Vuppu Shivanagaiah, S/O. ... vs The State Of Telangana ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3380 Tel

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

           WRIT PETITION No.30166 OF 2017

Between:

Vuppu Shivanagaiah & another
                                               ... Petitioners
And

The State of Telangana and others
                                           ... Respondents

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 30.10.2023


      THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers   :     yes
   may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
   marked to Law Reporters/Journals?       :     yes

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
   see the fair copy of the Judgment?      :      yes




                                    ___________________
                                     SUREPALLI NANDA, J
                                                           WP_30166_2017
                                                                   SN,J

                               2




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

           WRIT PETITION No.30166 OF 2017

Between:



% 30.10.2023


Between:

# Vuppu Shivanagaiah & another

                                                  ..... Petitioner

And

$ The State of Telangana and others
                                                 ... Respondents

< Gist:
> Head Note:


! Counsel for the Petitioners       : Mr S. Lakshmikanth

^ Counsel for Respondents           : G.P. for Revenue, for
                                      R1 to R3 and
                                      Mr.N.Bujanga Rao, for
                                      R5


? Cases Referred:

(1) 2013 SCC Online AP 1252 : (2018) 5 ALT 148
                                                                WP_30166_2017
                                                                        SN,J

                                    3




         HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

              WRIT PETITION No.30166 OF 2017

ORDER:

Heard Mr.S.Lakshmikanth, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned

Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf

of the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

No.5.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court,

seeking the following relief:

"To issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order in Revision Petition No.E5/920/2016 dated 25.07.2017 as being illegal, arbitrary contrary to provision of ROR Act 1971 and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and Article 300-A of Constitution of India. Consequently set aside the impugned order in Revision Petition No.E5/920/2016 dated 25.07.2017 passed by the Respondent No.2 herein forthwith in the interest of justice."

WP_30166_2017 SN,J

3. The averments as per the affidavit filed by the

petitioners in support of the present writ petition, in

brief are as under:

(i) The petitioner is the owner and possessor of land

to an extent of Ac.0-08 guntas situated in Sy.No.637-B of

Bheemaram Village of Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District.

The petitioner purchased the same from his vendor by a

simple sale deed in the year 1980 and had been in peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the said subject property. The

petitioner obtained necessary permission in the year 1992

from the competent authority and constructed a compound

wall around the entire land to an extent of Ac.0.08 guntas,

situated in Sy.No.637-B of Bheemaram Village of Hasanparthy

Mandal, Warangal District. Petitioner constructed a tin

sheeted shed and obtained water connection by paying

necessary taxes to the Grampanchayat and thereafter in the

year 2005 a regular enquiry was conducted by the then

Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar) Hasanparthy Mandal and

after due enquiry, the Tahsildar had issued pattadar passbook

and title deed jointly in favour of petitioner and petitioner's

mother Smt.Vuppu Badramma.

WP_30166_2017 SN,J

(ii) It is further the case of the petitioner that the 5th

respondent without there being any right, title and interest

over the said subject property with an intention to grab the

property made claim over the subject property in the year

2012 based on fabricated documents before the 3rd

respondent herein. After receipt of notice from the office of

the 3rd respondent, in respect of proceedings in Appeal vide

R.C.No.A/2535/2012, the petitioner produced all the relevant

documents along with the counter affidavit. Respondent No.3

after appreciating the material available on record and duly

considering the oral and documentary evidence disposed of

the Appeal vide R.C.No.A/2535/2012 on 16.11.2013

observing as under:

"From the above it is not understandable why the appellant is claiming the land in Sy.No.637/B both on the basis of an Agreement of Sale, dated 23.06.1990 and by virtue of a registered sale deed No.1852/2005, secondly the subject land is not an agricultural land and the claim of both the parties are based on different documents, and their rights cannot be decided under the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971. Therefore the Appellant is directed to approach the Competent WP_30166_2017 SN,J

Civil Court for claiming her rights and the appeal is hereby disposed."

(iii) It is further the case of the petitioners that

respondent No.5 instead of approaching the competent civil

Court for adjudication of rights and title over the subject

schedule property preferred a revision under Section 9 of ROR

Act before the 2nd respondent herein and the 5th respondent

preferred the said Revision vide Revision Petition No.920 of

2016 wherein the 3rd respondent herein passed impugned

order on 25.07.2017. Vide the said impugned order dated

25.07.2017 respondent No.2 on one hand directed the

petitioner and respondent No.5 to approach the

competent civil Court for redressal of their grievance on

the other hand the 2nd respondent unilaterally cancelled

the pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of

the petitioners herein in the year 2005 on a fictitious

ground that the file pertaining to issuance of pattadar

passbook is not traceable in the office of the 4th

respondent herein totally ignoring the statement of one

Vadderaju Ravinder Rao, who is the original owner of the

subject schedule property and aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking Writ of WP_30166_2017 SN,J

Mandamus declaring the impugned order in Revision Petition

No.EF/920/2016 dated 25.07.2017 passed by the 2nd

respondent as illegal and consequently to set aside the same.

4. The averments in the counter affidavit filed by the

5th respondent, in brief are as under:

(i) Petitioner No.1 herein is none other than the

brother of 5th respondent. On 23.06.1990, she along with

petitioner No.2 herein had jointly purchased an open plot

admeasuring 968 square yards in Sy.No.637 of Bhimaram

Village of Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District from Sri

V.Ranga Rao and V.Ram Chandra Rao, who are the original

pattadars of the land under agreement of sale by paying full

consideration for land to an extent of 968 square yards equal

to 0.8 guntas and physical possession of the land was

delivered to them jointly. Since the date of purchase, the

subject property had been in their joint possession and

enjoyment.

(ii) As per the said agreement of sale, respondent No.5 is

entitled to an extent of 484 sq. yards out of 968 square yards

and the remaining 484 square yards belongs to the 2nd

petitioner herein. Subsequently in pursuance of the said WP_30166_2017 SN,J

agreement of sale dated 26.03.1990, all the pattadars being

the legal heirs of late Ranga Rao, have executed a registered

sale deed dated 27.06.2005 in favour of the 5th respondent in

respect of her share of land to an extent of 494 square yards.

(iii) Further it is submitted that subsequently the 5th

respondent came to know about the pattadar passbook and

title deed obtained by the 1st petitioner herein by playing

fraud and no enquiry was conducted by the 4th respondent at

any point of time. As soon as it came to her notice, the 5th

respondent immediately preferred an appeal before the 3rd

respondent against the said alleged order passed by 4th

respondent for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in

favour of the 1st petitioner herein and further she sought

cancellation of the said pattadar passbook and title deed and

after hearing both sides, the 3rd respondent was pleased to

pass an order dated 16.11.2013 in R.C.No.A/2535 of 2012

directing both parties to approach civil court to prove their

rights over the land.

(iv) Thereafter, the 4th respondent made an

application under right to information act and sought the WP_30166_2017 SN,J

information with regard to alleged File No.B/10756/2000 and

also sought for certified copies of the proceedings and order.

(v) Aggrieved by the said order, the 5th respondent

had preferred revision before the 2nd respondent herein and

after hearing both the sides, the 2nd respondent was pleased

to pass order dated 25.07.2017 disposing the revision with an

observation as under:

"The title dispute cannot be resolved under ROR Act. The pattadar passbook was issued without following the basic principles of the ROR Act. Further Tahsildar has answered to an RTI question that the File No.B/10756/2000 does not exist in the Tahsildar office, Hasanparthy. Therefore it is clear that the question of issue of pattadar passbook and title deed does not arise, if any pattadar passbook and title deed came into existence illegally which does not have any value in the eye of law." Accordingly, the pattadar passbook and title deed illegally issued is hereby cancelled and both the parties are directed to approach civil Court for redressal of grievance."

(vi) The 1st petitioner herein brought the pattadar

passbook and title deed into existence illegally to grab the

open plot in survey No.637 admeasuring 480 square yards WP_30166_2017 SN,J

belonging to the 5th respondent illegally, for which the 1st

petitioner is liable to be prosecuted and punished for creating

public document and even created a proceedings

No.B/10756/2000, which in fact did not exist in the register

maintained by the 4th respondent and same came into light by

information given under RTI Act to this respondent.

Therefore, the 5th respondent prays that the present writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

(vi) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

5th respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the

order impugned dated 25.07.2017 passed by the 2nd

respondent herein in view of the fact that the title

dispute cannot be resolved under ROR Act and further

that the question of issuance of pattadar passbook and

title deed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2005

does not arise and that the same had been fabricated

by the petitioners herein for the purpose of obtaining

relief before the 3rd respondent.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

5. The relevant portion of the order of the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Warangal dated 16.11.2013 passed WP_30166_2017 SN,J

in RC.No.A/2535/2012 dated 16.11.2013 reads as

under:

"ORDER:

Heard both the parties perused the records, report of the Tahsildar, Hasanparthy counter affidavit filed by the respondent and the copies of documents submitted by both the parties.

The appellant is claiming that the land in Sy. No.637 was jointly purchased by the appellant and respondent i.e., through a notarised sale agreement dated: 23-6- 1990 executed by Sri V. Ranga Rao, so. Venkatrama Rao and V. Ramchander Rao, s/o. Ranga Rao in favour of Pernala Saraswathi, w/o. Bhadraiah and Vuppu Padmavathi, w/o. Shiva Nagaiah for an extent of 968 sq. yards in Sy. No.637 of Bheemaram village. The appellant is again claiming the subject land in Sy. No.637 to an extent of 0-04 gts by virtue of a Registered document No. 1852/2005, dated: 27-6-2005 from Vaddiraju Rajender Rao, s/o. Ranga Rao, Vaddiraju Ravinder Rao, s/o. Ranga Rao, Vaddiraju Ramchandar Rao, s/o. Ranga Rao and Vaddiraju Venkatram Rao, s/o. Ranga Rao, whereas the respondent Sri Uppu Shiva Nagaiah has obtained pattadar pass book and title deed on the basis of the un-registered sale deed on plain paper for an extent of 0-08 gts., in Sy.No.637/B of Bheemaram village of Hasanparthy mandal.

From the above it is not understandable why the appellant is claiming the land in Sy.No.637/B WP_30166_2017 SN,J

both on the basis of an agreement of sale dated: 23.06.1990 and by virtue of a registered sale deed No.1852/2005, secondly the subject land is not an agricultural land and the claim of both the parties are based on different documents, and their rights cannot be decided under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Therefore the appellant is directed to approach the competent civil court for claiming her rights and the appeal is hereby disposed."

6. The relevant portion of the order impugned dated

25.07.2017 of the Revisioning Authority and Joint

Collector, Warangal Urban in Revision Petition

No.EF/920/2016 dated 25.07.2017 reads as under:

"Heard the counsel of the parties. The written arguments are also filled by the respondent No.1 and 3.

The revision petitioner mainly argued that the land to an extent 0-08 guntas have purchased by both parties in Sy.No.637/B of Bheemaram village of Hasanparthy mandal and having possession to an extent of 0-04 guntas each. But the Respondent No.3 has got a fake Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed for an extent of 0-08 guntas instead of 0-04 guntas. The Revision Petitioner further argued that when they obtain a certify copy under RTI Act about the existence of file bearing No.B/10756/2000 from the Tahsildar office, WP_30166_2017 SN,J

Hasanparthi, the Tahsildar have given reply that there is no such file with bearing No.B/10756/2000 is existing in their office as the last DR number for the year 2000 is 10729. The RP have strongly argued that the Tahsildar have not issued any notice though her husband name is recorded in the possession column of pahanies till 2010- 2011. Further on verification of notarized sale agreement dated23-6-1990, both parties of the present revision petition are interest parties, shown interest to purchase the land in question and paid the land consideration. Further the statement of the Vaddiraju Ravinder Rao S/o. Ranga Rao available in the RDO office file No.A/2535/2005 shows that he had sold his share of land to an ext. of 0-08 guntas in Sy.No.637 to Uppu Shiva Nagaiah who is the Respondent No.3 in the present Revision Petition for consideration of Rs1000/-. Further Smt.Uppu Badramma W/o late Shankaraiah has submitted a representation dated 28.12.2004. In which she contended that, during the life time of her husband an extent of 0-08 guntas of land purchased in the name of his son i.e., Uppu Shivanagaiah, in the year 1980 in Sy.No.637 from Vaddiraju Ravinder Rao. Subsequently got regularised through ROR Act.

All these documents elicit that the Revision Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 and 3 are belongs to one family and the land in question purchased from the pattadar by the family members. It understood that there might by some WP_30166_2017 SN,J

family dispute on property share and title. This issue purely of civil nature of dispute. Therefore their dispute cannot resolve under ROR Act. However this court has found that the Respondent No.3 has produced Pattadar Pass Book which was stated to have been issued in his favour by the Tahsildar Hasanparthi to an extent of 0-08 guntas of land in Sy.No.637 of Bheemaram village without following the basic principle of ROR Act. Further the Tahsildar has answered to an RTI question that the file number bearing. B/10756/2000, through the PPB/TD alleged to have been issued does not exist in the Tahsildar officer, Hasanparthi. Therefore it is clear that the question of issue of PB/TD does not arise. If any Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed came into existence illegally which does not have any value in the eyes of law. Accordingly the illegally PPB and TD issued is hereby cancelled. With regard to title on the land both parties of the revision petition are directed to approach the competent civil court for redressal of grievance.

Accordingly the revision petition is disposed."

7. The order dated 08.09.2017 passed in

W.P.M.P.No.37509 of 2017 in W.P.No.30166 of 2017

reads as under:

WP_30166_2017 SN,J

W.P.M.P.No.37590 of 2017

"A reading of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer itself would disclose that the subject land is not agricultural land. If that is so, provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 have no application and therefore, the revision is not maintainable. Balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioners.

Hence, there shall be interim stay, as prayed for."

The above said orders dated 08.09.2017 are in

force as on date.

8. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th

respondent, in particular, paras 9 and 14, as it is reads

as under:

"(9) Aggrieved by the said order, I have preferred revision before the 2nd respondent herein and after hearing both the sides, the 2nd respondent was pleased to pass order dated 25.07.2017 disposing revision with an observation "The title dispute cannot be resolved under ROR Act. The pattadar passbook was issued without following the basic principles of the ROR Act. Further Tahsildar has answered to an RTI question that the File No.B/10756/2000 do not exists in the Tahsildar office, Hasanparthy. Therefore question of issue of pattadar passbook and title deed does not arise, if any WP_30166_2017 SN,J

pattadar passbook and title deed came into existence illegally which do not have any value in the eye of law." Accordingly, the 2nd respondent cancelled the passbook and title deed of the petitioners and directed both the parties to approach civil Court for redressal of grievance.

(14) The 1st petitioner herein brought the pattadar passbook and title deed into existence illegally to grab the open plot in survey No.637 admeasuring 480 square yards belonging to me illegally, for which the 1st petitioner is liable to be prosecuted and punished for creating public document and even created a proceedings No.B/10756/2000, which in fact did not exist in the register maintained by the 4th respondent and same came into light by information given under RTI Act to this respondent."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSON:

9. This Court opines that the proceedings dated

16.11.2013 in RC.No.A/2535/2012 of the 3rd respondent i.e.,

Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, in an Appeal filed by the

5th respondent U/s.21(1) of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar

Passbooks Act, 1971 aggrieved by the Orders of the MRO,

Hasanparthy in issuing Pattadar Passbook and Record of

Rights in favour of the 1st Petitioner herein i.e., Uppu Shiva WP_30166_2017 SN,J

Nagaiah in relation to land to an extent of Ac.0.08 gts., in

Sy.No.637/B of Bheemararm Village of Hasanparthy Mandal

which was taken up by 3rd Respondent U/s.5-B of A.P. Rights

in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 directing the

5th Respondent to approach the competent Civil Court

for claiming her rights vide an order dated 16.11.2013

is in accordance to law and there is no any legal

infirmity in the said order.

10. The 5th respondent herein instead of approaching

the competent civil court filed a revision U/s.9 of A.P.

Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971

praying to set aside the order passed by Revenue

Divisional Officer, Warangal in file No.A/2535/2012,

dated 16.11.2013 before the Revisioning Authority

Joint Collector, Warangal Urban i.e., the 2nd Respondent

herein and the 2nd Respondent ought to have confirmed

the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Warangal, i.e., the 3rd Respondent herein, dated

16.11.2013 directing the 5th Respondent to approach

the competent Civil Court but instead the second

respondent cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title WP_30166_2017 SN,J

deeds issued in favour of the Petitioners in the year

2005, unilaterally without assigning any reasons. It is

also evident on record that the impugned proceedings

dated 25.07.2017 of the 2nd Respondent herein in

Revision Petition No.E5/920/2016 are barred by

limitation in view of the fact that against issuance of

ROR proceedings, an appeal has to be filed within 60

days under Section 5 (5) of A.P. Rights in Land and

Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, to the Revenue

Divisional Officer or such authority as may be

prescribed within a period of 60 days from the date of

communication of the said order and the decision of the

Appellate Authority thereon shall subject to the

provisions of Sec.9 be final. In the present case, the

Revisioning Authority and Joint Collector, Warangal

Urban unilaterally cancelled the pattadar passbooks

and title deeds issued in favour of the Petitioners vide

the impugned proceedings dated 25.07.2017 which is

not permissible under the Act. The 2nd Respondent

herein in exercise of its powers U/s.9 cannot pass

orders adversely affecting the Petitioners ignoring the WP_30166_2017 SN,J

fact as borne on record that the Petitioners have

pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in their

favour. The material documents filed by the Petitioner

also indicate the name of the 1st Petitioner as pattadar

as per pattadar pahani for the year 2020 and the total

area reflected as per the said pahani is 0.08000, the

survey number is indicated as Sy.No.637/B/1, the area

as uncultivable area and the nature of the land as

houses.

11. This Court opines that the observations in the

order impugned of the 2nd Respondent dated

25.07.2017 in Revision Petition No.E5/920/2016 that

the file number bearing No.B/1056/2000 through the

PPB/TD alleged to have been issued does not exist in

the Tahsildar Office, Hasanparthy and therefore it is

clear that the question of issue of PPB/TD does not

arise and further observation that if any pattadar

passbook and title deed came into existence illegally it

does not have value in the eyes of law and accordingly

cancelling the said PPB/TD, is an unilateral decision

taken by the 2nd Respondent without assigning any WP_30166_2017 SN,J

reasons in arriving at such a conclusion ignoring the

available material on record.

12. A Division Bench of A.P. High Court presided by Hon'ble Chief Justice K.J.Sengupta and another learned Judge in identical circumstances dealing with a similar situation vide its judgment dated 19.11.2013, observed as under in P.Ghousia Begum & Others V. Basireddy Rukminamma & Others, reported in 2013 SCC Online AP 1252 in Writ Appeal No.1821 of 2013.

"This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2013 by which the reasoned order of the Joint Collector, Kadapa district, has been set aside.

The brief facts, which are necessary and relevant for disposal of this appeal, are set out hereunder.

The appellants before us being aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, has preferred appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer and approached the Collector by filing revision impugning the order recording the rights of issuance of pattadar passbook. This took place long time back. However, the appellants before us thought it fit that they would get justice before Collector in the revisional jurisdiction.

The revisional authority being the Collector, after WP_30166_2017 SN,J

hearing all the parties interested held that the parties before him have raised the question of title and he, therefore, observed and recorded that he is not competent to decide the title. After observing so, he decided to cancel the passbooks. Being aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioners approached the learned Single Judge questioning the order of the Collector. The learned Trial Judge, upheld the decision and observations of the Collector that the matter relates to establishing of title and, therefore, it should be decided by a civil court. But his Lordship found that the order in question namely cancellation of the pattadar passbook is unjustified.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge is patently wrong as it should not have set aside that portion of the reasoned order of the Collector canceling pattadar passbook. He argues that when the Collector himself found that there is no basis for issuance of the pattadar passbook, the pattadar passbook should not have been allowed to be operated as there is no record in that connection.

After hearing him, we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge has taken correct course of action for, in this matter, one has to decide the WP_30166_2017 SN,J

title first and after the decision on title is rendered, then recording of such right has to be made under the Act. In our considered view, recording the rights under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 is not the conclusive proof of title and ownership but it merely records rights of the persons. But once recording is done followed by the issuance of pattadar passbook, the presumption in favour of holder of the passbook is that he is having right in the land in question. But in this case, the right and title of the parties concerned are seriously disputed and thus the dispute has to be resolved by the civil court, as rightly observed by the Collector concerned as well as upheld by the learned Trial Judge.

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. 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 judgement and the order of the learned Single Judge, as we do not find any illegality in the judgment.

WP_30166_2017 SN,J

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ appeal, all the interim applications shall stand dismissed.

13. Taking into consideration the view of the Division

Bench of the A.P. High Court in P.Ghousia Begum &

Others V. Basireddy Rukminamma & Others reported in

2013 SCC Online AP 1252 : (2018) 5 ALT 148, dated

19.11.2013 (referred to and extracted above) and

taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and

circumstances of the present case, this Court opines

that the 2nd Respondent exercised the powers under

Sec.9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks

Act, 1971 and passed the impugned order dated

25.07.2017 in Revision Petition No.E5/920/2016,

though the Revision filed by the 5th Respondent is

barred by limitation which is legally impermissible. This

Court opines issuance of pattadar passbooks or making

entries therein is always a step consequential to the

amendments or updating of the Record of Rights

provided for U/s 5 of the Act. There is no question of

issuance of pattadar passbooks or amending entries WP_30166_2017 SN,J

made therein, unless corresponding entries are made in

the Record of Rights. While Record of Rights are

maintained by the concerned Revenue Authority,

Pattadar passbook is a document or instrument left

with the person in whose favour it is issued. Duly

taking into consideration the clear observations of the

division bench Judgment of High Court at Hyderabad in

its Judgment dated 19.11.2013 in W.A.No.1821 of 2013

that when a 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, and the presumption of correctness in

issuance of pattadar passbook in favour of the person is

always in the act and action of the Government, but

recording is not conclusive as it may be corrected and

rectified by the Civil Court, and 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, this

Court opines that the order impugned dated 25.07.2017

of the 2nd Respondent herein in Revision Petition WP_30166_2017 SN,J

No.E5/920/2016, dated 25.07.2017, to the extent of

cancelling pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in

favour of the Petitioners cannot be sustained and the

impugned order dated 25.07.2017 of the second

respondent in Revision Petition No.E5/920/2016 in so

far as cancelling the pattadar passbooks and Title

deeds issued in favour of the petitioners is set aside.

14. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed to the

extent as indicated above. However, there shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

__________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J

Date: 30.10.2023

Note : L.R. Copy to be marked.

(B/o) Yvkr