APHC010063782018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2769 of 2018 Between: 1. P. JAYAMMA, W/O.P.KRISTAPPA, AGE 60 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O.HALHARVI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. P.JAYA PRAKASH, S/O.P.LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGE 40 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O.HALHARVI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 1. STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, HALHARVI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. P KRISTAPPA, S/O.P.HANUMATHAPPA, AGE MAJOR, R/O. HALHARVI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2769 of 2018 P. JAYAMMA, W/O.P.KRISTAPPA, AGE 60 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O.HALHARVI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. P.JAYA PRAKASH, S/O.P.LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGE 40 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O.HALHARVI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADONI, KURNOOL THE TAHSILDAR, HALHARVI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. P KRISTAPPA, S/O.P.HANUMATHAPPA, AGE MAJOR, R/O. HALHARVI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA P. JAYAMMA, W/O.P.KRISTAPPA, AGE 60 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O.HALHARVI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, P.JAYA PRAKASH, S/O.P.LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGE 40 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O.HALHARVI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ...PETITIONER(S) STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADONI, KURNOOL THE TAHSILDAR, HALHARVI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. P KRISTAPPA, S/O.P.HANUMATHAPPA, AGE MAJOR, R/O. HALHARVI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in 2 the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in RC.E.1108/2013 dt10-11-2017 of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of Principles of Natural justice and in violation of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners name in the Revenue Record in respect of the land in Sy.No. 68/D1 an extent of Ac.7.66 cents, an extent of Ac.2.20 cents in Sy.No.259/C, an extent of Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.553/A and an extent of Ac.3.78 cents in Sy.No.507 of Halharvi Village and Mandal, Kurnool District in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings in RC.E.1108/2013 dt10-11-2017 of the 3rd respondent in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S D GOWD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2769 of 2018 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings in RC.E.1108/2013, dated 10-11-2017 of the Respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioners name in the Revenue Record in respect of the land in Sy.No. 68/D1 an extent of Ac.7.66 cents, an extent of Ac.2.20 cents in Sy.No.259/C, an extent of Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.553/A and an extent of Ac.3.78 cents in Sy.No.507 of Halharvi Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. The case of the Petitioners is that the family of the Petitioners have various extent of land in Halharvi Village. The family members of Petitioners made an application to the Respondent No.4 for grant of Pattadar Pass Book in their favour in respect of total extent of Ac. 16.64 cents. Accordingly, Pattadar Pass Books were granted in favour of the Petitioner No.1 in respect of the land in Sy.No.68/D1 an extent of Ac. 7.66 cents and an extent of Ac. 2.20 cents in Sy.No.259/C of Halharvi Village and similar Pattadar Pass Book was issued in respect of the land in Sy.No.553/A an extent of Ac. 3.00 cents and an extent of Ac. 3.78 cents in Sy.No.507 to the Petitioner No.2 after conducting due enquiry by the Tahsildar and the names of the Petitioners were mutated in the Revenue Records. 3. While the matter stood thus, the Respondent No.5 filed an Appeal before the Respondent No.3 for cancelation of Pattadar Pass Books and Title 4 Deeds issued in favour of the Petitioners in respect of subject land. The Petitioners have received notice from the Respondent No.3 on 16.01.2016 and appeared before the Respondent No.3. Thereafter, the case was adjourned and later no notice of hearing was served on them. But however, Respondent No.3 allowed the Appeal preferred by the Respondent No.5 on 10.11.2017 and directed the Respondent No.4 to make necessary changes in the Web Land, Adangal and 1-B in favour of the Respondent No.5. Aggrieved by which, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 4. When the matter came up for admission on 31.01.2018, this Court passed the following interim order: “In the meanwhile, there shall be status quo with regard to the possession and entries in the revenue records”. 5. The Respondent No.4 filed Counter-Affidavit duly admitting the facts as stated by the Petitioners. However, it is stated that the Petitioners have no right to claim the property which stands in the name of Respondent No.5, who is none other than the husband of the Petitioner No.1 and father in-law of the Petitioner No.2. Though, the Petitioners did not have any right over the subject land, they got managed the previous officials and obtained Pattadar Pass Book in their favour without cancelling the name of the Respondent No.5. When the Respondent No.5 brought to the notice of Respondent No.3 herein, by way of Appeal filed under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R.Act, after conducting a detailed enquiry and perusing the records the Respondent No.3 has passed cancellation orders which are impugned in the present Writ Petition. 5 6. It is also submitted that as per the directions issued vide proceedings dated 10.11.2017, the Tahsildar, Halaharvi issued notices to the Petitioners for change of their names in the revenue records, at that stage, the Petitioners have approached this Court and obtained interim orders. As such, requested this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. A person is certainly aggrieved by illegal preparation of record of rights and against such illegal preparation the remedy is provided under Section 3(3) of the Act. Likewise, against illegal or erroneous updation of record of rights under Sections 4 and 5 or regularization under Section 5-A of the Act, the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) or Section 5-B respectively is available to an aggrieved party. On the other hand, Section 6-A(3) provides for correction of erroneous entries in Pattadar Pass Book/ Title Deed issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The reason for not providing any appeal against the issuance of Pattadar Pass Book/ Title Deed is manifest from the Scheme of the Act viz., that the issuance of Pattadar Pass Book/ Title Deed does not by itself adversely affect the substantive right of a person, who claims or has a right in the property for which Pattadar Pass Book/ Title Deed is issued. In other words, the issuance of Pattadar Pass Book/ Title Deed is a consequential act and entries in Pattadar Pass Book/ Title Deed are mere reflection of entries of 1-B Register. Mere filing of appeal against issuance of pattadar pass book which is only a copy of 1-B register is not an efficacious remedy under the scheme of the Act. 6 8. It is well settled that the right of appeal must find its source in legislative authority. The right of appeal accrues to the litigant when it is expressly provided for in the statute and axiomatic that the right of appeal is a substantive right and must be conferred by a statute. Appeal is provided for against the original proceedings or substantive determination under Sections 4, 5 and 5-A of the Act. The Legislature in its wisdom and noticing the purpose of issuing Pattadar Pass Book/ Title Deed did not provide right of appeal against mere issuance of Pattadar Pass Book/ Title Deed under Section 6-A of the Act. Therefore, on the literal construction of Sections 3 to 6-A of the Act, it can be held that the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is not provided against the issuance of Pattadar Pass Book/Title Deed under Section 6-A of the Act. By treating the action under Sections 5 and 6- A of the Act as single or mutually dependent, in our considered view, the remedy of appeal against mere issuance of Pattadar Pass Book/ Title Deed under Section 6-A of the Act is not available. 9. Having observed so, in “Ratnamma Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District” (W.P.No.21689 of 1999), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad allowed the said writ petition holding that the Appeal filed against the issuance of Pattadar Pass Book/ Title Deed to the Petitioner therein is not maintainable while giving liberty to the aggrieved person to pursue other available remedies under the Act or common law remedy, if the circumstances so warrant. 7 10. In the present case, on perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that Respondent No.4 has not followed the due procedure as contemplated under Section 5 (5) of R.O.R.Act. As the facts of the present case are similar to the facts in W.P.No.21689 of 1999, this Court is inclined to pass same order as in W.P.No. 21689 of 1999. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings in R.C.E.No.1108 of 2013 dated 10.11.2017 issued by Respondent No.3. However, Respondent No.5 is at liberty to pursue other available remedies under the Act or common law remedy. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 23.06.2026 KK