.P. Ghousia Begum and Others (cited supra). Till then, the official

respondents are directed to make necessary entry in the dispute register with

regard to subject land as per CCLA‟s Circular dated 29.04.2024, till attains

finality of the legal proceedings between the parties. On submission of orders

passed by the competent authority by either of the parties, if any, the official

respondents shall remove such lands from the dispute register in accordance

with law.