Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 734 (AP)

D. Suseela v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-06-19

T.C.D.SEKHAR

body2025
ORDER : T.C.D.SEKHAR, J. 1. The petitioner claims that she was assigned land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.36 cents in Sy.No.576/2 of Jammalamadugu Revenue Village fields, Jammalamadugu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District through D-Form patta No.2/1411,dated 28.12.2001 under landless poor quota. 2. It is further case of the petitioner that since the date of assignment she is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said land. In due recognizition of her possession over the subject lands, her name was mutated in revenue records and she was also issued pattadar pass books and title deeds. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent approached Lok Adalat by filing a petition vide L.A.C.No.10 of 2006 stating that the subject land belongs to his father and taking advantage of his absence in the village, the writ petitioner fraudulently obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds over the land in dispute and prayed to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in his favour. 4. Upon filing of L.A.C.No.10 of 2006, a notice was served on the writ petitioner and Lok Adalat called for a report from the 4th respondent. In pursuance of the same, the 4th respondent submitted report in proceedings Ref.No.E/132/2005, dt. 15.03.2006 stating that the subject land was assigned in favour of the petitioner on 28.12.2001 vide DKT No.2/1411 and pattadar pass book was issued in favour of the writ petitioner. The said report further reveals that the 4th respondent personally inspected the subject lands and found that the writ petitioner was cultivating the same and the land was never in possession of the 5th respondent herein. Having considered the said report filed by the 4th respondent, L.A.C.No. 10/2006 filed by the 5th respondent was closed by advising the 5th respondent to approach common law Court for redressal of his grievance. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that having kept quiet for fourteen (14) long years, the 5th respondent made a representation to the 3rd respondent questioning the entries made in favour of the 5th respondent including the issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds. The said representation of the 5th respondent was taken on file treating it as appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. The said representation of the 5th respondent was taken on file treating it as appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. It is specific case of the petitioner that she appeared before the 3rd respondent and produced all relevant documents in respect of her claim. Despite the same, the 3rd respondent while passing impugned order it is stated that the writ petitioner did not attend for enquiry nor produced documentary evidence to substantiate her case and passed impugned order whereby and where under cancelled the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the writ petitioner and directed to delete the entries in respect of subject lands. 6. The 3rd respondent further directed the 4th respondent to issue E-pattadar pass books in favour of 5th respondent over the subject land. The said order is being assailed in the present writ petition. 7. On the other hand, the 4th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that land admeasuring an extent of 10.83 acres in Sy.No.576 is classified as burial ground as per RSR. It is further stated that an extent of Ac.1.56 cents was sub divided from the total extent with Sy.No.576/2. It is further stated that in the counter affidavit that the name of the 5th respondent is recorded in Web Land Adangal vide 1-B Khata No. 1004. 8. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the father of the 5th respondent purchased the subject land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 21.03.1966 and since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment. It is further stated that taking into advantage of his absence in Jammalamadugu Village the petitioner managed the then revenue officials and got pattadar pass books in his name by deleting the name of the 5th respondent. 9. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not produce DKT patta alleged to have been given in her favour before the 3'^ respondent. Therefore the 3rd respondent rightly passed the order under challenge and there is no illegality or infirmity in the said order. With the above pleadings the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Despite engaging the counsel, the 5th respondent did not choose to appear in the matter and no counter affidavit is filed. Therefore the 3rd respondent rightly passed the order under challenge and there is no illegality or infirmity in the said order. With the above pleadings the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Despite engaging the counsel, the 5th respondent did not choose to appear in the matter and no counter affidavit is filed. Though the matter was listed on 07.05.2025 and 17.06.2025, there was no representation on behalf of 5th respondent. Today also, there is no representation and therefore the matter is heard with the material available on record. 11. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 12. Perused material available on record. 13. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she was assigned subject land on 28.12.2001 and since then she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. In support of her claim she filed copies of DKT patta issued by the 4th respondent. She also filed copies of pattadar pass books and title deeds to show that she is in possession of the subject land. 14. It is not in dispute that initially the 5th respondent claimed the subject land stating that the same was purchased by his father by virtue of registered sale deed. It is pertinent to mention that, the 5th respondent filed L.A.C.No.10 of 2006, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. In the said case, the learned Judge called for report from the 4th respondent and accordingly report dated 15.03.2006 was filed whereunder it was categorically stated that the writ petitioner was assigned the subject land and she is in possession of the same. The said report further reads that the 5th respondent was never in possession. 15. Be that as it may, pending the appeal, 3rd respondent called for report from 4th respondent and in pursuance of the same the 4th respondent submitted a report dated 01.11.2019, wherein it is specifically stated that the subject land is in occupation of the petitioner and she was granted assignment patta over the subject land. Despite the same the 3rd respondent passed impugned order stating that the 4th respondent did not conduct proper enquiry before issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds in her favour. Despite the same the 3rd respondent passed impugned order stating that the 4th respondent did not conduct proper enquiry before issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds in her favour. The impugned order further reads that the 5th respondent established his right over the property by virtue of inheritance while passing the impugned order, the 3rd respondent has completely lost sight of report dated 01.11.2019 submitted by the 4th respondent, which clearly reveals that assignment was made in favour of the writ petitioner. Apart-from the same, when the 5th respondent filed L.A.C.No.10 of 2006 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur the same was closed by directing the 5th respondent to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. 16. In addition to the same, it is specific case of the petitioner that she has produced all the documents including DKT patta and pattadar pass books in support of her claim. But the 3rd respondent did not consider the same. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the 3rd respondent did not make any endeavour to peruse the records available with the 4th respondent’s office and came to the conclusion that, the 5th respondent established his right over the land in dispute. From the above it is clear that, the respondent without application of mind passed the order under challenge. 17. Yet another ground raised by the petitioner is that the appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act filed by the 5th respondent is not maintainable, as per the judgment rendered by this Court reported in the case of 2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB), Ratnamma Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer & others, Dharmavaram. In the said judgment, this Court held that, appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is not maintainable for cancellation of pattadar pass books. 18. Having regard the ratio laid down by this Court in the said judgment the appeal filed by the 5th respondent seeking to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the writ petitioner is not maintainable and accordingly the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further, the 4th respondent is directed to restore the name of the writ petitioner in revenue records in respect of subject land. 19. Further, the 4th respondent is directed to restore the name of the writ petitioner in revenue records in respect of subject land. 19. It is needless to mention, if the respondent is aggrieved by the action of 4th respondent with regard to issuance of pattadar pass books, in favour of the petitioner, he is at liberty to question the same in accordance with law. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.