Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 451 (AP)

Dungala Yerra Patrudu v. Hahs P. Krishna Murthy

2024-04-16

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2024
COMMON ORDER Subba Reddy Satti, J. - Since the issue involved in both the petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. These writ petitions are filed to declare the action of the authority in mutating the names of respondent Nos.6 to 14 in the place of petitioners, in respect of survey Nos.1 to 93, Janakirampuram Agraharam village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds to respondent Nos.6 to 14 on public holidays on 14.08.2021 and 15.08.2021, after transfer and relieving of respondent No.1 on 14.08.2021, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently cancel pattadar passbook and other record of rights and to declare the petitioners are absolute owners, possessors and enjoyers of the subject land etc. 3. Petitioners 137 in number filed the above writ petitions. In the affidavit it was contended, inter alia, that petitioners and their legal heirs are permanent residents and farmers of Janakirampuram Agraharam, Rolugnta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioners are small farmers and have been in possession and enjoyment of bits of agricultural lands. Petitioners' ancestors acquired the land around 400 years ago. The lands have been used to nurture paddy, sugarcane, cashew, mango, coconut etc. The total extent of land is 462.80 cents. When some portion of land in survey Nos.73/25, 72 and 68 was acquired for house sites, compensation was provided to the landowners. Most of the petitioners were provided 10(1) adangal by the Tahsildar, Rolugunta. b) The Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, long ago, vide its order, dated 14.10.1950 in S.R.No.35/50, Narsipatnam, declared that village called as Janakirampuram Agraharam, also known as Ramachandrapuram Agraharam is not an Inam land and hence, neither unofficial respondents and their forefathers nor nunna families were ever Inamdars of Janakirampuram Agraharam. Unofficial respondents obtained orders without impleading the petitioners, who are in possession and enjoyment of the lands, as parties and hence, said orders do not bind the petitioners. Respondent No.3-RDO, in proceedings, dated 24.12.2021, referred to the order dated 21.06.1979 passed in I.A.No.1 of 1979, by the Sub Collector, Narsipatnam, as if lands were allotted to unofficial respondents. In fact, respondent No.3 stated that original order in I.A.No.1 of 1979 is not found in his records. The said order is a result of collusive transaction between one Nunna Krishnaiah and Rongali Jaggu Naidu. Petitioners were neither arrayed as parties nor heard in I.A.No.1 of 1979. In fact, respondent No.3 stated that original order in I.A.No.1 of 1979 is not found in his records. The said order is a result of collusive transaction between one Nunna Krishnaiah and Rongali Jaggu Naidu. Petitioners were neither arrayed as parties nor heard in I.A.No.1 of 1979. The then Tahsildar, who is respondent No.1 herein, despite issuance of transfer and relieving orders, issued pattadar passbooks to unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 14 on public holidays i.e. on 14.08.2021 and 15.08.2021. No enquiry was conducted under Rule 26(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'). Neither Nunna families and Vegesina families nor anybody have saleable or vested rights to alienate the lands to sell the lands in favour of unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 14. Unofficial respondents/their forefathers are running the surreptitious litigation by claiming 1/3rd of the alleged inaam land i.e. Ac.124.8675 cents. Petitioners issued legal notice dated 25.01.2022 and submitted detailed representation dated 28.01.2022 to the official respondents. However, no action has been taken. Hence, the writ petitions. 4. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit. It was contended, inter alia, that in the year 1950, Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, enquired the tenure of lands in Janakirampuram Agraharam, while it was erstwhile Narsipatnam Taluk of Visakhapatnam District and passed order dated 14.10.1950 in R.N.35/50, wherein it was noted that as per Inam account of Fasili 1313, the names of Gopalabatla Seethanna and Boddapati Sundraappa were recorded as enjoyers, in register maintained under Regulation XXXI of 1802 Act; that at the time of the Inam Settlement in the year, 1862, the Agraharam village was in enjoyment of Kannumuri Venkatacharyalu who seems to have acquired the Agraharam, by way of gift from one Sagi Butchivenktayya, who purchased the same by way of sale; that Inam Commissioner confirmed Inam in the name of Kannumuri Venkatacharyalu in T.D.No.47 subject to payment of annual rent of Rs.8/-; that the gudicattu of Agraharam, according to the accounts maintained, is 461.78 cents; that the main agraharam grant covered by TD No.47 is 441.60 cents and there are no minor or services Inam; that finally the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam declared that Janakirampuram Agraharam is not an Inam Estate as defined under Section 2(7) of the Madras Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XVI of 1948. (b) After introduction of A.P. Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, (for short the 'Inam Act, 1956'), Tahsildar, Narsipatnam conducted suo-moto enquiry and by order dated 16.12.1968 in Rc.No.3877/67, held that Janakirampuram Agraharam Village is an Inam Village and the schedule lands are Inam lands; that the schedule lands are situated in an Inam village; and the schedule lands are not held by any institution. Aggrieved by the said order, one Rongali Jaggamnaidu and another, filed appeal before the Court of the Special Deputy Tahsildar, (Inam), Narsipatnam (hereinafter referred to as 'SDT'). The SDT enquired and concluded that the lands covered by T.D.No.47 are Inam lands and they were originally held by Kunnumuri people, who sold an extent of Ac.400-00 cents to Nunna Venkata Subbarao and Nunna Venkateswarlu as per order dated 30.12.1976 in Sr.No.2/76 SDT (1). Thereafter, the successor SDT, Narsipatnam concluded the enquiry and by order dated 15.08.1978 held that Kanumuri Krishnamacharulu and his five family members; 2) Nuna Sri Hari and his 19 family members being Inamdars are entitled to ryotwari pattas for 1/3rd share and Rongali Tatayya, Rongali Rama Murthy, 3) Pydamma, 4) Dungali Veeranna, 5) Surla Rama Swami and 6) Chitikala Kannayya and their successors, being tenants are entitled for 2/3rd share. (c) Aggrieved by the order dated 15.08.1978, Nunna Krishnayya and 22 others filed appeal before the SubCollector, Narsipatnam against Rongali Jaggunaidu and 18 others. The Sub-Collector, Narsipatnam passed orders dated 28.06.1979 in I.A.No.1 of 1979 holding that subdivisions should be made for 1/3rd of the whole extent of Ac. 412-86 cents to the Inamdars in one section and the rest to the tenants, which will facilitate cultivation of the entire land by either party. As per the orders of the Sub-Collector, Narsipatnam, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Rolugunta prepared ryotwari pattas, but the tenants did not take the pattas. The tenants claimed pattas for the entire extent and that the case is pending since long time. It was published in District Gazette under item No.48/77 Ecsiv-1993. (d) Subsequently, the Tahsildar, Rolugunta vide proceedings in Rc.No.3098/2012 SDT dated 02.07.2013, issued pattadar passbooks for an extent of Ac.133.26 cents i.e 1/3rd share to the Inamdars, in the year 2014. The tenants claimed pattas for the entire extent and that the case is pending since long time. It was published in District Gazette under item No.48/77 Ecsiv-1993. (d) Subsequently, the Tahsildar, Rolugunta vide proceedings in Rc.No.3098/2012 SDT dated 02.07.2013, issued pattadar passbooks for an extent of Ac.133.26 cents i.e 1/3rd share to the Inamdars, in the year 2014. Later Inamdars filed W.P.No.2530 of 2015 against the Revenue Divisional Officer for non issuance of title deeds and the same was disposed of by order dated 09.02.2015 directing the respondents therein to comply with the provisions of the Act. In response to the order, dated 09.02.2015 the Revenue Divisional Officer issued endorsement dated 16.03.2015 vide Rc.No.11/2014/B, rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the ground that petitioners are not in actual possession of lands. Therefore, petitioners filed C.C.No.2209 of 2015 and the same was closed. Thereafter Inamdars filed another writ petition vide W.P.No.3250 of 2017 to direct the Tahsildar, Rolugunta for digital signature of entries in respect of the subject lands in the webland and adangal. The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam vide proceedings in Rc.No.3599/2014 F3 dated 14.12.2017 issued orders to comply with the directions of the High Court. After getting pattadar passbooks Nunna and Kanumuri families sold away their lands to the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 15 under registered documents. After purchase of the land, respondent No.8 filed W.P.No.8096 of 2019 against the revenue authority i.e. Tahsildar, Rolugunta for non-issuance of pattadar passbooks and to suspend the certificate/order, dated 19.02.2018 passed in Rc.No.52/2017/A and the same is pending. As the matter stood thus, the then Tahsildar, P. Krishnamurthy issued pattadar passbooks and made entries in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 15, as they promised to withdraw W.P.No.8096 of 2019. The grounds raised by the petitioners regarding possession, cultivation of land, etc. are not correct. Inam Estate Village is different from Inam Village. In the Inam Estate village, lands shall be settled under the provisions/rules of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, whereas the Inam village lands shall be settled under the provisions of the Inam Act, 1956. All the villages were surveyed, and lands were settled during 1926 in British regime and a register namely diglot was prepared. The petitioners, if aggrieved regarding issuance of pattadar passbooks ought to have preferred appeal under Section 5B of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). All the villages were surveyed, and lands were settled during 1926 in British regime and a register namely diglot was prepared. The petitioners, if aggrieved regarding issuance of pattadar passbooks ought to have preferred appeal under Section 5B of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Respondent No.4 - District Collector filed separate counter affidavit. While reiterating the tenure, enquiries and issuance of pattadar passbooks in respect of Ac.133.26 cents of land (1/3 share) in favour Inamdars as pleaded in the counter of respondent No.2, it was contended that Inamdars filed W.P.No.3250 of 2017 seeking direction to the Tahsildar, Rolugunta for digital signature of entries in respect of subject lands in webland. The then Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, issued proceedings in Rc.No.3599/2014/F3 dated 14.12.2017 to comply directions of the High Court. The Tahsildar, Rolugunta had taken action accordingly. (b) Rongala Ramana (one of the petitioners) and another filed revision petition No.40/2017 under Section 9(2) of the ROR Act against Nunna Pedda Subba Rao and seven others before the then Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam and the same is pending. Some of the tenants also obtained PPBs from the present Tahsildar, Rolugunta, according to their possession. (c) The purchaser of subject land i.e. respondent No.8 filed W.P.No.8096 of 2019 for issuance of pattadar passbook and to suspend the proceedings dated 19.02.2018. (d) As per the orders of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, the then RDO, Narsipatnam conducted enquiry on the actions of the then Tahsildar in issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of unofficial respondents on 14.08.2021 and 15.08.2021, being public holidays and submitted findings vide Rc.No.956/2021/JA dated 04.12.2021. As per the findings of the report, the then Tahsildar i.e. respondent No.1 herein was transferred on 14.08.2021 and the said authority without conducting full-fledged enquiry, without appreciating the office records and without examining the current possession and enjoyers of the land issued pattadar passbooks on 14.08.2021 and 15.08.2021. Therefore, necessary proposals vide e-office File No. REV02 - EST0DC / 18 / 2022 - DT - SEC (A) - ANKP dated 02.12.2022 were submitted to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration recommending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the then Tahsildar, Rolugunta. (e) Petitioners failed to produce documents to prove that property belongs to their ancestors. Inamdars and tenants were entitled to receive ryotwari pattas. (e) Petitioners failed to produce documents to prove that property belongs to their ancestors. Inamdars and tenants were entitled to receive ryotwari pattas. Petitioners have not availed the opportunity of appeal under Section 5(2) read with Rule 21(2) before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam. Eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.1. It was contended that the writ petition against an individual is not maintainable. The order of transfer of respondent No.1 was not affected till 16.08.2021. The petitioners taking undue advantage of the transfer order filed the present writ petition. He received mutation applications from the unofficial respondents on 20.07.2021 through Meeseva. After scrutiny, form No.VIII was published on 30.07.2021 with notified date as 14.08.2021. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Separate counter affidavit deposed by respondent No.8 is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.7 to 15. It was pleaded about the history of the village, order passed by the Settlement Officer, order of SDT and the order of Sub-Collector, etc. It is contended that pursuant to the order dated 28.06.1979 passed by the Sub-Collector, Narsipatnam, land was allotted and ryotwari pattas are issued in Form VIII to the Inamdhars and the same were published in the District Gazetee. Thereafter sub-division of lands has taken place, and the farmers got an extent of Ac.267.26 cents being 2/3rd share in survey Nos.1 to 7, 11 to 24, 28 to 37, 39 to 46, 55, 58, 61 to 63, 65 to 68, 72, 73, 75 and 77 to 79, excluding the government lands. Inamdars got an extent of Ac.133.26 cents being 1/3rd share covered by survey Nos.48 to 53, 69, 70, 83 to 85 and 87 to 93 and government lands were given different survey numbers. The Tahsildar, Rolugunta issued pattadar passbooks for an extent of Ac.133.26 cents for 1/3rd share to the Inamdars in the year, 2014, as per the ROR Act. However, title deeds were not issued. Hence, Inamdars filed W.P.No.2530 of 2015 and the same was disposed of by order dated 09.02.2015. Thereafter, revenue officials have issued endorsement dated 16.03.2016 rejecting the request of the Inamdars. Hence, contempt case was filed. However, the same was closed in view of the averments of counter affidavit, wherein it was stated that title deeds cannot be granted in view of the Government decision. Thereafter, revenue officials have issued endorsement dated 16.03.2016 rejecting the request of the Inamdars. Hence, contempt case was filed. However, the same was closed in view of the averments of counter affidavit, wherein it was stated that title deeds cannot be granted in view of the Government decision. Subsequently, the unofficial respondents purchased the property under registered sale deeds. Most of the tenants in whose favour ryotwari pattas were granted, were also given pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The order of the authority allotting 1/3rd share to the Inamdars and 2/3rd share to the tenants had become final. Petitioners are not aggrieved persons, and they have no locus standi to file the above writ petitions. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 8. Heard Sri S.R. Sanku and B. Appa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 to 6 and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 15. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the affidavit. 10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 reiterated the contentions as per the counter affidavit. 11. Learned Senior Counsel and learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue would contend that writ petition is not maintainable. They would contend that in fact, the petitioners got an effective alternative remedy of appeal. Learned senior counsel would contend that the Record of Rights were already updated and names of Inamdars were mutated in revenue records. After alienation, names of purchasers were mutated by updating record of rights. However, the said proceedings qua Inamdars were not challenged by the petitioners and hence the petitioners do not have locus standi to file writ petition. He would also contend that the petitioners are not aggrieved parties. 12. The points for consideration, in these writ petitions, are: (a) Whether the petitioners are aggrieved parties and got locus standi to challenge the proceedings i.e. updation of RoR in favour of unofficial respondents? (b) Whether the then Tahsildar, Rolugunta followed the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules while mutating the names of purchasers from Inamdars? 13. The answer to point No.2 depends upon point No.1. Hence this court intends to deal with point No.1 in the first instance. 14. (b) Whether the then Tahsildar, Rolugunta followed the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules while mutating the names of purchasers from Inamdars? 13. The answer to point No.2 depends upon point No.1. Hence this court intends to deal with point No.1 in the first instance. 14. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs State of Maharastra, AIR 2013 SC 58 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: Person aggrieved 9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 : AIR 1952 SC 12 ], Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. [ AIR 1954 SC 728 ] , Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B. [ AIR 1962 SC 1044 ], Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [ (1996) 5 SCC 460 : AIR 1996 SC 2736 ] and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B. [ AIR 1962 SC 1044 ], Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [ (1996) 5 SCC 460 : AIR 1996 SC 2736 ] and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar [ (2009) 2 SCC 784 ] .]' 10. A 'legal right', means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, 'person aggrieved' does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York [ (1974) 2 SCC 387 : AIR 1974 SC 1719 ] and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [ (1977) 3 SCC 592 : AIR 1977 SC 1361 ] .) 11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai [ (2008) 5 SCC 217 : AIR 2008 SC 1289 ] , a similar view was taken by this Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other persons. 12. In A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P. [ (2011) 7 SCC 616 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 851 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 267 : AIR 2011 SC 3031 ] , this Court held : (SCC pp. 628-29, para 25) '25. ... The expression 'aggrieved person' denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which the contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the complainant's interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant.' 15. Thus, in view of the expressions of the Hon'ble Apex the petitioners shall satisfy this court that they are affected parties, and their legal right was infringed by mutation of names of unofficial respondents. 16. Thus, in view of the expressions of the Hon'ble Apex the petitioners shall satisfy this court that they are affected parties, and their legal right was infringed by mutation of names of unofficial respondents. 16. The contention of learned counsels for the petitioners is that the entire proceedings, except the proceedings, dated 30.09.1950 of Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam were behind the back of the petitioners and their ancestors and hence the same do not bind the petitioners. The further contention of the learned counsels is that the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands. The legal notice issued may be treated as part of the pleading. 17. In the affidavit nothing was mentioned as to which petitioner is in possession of what extent. In the legal notice Ex.P6 names of 82 persons were mentioned, claiming possession in different survey numbers in Janakirampuram Agraharam. However, both the writ petitions were filed by 137 persons. Except the self-serving statement nothing was placed on record to substantiate the contention qua the possession of the petitioners. Pleadings in a writ petition should not be concise unlike civil proceedings. 18. Pleadings, even in the writ petition, play vital role. While pointing out the importance of pleadings, Hon'ble Apex Court in Bharat Singh and others Vs State of Haryana and others, AIR 1988 SC 2181 observed as follows: 13........where a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a pleading under the Civil procedure code and a writ petition of a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, that a point or a written statement, the facts and no evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. 19. While in a pleading, that a point or a written statement, the facts and no evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. 19. In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs State of M.P. and another, AIR 2011 SC 1989 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed importance of pleadings as follows: 9. ... pleading in particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the questions in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on said issue. It is settled legal proposition that 'as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted'. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of parties. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issues, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of principles of natural justice'. 20. As discussed, supra, nothing is placed on record to substantiate right and title of the petitioners over the lands. When there is a subdivision, as per the legal notice, each petitioner must prove possession of the extent and survey number as also right and title. As per the particulars mentioned in the legal notice, as pointed out supra, names of 82 persons were mentioned in respect of subject lands, whereas, two writ petitions were filed by 137 persons. This instance makes the thing more than discernable that the pleadings, as per the affidavit, are not sufficient to prove right and title of the petitioners. Petitioners must satisfy the Court their property was mutated in the name of third party and such an act infringed their right to property or legal right and hence the writ petition. This instance makes the thing more than discernable that the pleadings, as per the affidavit, are not sufficient to prove right and title of the petitioners. Petitioners must satisfy the Court their property was mutated in the name of third party and such an act infringed their right to property or legal right and hence the writ petition. However, the affidavit is not clear on this aspect. 21. Thus, in view of the discussion supra, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot be termed as aggrieved persons, and hence they have no locus standi to file the writ petition. Unless the petitioners establish their right and title to the lands in question, they cannot be termed as aggrieved persons. Records of rights are public documents, and every individual can verify those documents by visiting/verifying the website maintained by the Government. In fact, Inamdars were issued PPB and their names were updated in record of rights. In the opinion of this court, in the first place, the petitioners, if any right infringed, ought to have challenged the mutation of names of Inamdars and issuance of pass books in their favour. However, no such challenge was made, and hence updating the Record of Rights in the names of Inamdars remained unchallenged. Those Inamdars alienated the land by way of registered sale deeds, based upon which, unofficial respondents made application for mutation, and it was done. Thus, this court concludes that the petitioners cannot be termed as aggrieved persons, and hence they got locus to file the writ petition. Accordingly, this point is answered. 22. The contention of learned counsels for the petitioners that petitioners have been in possession of the property and hence, no pattadar passbooks ought to have been issued to respondent Nos.7 to 15 is meritless. 23. Rule 26 of the Rules was substituted by G.O.Ms.No.271 dated 01.07.2016. Prior to amendment Rule 26(6) mandated that title deed or pattadar passbook shall be given to those persons, who are in actual possession of the land. However, after substitution of Rule 26 w.e.f. 01.07.2016 sub-rule was omitted from the Rules. It is pertinent to mention here that even the officials filed counter affidavits without verifying the Rules. 24. Prior to amendment Rule 26(6) mandated that title deed or pattadar passbook shall be given to those persons, who are in actual possession of the land. However, after substitution of Rule 26 w.e.f. 01.07.2016 sub-rule was omitted from the Rules. It is pertinent to mention here that even the officials filed counter affidavits without verifying the Rules. 24. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that vendors of unofficial respondents were issued pattadar passbooks behind their back and in fact, all further transactions including proceedings in S.R. No.35/1950 Narsipatnam, in the Court of the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam behind the back of the petitioners, in the opinion of this court, cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition. If the petitioners are aggrieved of any such order, they have to invoke jurisdiction of appropriate forum. 25. This Court is not persuaded with the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioners in view of the fact that the scope of writ petition is, whether the procedure has been followed by the Tahsildar for mutating the names of purchasers/unofficial respondents or not. The scope of the writ petition shall not be enlarged either by recording a finding as to the genuineness of the various proceedings or adjudicating disputed questions of fact. The disputed questions of fact, the case hand are, the proceedings of SDT, mutation of names of Inamdars, petitioners right and title etc., In fact, being a seriously disputed questions of fact, necessarily it require evidence to be let in. This Court at this stage, cannot record any finding qua the validity of proceedings of SDT etc. The petitioners ought to have approached competent civil Court in that regard. 26. The Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in, Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 held that, '123. We have used the expression industrial adjudicator by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires inquiry into disputed questions of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate authority to go into those issues will be industrial tribunal/court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review.' 27. In view of the finding recorded supra, writ petition is liable to dismissed without going into other aspects. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate authority to go into those issues will be industrial tribunal/court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review.' 27. In view of the finding recorded supra, writ petition is liable to dismissed without going into other aspects. However, in view of the report submitted by RDO to District Collector about procedural irregularity this Court, notwithstanding the finding recorded qua locus, going to deal with second point also. POINT No.2 28. The other fulcrum of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the then Tahsildar, arrayed as respondent No.1 as eo-nominee party, was transferred on 14.08.2021. However, he issued pattadar passbooks on 14.08.2021 and 15.08.2021, being holidays. 29. Before proceeding further, this Court intends to deal with the scheme provided under the Act and the Rules made therein. 30. As per Section 4 of the Act, any person acquiring title by way of succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land or any other person acquiring any right as an occupant of land by any other method shall intimate in writing of his acquisition of such right, either through online or in person to the Tahsildar, within sixty days from the date of such acquisition. First proviso to the Section mandates that intimation of acquisition shall be submitted to the Tahsildar, either online or in person, at any Service Centre as notified for the purposes of the Act. Second proviso deals with issuance of acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation and its form. On receipt of intimation, about acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4 of the Act, otherwise than by a registered document, the Tahsildar, as per Section 5(1) of the Act (Sec 5 of unamended provision) shall determine as to whether, record of rights to be updated or not. If the amendment, in consequence of the acquisition is liable to be refused, the Tahsildar shall transmit all the documents to the RDO with recommendations as per Section 5(2) of the Act and the RDO, under Section 5(2a) shall pass order either confirming or disagreeing with the recommendations of the Tahsildar. If the RDO disagrees with the recommendations of Tahsildar, Tahsildar shall carry out the amendment of ROR as provided under Section 5(1). If the RDO disagrees with the recommendations of Tahsildar, Tahsildar shall carry out the amendment of ROR as provided under Section 5(1). In cases of acquisition of right by a registered document, ROR shall stand amended to reflect the said transaction, as stated under Section 5(3) of the act. Any person aggrieved by order under sub sections (1), 2(a) and the amendment of ROR under sub-section (3) may prefer an appeal before District Revenue Officer within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such order or amendment of ROR under Subsection 4. As per Section 5(6) of the Act, the District Collector, suo motu or otherwise, is competent to initiate proceedings under criminal law in case any application for amendment of ROR is made fraudulently. The scheme referred to supra is as per amendment to Section 5 by virtue of Act 15 of 2022. 31. Under Sec 5(3) of the Act before the amendment, the recording authority before carrying out any amendment shall issue notice to all the concerned/interested or affected. 32. Section 6-A of the Act deals with application for title deeds -cum- pattadar passbooks in respect of agricultural land or certificate of ownership for land in gramakantam or non-agricultural land. On making application to the Tahsildar or any other officer as prescribed, on payment of fee, the authority issues title deed-cum- pattadar passbook in the form prescribed. The proviso to said section mandates that no such title deed -cum-pattadar passbook or certificate of ownership shall be issued by the Tahsildar or such officer as prescribed, unless the record of rights have been brought up to date. 33. Section 2(9) of the Act defines 'record of rights' as the records prepared and maintained under the provisions or for the purpose of this Act, manually or electronically maintained. 34. Further Rule 2 (g) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') says that record of rights means in respect of the owners' title of land and in respect of other rights and interests in land. Rule 3 denotes that ROR shall be initially prepared in form No.I and subsequently maintained in form -I-B for every separate revenue village. 35. Rule 4 of the Rules prescribes the procedure for preparation and updation of record of rights. Rule 6 prescribes the procedure to conduct enquiry. Rule 3 denotes that ROR shall be initially prepared in form No.I and subsequently maintained in form -I-B for every separate revenue village. 35. Rule 4 of the Rules prescribes the procedure for preparation and updation of record of rights. Rule 6 prescribes the procedure to conduct enquiry. After conducting enquiry, the authority shall pass orders under Rule 9. Rule 18(2) mandates intimation of acquisition of rights under Section 4(1) of the Act by individual, in Form No. VI-A either at a citizen service center like Meeseva or online, as and when the facility is available. 36. Rule 18 (3)(b) prescribes that the Tahsildar shall follow the procedure prescribed in Section 5 of the Act, either for making or refusing amendment in ROR and order be passed within one month from the date of intimation. Rule 18(3)(d) manifests that if the order is, as per the request made in the intimation or where no order is passed within the stipulated period, the draft amendment to Form -IB, copy of which was enclosed to the notice in Form-VIII shall become final automatically in the electronically maintained record of rights. If the order is in variance to the draft amendment to Form I-B, the draft shall be suitably modified in the electronically maintained record of rights as per Rule 18(3)(e). 37. Rule 19 specifies that the notice in form VIII referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act shall be generated electronically. A copy of the draft amendment to Form I-B generated electronically, as per the intimation received shall be enclosed to the notice. While preparing the draft amendment to Form I-B, the procedure for notation of new sub-divisions, shall be followed. Rule 19(2) of the Rules mandates that the notice together with a copy of the amendment shall also be published in the manner specified in Clauses (a) to (e) of sub-rule (2) of the Rule 5. 38. Thus, as seen from the procedure prescribed under the Act, discussed supra, before issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds, the Tahsildar must update Record of Rights. Infact, updation of record of rights is, sine qua non, for issuance of title deeds and pattadar passbooks in favour of any person, who acquires right under Section 4 or by way of registered sale deed. 39. Infact, updation of record of rights is, sine qua non, for issuance of title deeds and pattadar passbooks in favour of any person, who acquires right under Section 4 or by way of registered sale deed. 39. In the case at hand, as seen from the material available on record, Inamdars got an extent of Ac.133-26 cts in survey Nos. 48 to 53, 69, 70, 83 to 85 and 87 to 93 Janakipuram @ Ramachandrapuram Agraharam. Seems, as per the proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, the Tahsildar Rolugunta issued Pattadar Pass Books to different Inamdhars in the year 2014 in respect of Ac.133-26 cts. In fact, RoR was also updated in favour of different Inamdars and basing upon the RoR, Pattadar Pass Books were issued. When title deeds were not issued, Inamdars filed W.P.No.2530 of 2015. Interim order was granted in W.P.M.P.No. 3380 of 2015 on 09.02.2015. Since the interim order was not complied with C.C.No. 2209 of 2005 was filed. 40. In the Contempt Case counter affidavit was filed by one Sri K.Surya Rao, Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam. In the counter affidavit it was pleaded about issuance of Ryotwari Pattas in S.R.No. 2/76 to both Tenants and Inamdars etc., It was specifically pleaded that the Government has decided to dispense with title deeds and to issue one combined document instead of two documents. It was decided to stop issuance of Title deeds from 01.12.2015 onwards by the District Administration. As such, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam issued circular instructions vide Rc.No.537/2014/D2 dated 05.1232015 to all R.D.O/ Tahsildars not to entertain any claim for issuance of Title Deeds. Writ petitioners can utilize the pass books for enforcing their legitimate rights. Nunna Venkata Subramanyeswara Rao and 7 others, who are Inamdars, made claim for grant of Pattadar Pass Books on 30.12.2014. In fact, as seen, Pattadar Pass Books was granted. Xerox copies of pass books issued to Inamdars or legal heirs are filed along with the counter affidavit of respondent No.8. Form-I B dated 14.12.2017 in the name of Nunna Srinivas is also filed along with counter affidavit. 41. Thus, the material papers coupled with pleadings would make the things more than discernable that names of Inamdars or legal heirs were updated in record of rights, and they were granted pattadar pass books. Form-I B dated 14.12.2017 in the name of Nunna Srinivas is also filed along with counter affidavit. 41. Thus, the material papers coupled with pleadings would make the things more than discernable that names of Inamdars or legal heirs were updated in record of rights, and they were granted pattadar pass books. Respondent No.8 purchased land of an extent of Ac.32-41 cents, under a registered sale deed dated 07.09.2018 from Nunna Nagababu and others. Copy of the sale deed is filed along with the counter affidavit. Seems he also purchased some more extent of land. His name was updated in Record of Rights on 14.08.2021 and 04.01.2022 in respect of Ac.40-52 cents in different survey numbers, allotted to Inamdars. Thus, since the name of unofficial respondents were updated in Record of Rights, they are entitled PPB and TD. 42. As seen from the procedure, as discussed supra, updating Record of Rights is sine qua non for grant of Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed. In fact, as discussed supra, names of Inamdars were also updated in Record of Rights and they were granted Pattadar Pass Books. However, no challenge was made qua the mutation of names of Inamdars in Revenue Records. Those entries remain unchallenged. 43. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it was pleaded that the purchasers of the subject land applied for pattadar passbooks through Meeseva application dated 20.07.2021 and form VIII was generated on 30.07.2021 duly notifying the date as 14.08.2021. After generation of form VIII notification, no objections were claimed by any party. As per the enquiry conducted by VRO, RI, HDT and report, dated 13.08.2021, mutations were completed on 13.08.2021 and digital signature was made on 14.08.2021. It was stated that the transfer order was dated 14.08.2021. However, the same was communicated on 16.08.2021. Pursuant to the report dated 04.12.2021 of RDO, no further action is initiated against respondent No.1, till date. 44. Thus, the report of RDO would manifest that the then Tahsildar, issued PPB in favour of un-official respondents' without following procedure. Even for the sake of arguments, the Tahsildar, failed to adhere to the procedure, that itself, in the peculiar facts of the case, ipso facto, do not confer a right on the petitioner to ask for cancellation in view of the finding recorded supra. Even for the sake of arguments, the Tahsildar, failed to adhere to the procedure, that itself, in the peculiar facts of the case, ipso facto, do not confer a right on the petitioner to ask for cancellation in view of the finding recorded supra. Of course, this court is not supporting the procedural irregularity on the part of the Tahsildar, however, in the facts of this case, the updating Record of Rights and issuing PPB in favour of unofficial respondents are not liable to be set aside. 44. In view of the discussion supra this Court, prima facie, concludes that the then Tahsildar, Rolugunta failed to adhere to the procedure, however, the petitioners not being affected or aggrieved parties, the said proceedings cannot be annulled at the instance of the petitioners. In adversarial litigation, locus standi, person interested and aggrieved persons play vital role. 45. In view of the above discussions, there are no merits in the writ petition and these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.