IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AIV FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 21 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to against the order dated 12.12.2024 in W.P. No. 39323 of 2022 on the file of the High Court..- Between: Pagadala Subbarayudu @ Subbaiah, S/o Nagaiah, residing at Nagireddypalli, H/o Buggalapalli Village, C.K Dinne Mandal Y.S.R. District. ...Appellant AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. The Collector, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. The Joint Collector, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District The Tahsildhar, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District Smt Mantri Vasantha Kumari, W/o Narasimhulu, R/o Angadi Veedi, H/o Mamillapalli Village, CK Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R District. Mantri Krishna Kishore, S/o Narasimhulu, R/o Angadi Veedi, H/o Mamillapalli Village, CK Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 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 direct the respondents to maintain status quo ante i.e., status .. quo existing as on order dt. 12.12.2024 disposal of the above Writ Appeal in W.P. No. 39323 of 2022, pending . lA NO: 3 OF Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the proceedings in furtherance of the Impugned order proceedings No. D.Dis E2/APLS(ROR)/26/2018 praying that in the circumstances in dt. 22.11.2022, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. lA NO: 4 OF 2C)7f^ - 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 the order dt. 12.12.2024 in W.P. No. 39323 of 2022, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. ^ Counsel for the Appellant: SRI JAWAJI SARATH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: CHANDRA GP FOR REVENUE^ SRI B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT % APHC010010922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) fM [3508] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 21/2025 Between; ...APPELLANT Pagadala Subbarayudu @ Subbaiah AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Appellant; 1.JAWAJISARATHCHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA The Court made the following Judgment; (perHon’ble Srl Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The dispute, in the present Writ Appeal, is in relation to Ac. 1.40 cents of land in Sy.No.555/1 and Ac.1.40 cents of land in Sy.No.555/2 of Mamillapalli Village of C.K. Dinne Mandal of YSR Kadapa District. The ownership of this land is claimed, by both the appellant on the one hand and respondents 6 & 7 on the other hand. It appears that the names of respondents 6 & 7 had been 2 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A.No.21 of 2025 included in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of respondents 6 & 7. However, no order under Section 5 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”), appears to be available. The appellant herein, being aggrieved by the presence of these entries and the pattadar passbooks, approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, who is arrayed as the 4^^ respondent herein, fqr cancellation of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds and for issuance of a fresh pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the appellant. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order, dated 28.06.2018, in Ref. No.H/920/2015, directed the 2. cancellation of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of respondents 6 & 7. These orders were challenged by respondents 6 & 7, before the Joint Collector, YSR Kadapa District, who is arrayed as 3'^'^ respondent herein, by way of a revision under Section 9 of the Act. The Joint Collector, by proceedings 3. dated 22.11.2022, proceedings in No.D.Dis.E2/APLS(ROR)/26/2018, had set aside the order of the Revenue Divisonal Officer, Kadapa and directed restoration of the entries in all the village accounts, IB Register and also online records. The appellant, being aggrieved by these orders, approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.39323 of 2022. A Learned Single Judge of this 4. . 3 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A.No.21 of 2025 Court, after hearing both sides, disposed of the Writ Petition, by an order. dated 12.12.2024, holding that there was no illegality or procedural irregularity in the order passed by the Joint Collector/3'^^ respondent, while leaving it open to the appellant to get redressal of his grievance by approaching a competent Civil Court, if he so desires. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has moved this Writ 5. Appeal. Sri S. Shram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Javvaji 6. Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Joint Collector has gone into question of fact of title and has essentially settled the title in favour of respondents 6 & 7 and that the Learned Single Judge, by affirming the said order, has also essentially given a finding of title in favour of respondents 6 & 7. He would submit that such findings would prejudicially affect the interests of the appellant apart from the fact that, such findings could not have been given in relation to proceedings under Section 5 (5) of the Act or under Section 9 of the Act. The Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his contentions, has taken us through the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Joint Collector and the Learned Single Judge. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for 7. Sri B. Abh^fy Sfddhanth Mootha, learned counsel appearing for respondents6 & 7 would contend that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is without 4 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A.No.21 of 2025 jurisdiction as an order, under Section 5 (5) of the Act, can only be passed against an order passed under Section 5 (3) of the Act. He would submit that in the absence of an order or proceeding passed, under Section 5 (3) of the Act, no appeal could have been entertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5 (5) of the Act. He would further contend that the Joint Collector had to go into the question of title in as much as the claim of the appellant was by way of raising a claim of title over the property. Consideration of the Court: The scheme of the Act provides for any person who is aggrieved 8. by any entry in the revenue records or any change of revenue record to approach the Tahsildar for necessary corrections. Such corrections are to be carried out by way of proceedings under Section 5 (3) of the Act. Any person aggrieved by such orders, is entitled to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5 (5) of the Act. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Ratnamma vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram^ 9. had also considered the scheme of the Act and had held that corrections/cancellation/rectification of pattadar passbooks and title deeds would be a consequential act and the proceedings, which can be challenged 2Ij15 (6)ALD 609 (DB) 5 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A.No.21 of 2025 by way of an appeal, under Section 5 (5) of the Act, would only be orders which make a change in the revenue records. In the present case, there is no dispute that there is no original order, under Section 5 (3) of the Act, against which an appeal could be 10. maintained before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5 (5) of the Act. In such circumstances, the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer in passing an order, dated 28.06.2018, under Section 5 (5) of the Act is without jurisdiction. To that extent, the order of the Joint Collector, setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, would have to be upheld. As far as the question of title to the land in question and the decision of the Joint Collector in relation to such findings and the findings of the Learned Single Judge are concerned, it would be necessary to notice that, enquiries under the Act, can only be summary enquiries and cannot go into detailed question of fact and title, when such disputes are raised. The Act itself provides, under Section 8 (2), for approaching the Civil Court, if a person is aggrieved by any entry made in the record of rights which affects or denies his title to such right in the land. Apart from this, the Revenue Authorities, while considering rival claims, cannot decide question of title. That is the sole province of the Civil Courts. It is only in case of minor disputes, which can be resolved by way of summary procedure, that can be entertained by the Revenue Authorities while conducting proceedings under the Act. 11. 6 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A.No.21 of 2025 For all the aforesaid reasons, it would be appropriate to dispose of this Writ Appeal, by affirming the act of the Joint Collector in setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, the finding given by the Joint Collector as well as the Learned Single Judge, in relation to the question ■f of title and claims over the Jand, would not be binding on either the appellant or respondents 6 & 7, in the event of any future proceedings initiated either under the Act or by way of a suit before a competent Civil Court. 12. Sri S. Sriram, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the appellant had enjoyed the order of injunction and status quo during the pendency of the writ petition and the said status quo may be continued for some time to enable the appellant to avail of his remedies under law. 13. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, objects to the same and contends that once the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer has been set aside, the question of grant of status quo would not arise. 14. 15. However, keeping in view the prolonged litigation between the parties, it would be appropriate that status quo is granted for a period of two (02) weeks, keeping in view the fact that the Civil Courts would be closed for the next week on account of Sankranthi Vacation, 2025. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 RRR, J & MRK, J W. A. No. 21 of 2025 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR /aRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept., State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Collector, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. 3. The Joint Collector, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District ^ 5. The Tahsildhar, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District- 6. One CC to Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, Advocate [OPUC] ^ 7. One CC to Sri B. Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, Advocate[OPUCr 8. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies. 1. The ssb HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.21 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS