IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 10449 OF 2099 l! •ol % SI o o <■ X’ 1 Between: Sanala Alluraiah, S/o Kasi Bathula, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Carpenter, R/o Darimadugu, Markapuram Rural, Prakasam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Registration and Stamps Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. 3. The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapuram, Prakasam 5. The Tahsildar, Markapur, Prakasam District. 6. Thandra Venkatamma, W/o Venkata Subbiah, R/o Rajupalem Village Indupur Post, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District. ^ At District. ...Respondents of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly of Writ of Mandamus Under Article 226 of the Constitution the order passed by the 3'''^ R.P.No.D.Dis.No.D7/278/2021 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution may in the nature of India declaring his proceedings set-aside the respondent ordering were contrary respondent in dated 15.03.2022 by proceedings D.Dis.A/765/2018 dated 28.04.2021 of 4*^ restore the PPB and TD in favour of 6"’ respondent until it “1^ proved by the civil court as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and _ V consequently set-aside the same, f \ lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 order passed by the 3'^'^ respondent in his proceedings R.P.No.D.Dis.No. D7/278/2021 dated 15.03.2022. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. Sanala Alluraiah, S/o Kasi Bathula, Aged about 56 years, Occ; Carpenter, R/o Darimadugu, Markapuram Rural, Prakasam District. ...Respondent/Petitioner 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Registration and Stamps Department, Secretariat Buildings, At Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 3. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapuram, Prakasam District, 5. The Tahsildar, Markapur, Prakasam District. 6. Thandra Venkatamma, W/o Venkata Subbiah, R/o Rajupalem Village, Indupur Post, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Respondents/Respondents (R2 to R6 are not necessary parties In this petition) 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 vacate the stay orders dated 01.07.2022 issued in WP No. 10449 of 2022 and also dismiss the Writ Petition. / Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU The Court made the following order: /^pHCOI 0162322022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMS [3332] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 10449/2022 Between: Sanala Alluraiah, ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: IP NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU 2.GPFOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: Impugning the proceedings of 3'^'^ respondent-Joint Collector dated 15.03.2022, the present writ petition is filed. Heard Sri M.K.Raj Kumar, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for respondent and Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, petitioner’s father purchased an extent of Ac.4.16 cents in Sy.No.94 situated at Idupuru village, Markapur mandal. Prakasam District through registered sale deed dated Ac. 1.16 cents (out of Ac.4.16 cents) to registered sale deed dated 19.10.1984. He further submitted the petitioner and his brother 23.05.1969 and sold one Sri Thandra Kotiah through - J that, ever since in physical possession and enjoyment of remaining extent of Ac.3.00 cents and after demise of petitioner’s father, the petitioner and his brother approached S**" respondent-tahsildar to were mutate their names in the revenue records and also to issue pattadar passbook in their came into light that, 6*’ respondent, fraudulently got entered her name for total extent of Ac.4.16 cents in the revenue records. favour. While so, it Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, the said entries in the revenue records, the petitioner and appeal before 4**^ respondent-RDO seeking deletion of 6*^ in all revenue records and to cancel pattadar passbook respect to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No.94. After considering and records, RDO has allowed the appeal vide orders dated thereby deleted the entries made in favor of e* respondent. Assailing the same, the 6* respondent filed a revision petition before 3'” respondent-Joint Collector, which was allowed by the 3' 15.03.2022 setting aside the orders of RDO and aggrieved by his brother filed an respondent’s name and title deed with the facts 28.04.2021 and respondent vide orders dated ordered to restore the pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of 6*'" respondent. If such subsists, the rights of petitioner would be affected an order and it would put irreparable pass appropriate orders protecting the loss and hardship. As such prayed to interest of the petitioner. 4. Whereas, learned counsel for the 6*^ respondent that, the petitioner has filed appeal before 4*^ on counter submitted respondent after lapse of 36 If at all the petitioner to approach the competent no authority to cancel the pattadar passbook and title deed issued in the year 1984 in favour of 6'" respondent, as such the 3'“ respondent-Joint Collector has rightly set aside years, which is not maintainable and barred by limitation, is having any right over the subject land, he has Civil Court. Further, RDO has the orders of RDO dated 28.04.2021 and ordered to restore the pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of 6*^ respondent until the contrary is proved by the Civil court. Hence, there is no illegality or procedural irregularity in passing the order by the Joint Collector, as such the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue while justifying the order of the 3'^ respondent, contended that, RDO has no authority to cancel the pattadar passbook and title deed by virtue of Division Bench Judgment in Ratnamma Vs R.D.O. Dharmavaram\ Therefore, the Joint Collector has rightly passed orders dated 15.03.2022 by setting aside the orders of RDO and ordered to restore the pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of 6**^ respondent until the contrary is proved by the Civil court. As such prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel of the parties. It is not in dispute that, pattadar pass book and title were issued in favour of 6**^ respondent in the year 1984 with respect to an extent of Ac.4.16 cents in Sy.No.94 situated at Idupuru village, Markapur mandal, Prakpsam District. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed an appeal before RDO, after lapse of 36 years, wherein RDO has allowed the said appeal vide proceedings dated 28.04.2021 and deleted the entries made in favor of the 6 respondent. Aggrieved by the said order of the RDO, the 6“^ respondent has filed revision before the Joint Collector and the same was allowed in favour of 6*^ respondent vide proceedings dated 15.03.2022 setting aside the orders of RDO and ordered to restore the pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of 6**^ respondent until the contrary is proved by the Civil court. 7. th In Ratnamma Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, a Division Bench of this Court held that the appeal under Section (5) of the Act, 1971 before Revenue ^ 2015(6) ALT 339 Divisional Officer is not maintainable against mere issuance of pattadar pass book and title deeds under Section 6-A of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court held as follows; “...Sections 5-B and 6-A are introduced through Amendment Act 9 of 1994. Through the amendment, remedy of appeal against regularization order under Section 5-A of the Act and provision for issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act is enacted. Sub section (3) of Section 6-A provides for correction of entries in the PPB/TD by the Mandat Revenue Officer either suo motu or on an application. As already noticed, the record- of- rights is prepared under Section 3 of the Act, updated/maintained under Sections 4, 5 and also as a consequence of regularization under Section 5-A of the Act. Issuance of PPB is covered by Section 6-A of the Act The PPB is nothing but a copy or reflection of entries in the record of rights prepared or maintained at one or the other stages under the Act as stated above. The PPB/TD is maintained and issued in Form No. 14- C of the Rules. PPB/TD contains the entries as borne out by 1-B Register. With the issue of pass book to any person whose name in the applicable column is recorded in record of rights, it cannot be said such issuance adversely affects any person. 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 ofrecord of rights under Sections 4 and 5 or regularization under Section 5-A of the Act, the remedy of appeal under Section(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 PPB/TD issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The reason for not providing any appeal against the issuance of PPB/TD does not by itself adversely affect the substantive right of a person, who claims or has a right in the property for which PPB is issued. In other words, the issuance of PPB/TD is a consequential act and entries in PPB/TD 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...” In light of above and as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, RDO has no authority to cancel the pattadar passbook and title deed. As such, the orders of the Joint Collector dated 15.03.2022 setting aside the orders of RDO dated 28.04.2021, is justifiable and sustainable. This Court, is of the firm opinion that, the Joint Collector has rightly passed the orders and there is no illegality or procedural irregularity in passing the impugned orders. The petitioner has not made out any case warranting the interference of this Court. The writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CER SE To, 1. One CC to Sri P Narahari Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT \ DATED:03/02/2025 g 03AM2075 ^ Curreni Secllon ORDER WP.No.10449 of 2022 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS RAM