\ L IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION Nos: 22670 AND 27966 OF 2021 WRIT PETITION NO: 22670 OF 2021 Between: Shaik Kareemun, W/o. Mastan, aged about 50 years, R/o. 5-92, Tadikonda Guntur, Guntur District. ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Tadikonda Village, Guntur District. The R.D.O, Tadikonda Village, Guntur District. The Tahsildar, Tadikonda Village, Guntur District. Tiruveedula Mohan Rao, S/o. Ramulu, D.No.4-12-24, 1st lane, Naidu peta, Guntur. Tiruveedula Venkata Subbamma, S/o. Vunna Rao, D.No. 16-4-176 Old Guntur Tiruveedula Leelavathi, S/o. Ganji sankara Rao, D.No.100, Bavanarushi temple. Main road, Kothapet, Guntur. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"^^ respondent in entertaining the R.O.R.Appeal No.191/2021 -Athough not having any authority contrary to judgement rendered in Ratnamma Vs. RDO dated 24- 07-2015 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of principles of natural justice, article 300-A of constitution of India and the respondent No.2 to return the R.O.R.Appeal No.191/2021 consequently direct -Afrom his file. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay ROR Appeal No 191/2021 AON nd the file of 2 respondent pending disposal of writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi Between: The Tahsildar, Tadikonda Village, Guntur District. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND 1. Shaik Kareemun, W/o. Mastan, aged about 50 Tadikonda, Guntur, Guntur District. years, R/o. 5-92, ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh + o . . ^ V.''®P-its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Tadikonda Village, Guntur District. 3. The R.D.O, Tadikonda Village, Guntur District. piTa'^Huntur'^^^^'^ D No.4-12-24, 1st lane, Naidu ^ Gun'tu^*^^*^ Venkata Subbamma, S/o. Vunna Rao, D.No. 16-4-176, Old 6. Tiruveedula Leelavathi, S/o. Ganji sankara Rao, D.No 100 temple. Mam road, Kothapet, Guntur. Bavanarushi ...RESPONDENTS (R2 to R6 are not necessary parties in this petition) 4 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 interim order dated 06.10.2021 in WP.No.22670 of 2021 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI VISHWAKANTH BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : SRI CHALLA AJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 27966 OF 2021 Between: Shaik Kareemun, W/o. Mastan, aged about 50 years, R/o. 5-92, Tadikonda Guntur, Guntur District. ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Tadikonda Village, Guntur District. The R.D.O, Tadikonda Village, Guntur District The Tahsildar, Tadikonda Village, Guntur District. Tiruveedula Mohan Rao, S/o. Ramulu, D.No.4-12-24, 1st lane, Naidu peta, Guntur. Tiruveedula Venkata Subbamma, S/o. Vunna Rao, D.No.16-4-176, Old guntur Tiruveedula Leelavathi, S/o. Ganji Sankara Rao, D.No.100, Bavanarushi temple. Main road, Kothapet, Guntur. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2'^'^ respondent in passing the order dated 30-09-2021 in R.O.R.case D.DIS.No. No.191/2021- 4 A although without having any authority and contrary to judgment rendered in Ratnamma Vs. RDO dated 24-07-2015 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of principles of natural justice, article 300-A of constitution of India and consequently set aside the order dated 30-09-2021 in R.O.R.case D.DIS.No. No.191/2021-A passed by 2"^^ respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of order dated 30-09-2021 in R.O.R.case D.DIS.No. No.191/2021-A on the file of 2^^ respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: The Tahsildar, Tadikonda Village, Guntur District. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND 1. Shaik Kareemun, W/o. Mastan, aged about 50 years, R/o. 5-92 Tadikonda, Guntur, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Tadikonda Village, Guntur District. The R.D.O, Tadikonda Village, Guntur District Tiruveedula Mohan Rao, S/o. Ramulu, D.No.4-12-24, 1st lane, Naidu peta, Guntur. Tiruveedula Venkata Subbamma, S/o. Vunna Rao, D.No. 16-4-176, Old guntur Tiruveedula Leelavathi, S/o. Ganji Sankara Rao, D.No.100, Bavanarushi temple. Main road, Kothapet, Guntur. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 4 (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 interim dated 29.11.2021 in IA.No.1 of 2021 in WP.No.27966 of 2021 and dismiss the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI VISHWAKANTH BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : SRI CHALLA AJAY KUMAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER APHC010371142021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22670/2021 Between: ...PETITIONER Shaik Kareemun AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent{S): GP FOR REVENUE 1. CHALLAAJAY KUMAR 2. APHC010462592021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] It FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 27966/2021 Between: Shaik Kareemun ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GPFOR REVENUE 2.CHALLA AJAY KUMAR The Court made the following common order: Entertaining R.O.R.Appeal No.191/2021 by 2'"'* respondent, without having any authority is the grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.22670/2021 whereas passing order dated 30.09.2021 in ROR Case D.DIS.No.191/2021-A, without having any authority is the grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.27966/2021. 2. 2. Since the petitioners and the issue involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, they can be disposed of under a common order. Heard Sri Naveen, learned counsel representing learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri V.Uma Maheswara Rao representing Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel and Sri Viswakanth Babu, learned counsel for unofficial respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration contended that, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject land admeasuring Ac.1.20 cents in Sy.No.877 situated at Tadikonda village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District, by virtue of succession. When the petitioner approached 3^^ respondent to mutate her name by removing her husband’s name in the revenue records, the unofficial respondents got filed objections seeking cancellation of pattadar passbook against the petitioner wherein the 3’’'* respondent passed a detailed order dated 21.12.2020 in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, respondent nos.4 to 6 filed an appeal before the RDO, who is not having any jurisdiction. He further submitted that, the RDO, instead of rejecting the said appeal, entertained the same and issued notice. Impugning the same, W.P.No.22670/2021 is filed. Pending writ petition, the RDO had passed an order in R.O.R.case.D.Dis.No.191/2021-A with a back date by giving an impression that the orders are passed on 30.09.2021. Impugning the same, W.P.No.27966/2021 is filed. In fact, by virtue of provisions of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, the RDO has no authority or jurisdiction to entertain an appeal and set aside the pattadar passbook issued in favour of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, if such an order is allowed to subsist, it not only affects the rights of the petitioner, it also amounts to miscarriage of justice. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. Sri V.Uma Maheswara Rao representing Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel and Sri Viswakanth Babu, learned counsel for unofficial respondents vehemently opposed for entertaining the present writ petitions on the ground that, as against the order passed by the RDO, the petitioner has to file a revision under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. Instead of availing revisioii, the 4. 5. petitioner has straight away filed the present writ petitions, as such they are liable to be dismissed. Learned Assistant Government Pleader while justifying the act of the RDO submitted that, instead of filing a revision before the Joint Collector, the petitioner has straight away filed the present writ petition which cannot be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution. In view of the same, the writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel of the parties. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, without having any authority the RDO has entertained the appeal filed by the respondent nos.4 to 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the provisions of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, RDO is not competent to adjudicate the appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971 for cancellation of pattadar passbook. In Ratnamma Vs R.D.O Dharmavaram, this court has held thus: .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. As already held, 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 PPB/TD did not provide right of appeal against mere issuance of PPB/TD 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 PPB/TD 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 PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act is not available..." 6. 7. 8. 9. In light of the above, it is made clear that the order passed by the RDO is unsustainable and contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside on the ground that RDO has no power or authority to entertain an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971. 10. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed setting aside the order passed by RDO dated 30.09.2021 in W.P.No.27966/2021. respondents are not precluded from taking steps against their grievance, if any, before appropriate forum, in accordance with law. However, the Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above witness the Hon’ble Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur, The Chief Justice on this Friday, The Twenty Fourth day of January, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. ^ Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Tadikonda Village, Guntur District. 2. The R.D.O, Tadikonda Village, Guntur District 3. The Tahsildar, Tadikonda Village, Guntur District. 4. One CC to M/s. Pillix Law Firm, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. One CC to Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) 7. One CC to Sri Vishwakanth Babu, Advocate (OPUC) 8. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT CNR DATED:24/01/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.No.22670 and 27966 of 2021 i 2 5 FEB 2C25 ^ ^ Current Section . m ALLOWING THE W.Ps WITHOUT COSTS