Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 716 (AP)

Palakunta Devaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-06-16

T.C.D.SEKHAR

body2025
COMMON ORDER: T.C.D. SEKHAR, J. 1. Since the subject matter in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that land admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.05 cents in Sy.No.403/2 of Haresamudram Revenue Village, Madakasira Mandal, Satya Sai District originally belonged to one Sri Pille Thimmappa. It is further case of the petitioner that after the demise of the said Pille Thimmappa, his wife Smt. Thimmakka succeeded to the said property as class-I legal heir. It is stated that Smt.Thimmakka had no issues and the petitioner was looking after her during her life time by providing food and shelter. It is further case of the petitioner the said Thimmakkma out of love and affection, she executed a registered Will dated 30.05.2013 in favour of the petitioner bequeathing the subject property. It is further stated that, the said Thimmakka died on 28.08.2013 and by virtue of the said Will the petitioner became the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land. It is further case of the petitioner that he approached 3 rd respondent seeking to mutate his name and to grant pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of subject lands. Accordingly, the 3 rd respondent after conducting an enquiry, mutated the name of the petitioner in revenue records by issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds in his favour. It is further case of the petitioner that he is in uninterrupted possession of the subject land since 2013 and he also availed crop loans from Ananthapur District Co-operative Society. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that when the respondent Nos.5 & 6 tried to interfere with his possession, he filed suit in OS No.156 of 2019, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira seeking to grant injunction. It is further stated that along with the said suit he filed IA No.413 of 2019 seeking to grant temporary injunction and the Trial Court by order dated 11.12.2019 grated ex-parte ad-interim injunction in his favour and the said suit is pending adjudication. 4. It is further stated that the name of the petitioner was deleted from revenue records without issuing notice to him. Questioning the same he preferred writ petition vide WP No.23026 of 2021. 4. It is further stated that the name of the petitioner was deleted from revenue records without issuing notice to him. Questioning the same he preferred writ petition vide WP No.23026 of 2021. It is further stated that during the course of hearing of the writ petition, it is brought to his notice that pursuant to order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the 3 rd respondent, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the revenue records. Therefore, he questioned the said order by filing writ petition vide WP No.41859 of 2022. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.5 & 6 preferred appeal before the 3 rd respondent questioning the action of the 4 th respondent in issuing pattadar pass books and title in favour of the petitioners. The 3 rd respondent after issuing notices to all the parties concerned passed order dated 12.12.2019 whereunder dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.5 & 6 on the ground that they failed to establish genealogy between themselves and the original assignee. While dismissing the appeal the 3 rd respondent cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners over the subject lands by directing the 4 th respondent to resume the subject land and to amend the entries by incorporating as government lands in revenue records as against the subject lands. The petitioner questioned the said order passed by the 3 rd respondent on the ground that the 3 rd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain appeal under Section 5(5) of Act 26 of 1971 filed by respondent Nos.5 & 6 for cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds. 6. The respondent Nos.5 & 6 filed counter affidavit stating that originally the subject land was assigned in favour of Pille Dasappa, who is none other than the grandfather of respondent Nos.5 & 6 by virtue of proceedings in DAR.Dis.No.338/65, dated 28.12.1956. It is further case of the respondents that after the demise of their grandfather, his two (02) sons Giriyappa and Govindappa succeeded to the said land. It is further stated that 5 th respondent is the son of Govindappa and 6 th respondent is the son of Giriyappa. It is further stated that respondent Nos.5 & 6 succeeded to the property and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. It is further stated that 5 th respondent is the son of Govindappa and 6 th respondent is the son of Giriyappa. It is further stated that respondent Nos.5 & 6 succeeded to the property and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. It is further contended that Smt.Thimmakka from whom the petitioner is claiming rights is in absolute stranger and she had no right, title or interest over the subject land. It is further stated that the petitioner is not related to the family of late Smt.Thimmakka and by virtue of alleged Will dated 30.05.2013, the petitioner got mutated his name illegally. It is further stated that the appeal filed by them was erroneously dismissed without appreciating their case and as against the said order, they preferred revision petition before the 2 nd respondent and the same is pending adjudication. With the above pleadings the respondent Nos.5 & 6 prayed to dismiss the writ petition and inasmuch as the petitioner has got effective alternative remedy of filing a revision before the 2 nd respondent. 7. Heard counsel for petitioner, counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 8. Perused material available on record. 9. The counsel for petitioner strenuously contend that the impugned order dated 12.12.2019 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as an appeal filed under Section 5(5) of RoR Act for cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds is not maintainable as per the Judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Ratnamma Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur District and other , 2015 (5) ALT 228 (DB) would contend that the order passed by the 3 rd respondent is required to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, it was the contention of the respondent Nos.5 & 6 that the petitioner without having any right, title or interest over the subject land, by virtue of alleged Will dated 30.05.2013 set to have been executed by Smt.Thimmappa got fraudulently mutated his name in revenue records. He would further contend that late Smt.Thimmappa also had no title over the property inasmuch as the subject land was assigned in favour of grandfather of respondent Nos.5 & 6 on 28.12.1956. He would further contend that late Smt.Thimmappa also had no title over the property inasmuch as the subject land was assigned in favour of grandfather of respondent Nos.5 & 6 on 28.12.1956. He would further contended that in support of the claim of the petitioner, he did not file any documentary proof placing title over the subject land, except the alleged Will deed dated 30.05.2013. He would further contend that instead of filing a revision petition against the order impugned, the present writ petition is filed and prayed to dismiss the same. 11. On considerations of submissions made by both counsel, as rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioner, Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, in Ratnamma Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur District and two (02) others, after a review of the provisions of RoR Act had held that there is no appeal provided against the issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed. In the present case the appeal before the 3 rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer was filed against the issuance of pattadar pass book and in view of the Judgment of Division Bench in Ratnamma’s case, such appeal is not maintainable. Therefore, the contention of the respondent Nos.5 & 6 that appeal is maintainable before the 3 rd respondent as against the issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds is hereby rejected. 12. In the circumstances, following the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Ratnamma’s case, it must be held that the proceedings in D.Dis.No.970/2015/B, dated 12.12.2019 of the 3 rd respondent are without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the revision petition filed against the said order dated 12.12.2019 would become redundant. 13. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed setting aside the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the 3 rd respondent. It is further directed that the name of the petitioner be restored in revenue records in respect of the subject lands. It is needless to mention that the respondent Nos.5 & 6 are at liberty to seek appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. It is further directed that the name of the petitioner be restored in revenue records in respect of the subject lands. It is needless to mention that the respondent Nos.5 & 6 are at liberty to seek appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. It is further clarified that this Court did not go into the merits of the matter and the above findings given are only for the purpose of deciding the jurisdiction of 3 rd respondent in entertaining appeal preferred by respondent Nos.5 & 6. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.