APHC010346182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 17815/2025 Between: 1. R LAKSHMI KANTHA REDDY, S/O R.RAMI REDDY, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O 6-99, BENIGERI, ASPARI MANDAL, KUMOOL DISTRICT 2. R.SUBHASHINI, W/O R.LAKSHMI KANTHA REDDY, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O 6-99, BENIGERI, ASPARI MANDAL, KUMOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PATHIKONDA, KUMOOL DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDHAR, ASPARI MANDAL, KUMOOL DISTRICT 5. K VEERA GOPAL REDDY, S/O K.HANUMANTHA REDDY, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O HALIGERA VILLAGE, ASPARI MANDAL, KUMOOL 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 2 pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice dt.26.06.2025 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pathikonda, Kumool District le Respondent No.3 herein there by initiating Proceedings Rc.F/481/2025 for cancellation of Petitioners respective Pattadhar Pass Books with respective Katha Numbers 157 and 303 with respect to Petitioners Agriculture Lands in respective Survey Numbers 53-1, 72-1, 92-A, 92-C, 92-D, 144-E, 144-F, 30-B, 94-0, 174- B, 176-A respectively admeasuring an extent of Ac 2-21 Cents, Ac 2-70 Cents, Ac 2-25 Cents, Ac 2-79 Cents, Ac 2-35 Cents, Ac 0-19 Cents, Ac 2-19 Cents, Ac 1-38 Cents, Ac 1-94 Cents, Ac 4-38 Cents, Ac 3-72 Cents situated at Benigeri Village, Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District by assigning reason that 5TH Respondent has filed Appeal, without taking in to account that Revenue Divisional Officer does not get jurisdiction to entertain such an Appeal for cancellation of Pass Books issued as per Section 6-A of the Act 1971, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Provisions of THE ANDHRA PRADESH RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS ACT, 1971 and set aside same and direct the Respondent No.3 to drop the Proceedings Rc.F/481/2025 initiated for cancellation of Petitioners respective Pattadhar Pass Books with respective Katha Numbers 157 and 303 with respect to Petitioners Agriculture Lands and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Notice dt.26.06.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 herein there by initiating Proceedings Rc.F/481/2025 for cancellation of Petitioners’ respective Pattadhar Pass Books with respective Katha Numbers 157 and 303 with respect to Petitioners’ Agriculture Lands and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Y SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. HARISH KUMAR RASINENI 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ::ORDER:: Heard Sri Y.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 2. The 5th respondent filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer vide Rc.F/481/2025 dated 26.06.2025 (Ex.P1) purportedly under Section 5(5) of the AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 to cancel the Pattadar Pass Books issued in favour of petitioners in respect of lands in Sy.No.30-B, 53-1, 72-1, 92-A, 92-C, 92-D, 144-E, 144-F, 30-B, 94-O, 174-B and 176-A of Haligera Village, Sy.Nos.267-B1 and 271-C of Binigeri Village and Sy.Nos.24, 28 and 37 of Tangaradona Village of Aspari Mandal. The 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 26.06.2025 (Ex.P1), directing the petitioners to attend the inquiry on 04.07.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 3rd respondent ought not to have entertained an appeal to cancel the Pattadar Pass Books given the judgment of the Division Bench of the Composite High Court in Ratnamma, w/o. B.Jayaramireddy vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram1. He would also submit that civil litigation is pending between the petitioners and the 5th respondent, and A.S.No.575 of 1998 is pending on the file of the High Court. He would further submit that initially, the appeal was dismissed for default. After restoration, the appeal is pending. 4. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent did not dispute the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Ratnamma case. Learned counsel would submit that liberty be granted to the 5th respondent to make an appropriate application before the 3rd respondent as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue also did not dispute the ratio in Ratnamma case. 1 (2015) 6 ALD 609 (DB) 4 6. As seen from Ex.P1, the 5th respondent filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent to cancel the Pattadar Pass Books issued in favour of the petitioners in respect of the aforementioned survey numbers in Haligera Village, Binigeri Village and Tangaradona Village. 7. The Division Bench of the Composite High Court in Ratnamma Case, concluded that no appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act would be maintainable against the cancellation of Pattadar Pass Book or Title Deed. The Division Bench held as follows: “From a bare reading of Section 5(5) of the Act, it can be held that against every order of recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal to the RDO, is provided within the time stipulated in the Section. Under the Act, making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make amendment in record of rights is a crucial stage and a substantive decision rendered by the recording authority. Therefore, right of appeal is provided against such decisions. Likewise, from the reading of Section 5(5) of the Act, it cannot be construed that Section 5(5) provides remedy of appeal against orders under Section 6-A of the Act. Issuance of PPB/TD or making entries therein is always a step consequential to the record of rights prepared. Therefore the plain reading of Section 5(5) makes it clear that appeal against order under Section 6-A is not maintainable.” 8. Despite the order passed by the Division Bench, it is very unfortunate that the learned Revenue Divisional Officer is entertaining appeals filed by the litigants to cancel the Pattadar Pass Books under Section 5(5) or Section 5(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The learned Revenue Divisional Officers shall scrupulously follow the ratio in Ratnamma’s case, even before issuing notice to the opposite party. 9. In the case at hand, as discussed (supra), the appeal filed by the 5th respondent to cancel the Pattadar Pass Books and the same is not maintainable given the ratio in Ratnamma’s case. 5 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The appeal vide Rc.F/481/2025 filed by the 5th respondent on the file of the 3rd respondent to cancel the Pattadar Pass Books issued in favour of the petitioners is hereby set aside. However, this order will not preclude the 5th respondent from making the necessary application before the appropriate authority as per the provisions of the Act. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Dated: 17.07.2025 SNI 6 356 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 17815/2025 Dated: 17.07.2025 SNI