Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1195 (AP)

Indula Nookaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-11-03

V.SUJATHA

body2022
ORDER : This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in cancelling the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds vide Proceedings D.Dis.No.247/2014/A dated 06.09.2014, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of provisions of A.P.Rights in Land Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and suspend the said orders and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent herein not to initiate the process of cancellation of Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds …” 2. The case of the petitioners in nutshell is that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands in Survey No.382, having been issued pattadhar passbooks over the respective lands by the 3rd respondent in the year, 2009 under Section 6-A of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rules framed therein. 3. While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent has cancelled the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds issued in favour of the petitioners without jurisdiction and also in contravention of the provisions of Section 8(2) of the AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 vide Order in D.Dis.No.247/2014/A/dated 06.09.2014, the relevant portion is as follows : “The Tahsildar, Munagapaka to take necessary action for cancellation of entries in all revenue records duly taking over the Pattadar Pass books for the subject land. Both the parties are at liberty to file their respective claims if any, with substantial documentary evidence proving their title and possession over the land before the Tahsildar, Munagapaka.” 4. As could be seen from the report dated 05.02.2014 vide Rc.No.17/2014/A of the 3rd respondent, the Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds were issued during the year, 2009 in favour of the petitioners. But, the respondents No.4 to 9 have challenged the said issuance of the Pattadar Pass books and Title Deeds to the petitioners i.e., in contravention of Section 5(5) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971(hereinafter called “the Act”), which says that the appeal is against the orders passed by the competent authority under Section 5(3) of the Act, shall be filed within a period of (60) days. 5. The issuance of Pattadar pass books and title deeds by the 3rd respondent were approved by the 2nd respondent and 3rd respondent. 5. The issuance of Pattadar pass books and title deeds by the 3rd respondent were approved by the 2nd respondent and 3rd respondent. In absence of any orders passed by the 2nd Respondent under Section 5(3) of the Act, appeal of respondents No.4 to 9 under Section 5(5) of the Act cannot be entertained, and the 2nd respondent cannot treat the application as an appeal and is not maintainable. 6. The 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter related to Title and the power is vested with the Competent Civil Court and the impugned proceedings are issued without jurisdiction. 7. When this Writ Petition came for admission, this Court has passed an Interim Order on 05.02.2015, which is as follows : “the learned counsel for the petitioners is also permitted to take out personal notices to the unofficial respondents by RPAD and file proof of service. Prima Facie the exercise of power of the Tahsildar is unauthorized and such power cannot be traced to any provision under the Record of Rights Act. Hence, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for”. 8. The 3rd respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Writ Petition and contended that the Writ petitioners are neither pattadars as per records nor legal heirs of the pattadars as per Settlement Fair Adangal. Further, the 2nd respondent after examination of the report submitted by the then Tahsildar, Munagapaka, with reference to the revenue records and also local enquiry has passed the orders. 9. Heard Sri. T. Vijay Hanuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for Respondents No.1 to 3. Sri. M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 9. 10. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner reiterated the contentions of the Writ Petition and contended that the impugned order is not maintainable and also draws the attention of this Court the relevant provisions of the Act are as under. Section 3(3) of A.P.Rights in Land and Pasttadar Pass books of 1971, any person effected by an entry in record of rights, may apply for rectification before the concerned MRO., within a period of one year from the date of the notification issued under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3. Section 3(3) of A.P.Rights in Land and Pasttadar Pass books of 1971, any person effected by an entry in record of rights, may apply for rectification before the concerned MRO., within a period of one year from the date of the notification issued under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3. Section 4 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pasttadar Pass books of 1971, if any person acquires any right over any land either by succession, survivorship etc., it shall be intimated to the MRO., within 90 days from the date of such acquisition. Section 5 of the said Act, on receipt of such intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred in Section 4, the concerned MRO., after enquiry may amend and update the records of the rights. Then only against an order of the MRO., either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the RDO., within a period of 60 days under Section 5(5) of the said Act. 11. Rules 15 to 17 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pasttadar Pass Books rules, 1989 deals with rectification of entries in record of rights. Rule 21 provides an appeal to be preferred against an order of MRO., regarding amendment in record of rights. 12. Further, the 2nd respondent also in contravention of the provisions of Section 8(2) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, passed the impugned order that “both parties are at liberty to file their respective claims if any, with substantial documentary evidence proving their title and possession over the land before the Tahsildar, Munagapaka”. 13. The pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioners in the year, 2009 only after conducting any enquiry, any amendment or rectification shall be done, if any objection/complaint is filed within a period of one(01) year. 14. The respondents representation/appeal challenging the issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds, in favour of the petitioners, is not maintainable in law, in as much as the entries in the revenue records have not been challenged. The act of respondent No.2 in taking up an appeal vide impugned proceedings is illegal, arbitrary and relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported, in “Ratnamma Vs. The act of respondent No.2 in taking up an appeal vide impugned proceedings is illegal, arbitrary and relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported, in “Ratnamma Vs. RDO, Dharmavaram”, 2015 (1) ALT 361, wherein it was observed that : “The Revenue Divisional Officer, has no authority to treat the representation/complaint as an appeal in the absence of any order passed by the Tahsildar, by exercising power under Section 5(5) of the Act read with Rules, 1989” 15. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, supported the Impugned Order. 16. In view of the submission of both side counsel, the only question is whether respondent No.2 is competent to treat the representation/application submitted by respondents Nos.4 to 9, which is having no statutory basis, as an appeal in the absence of any order passed by the Tahsildar?. 17. Section 5(5) of the Act deals with appeal, which is as follows : “(5) Against every order of the (Mandal Revenue Officer) either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment(an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such authority as may be prescribed) within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final” 18. The Revenue Divisional Officer is entitled to exercise appeal jurisdiction only against the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment in the Record of Rights or refusing to make such an amendment within a period of sixty(60) days from the date of communication of the said order. 19. In the present case, the respondents No.4 to 9 instead of challenging the original order passed by the Tahsildar, granting pattadar pass book in favour of the petitioners, has requested the 2nd respondent to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner by making an appeal petition to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent also passed impugned orders even without issuing notice to the parties. 20. The 2nd respondent also passed impugned orders even without issuing notice to the parties. 20. In the absence of any order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, entertaining an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, treating the complaint/representation as an appeal is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in “Ratnamma Vs. RDO., Dharmavaram”. 21. Therefore, by applying the principle laid down in the said judgment, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside as it is without jurisdiction since the order passed by the Tahsildar is not under challenge in the said appeal. 22. In the result, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.247/2014/A dated 06.09.2014, leaving it open to the respondents No.4 to 9 to approach the competent Civil Court, if at all he has any grievance against the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. 23. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.