APHC010019492022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: J. Narayana Swamy, The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y MAHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER Challenging the orders Divisional Officer, vide ROC No.B/2248/2021, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard Sri Ch.Venkatesh, learned counsel for learned counsel for petitioner, and the learned Assistant W.P.No.1348 of 2022 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1348/2022 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: Challenging the orders dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide ROC No.B/2248/2021, the present writ petition has 2. Heard Sri Ch.Venkatesh, learned counsel for learned counsel for petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. Despite service of RC,J W.P.No.1348 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide ROC No.B/2248/2021, the present writ petition has 2. Heard Sri Ch.Venkatesh, learned counsel for learned counsel for Despite service of RC,J W.P.No.1348 of 2022 2 notice, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 did not choose either to appear or put up their appearance through any counsel. 3. Sri Ch.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit and placing reliance on the decision in Ratnamma vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer 1 contended that without having power or authority under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (For short, ‘Act No. 26 of 1971’) and in sheer violation of the observations made in Ratnamma’s case and in utter violation of the procedure envisaged under Section 5 of the Act 26 of 1971; the Revenue Divisional Officer had cancelled the Pattadar passbooks and title deed issued in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel would further contend that without filing an appeal under Section 5B of the Act,1971, the Revenue Divisional Officer will not get any jurisdiction. Further, the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor granted adinterim injunction in the suit filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction in respect of the subject property and the report submitted by Tahsildar upon enquiry would show that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. However, without considering the report submitted by the Tahsildar, without reference to the adinterim injunction granted by the Court and even without issuing any notice 1.2015(6)ALD 609. RC,J W.P.No.1348 of 2022 3 to the petitioner and without hearing him, the Revenue Divisional Officer had passed the orders impugned. Thus, the orders are passed in utter ignorance of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders impugned in the writ petition are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that on the complaint made by parents of the petitioner seeking cancellation of pattadar and title deed passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner in relation to the subject property, the respondent no.3- Revenue Divisional Officer, called for a report from the Tahsildar and upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material, had rightly passed the impugned orders. There is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the impugned orders and there are no valid grounds to interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 9. In T.Rajeswari v. Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore District2, this Court held as follows: “As per the scheme of the Act, it is only the order, which was passed under Section 5(3) of the Act is appealable under Section 5(5) of the Act. In the 2. 2015(6) ALT 339 RC,J W.P.No.1348 of 2022 4 absence of any order having been passed in the present case, there could not have been any appeal. The Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the appellate authority, while passing the order pursuant to the order of this Court, also did not verify as to what are the pending cases, and likewise the Joint Collector also did not make any efforts to set out the details. In other words, in the present case, there is no primary order and the appellate as well as the revisional orders are also bereft of any details. In such circumstances, both the orders i.e., appellate as well as revisional order cannot be sustained and required to be set aside and accordingly set aside.” As per the above observations it is evident that in the absence of any order having been passed under Section 5(3), there could not have been any appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. 10. A division bench of this Court in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram (supra 1) held that the appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer is not maintainable against mere issuance of pattadar pass book and title deeds under Section 6-A of the Act. In paras 24 and 25,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 Mandal 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 RC,J W.P.No.1348 of 2022 5 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 PPB/TD issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The reason for not providing any appeal against the issuance of PPB/TD is manifest from the Scheme of the Act viz., that the issuance of TD/PPB 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.” 11. As per the above observations, Issuance of PPB is covered by Section 6-A of the Act. Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed contain 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 and hence no appeal is provided against mere issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. 12. This Court in Kuruva Hanumanthamma vs. State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department3 held at paras- 24, 25, 27 and 35 as follows: “24. The scheme of the Act is considered by the Full Bench in Santosh Verma v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and keeping in view the opinion of Full Bench, this Court examines point No. 2. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act regulates the jurisdiction of Recording Authority or Mandal Revenue Officer in issuing PPP/TD, by stipulating that PPP/TD shall not be issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer unless the record of rights have been brought up to date (emphasis added). The words have been brought up to date, in sub- section (2) of Section 6-A, are related to or appreciated in the same way the words amendment and updating of record of rights used in Section 5 of the Act. 3. 2018(1) ALD 290 RC,J W.P.No.1348 of 2022 6 25. Therefore, If PPP/TD is issued in conformity with the requirement of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act, then there is no difficulty in holding that a person aggrieved by the updation and resulting in issuance of PPP, works out the remedy of appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act as decided by Ratnamma case. Sub-section (3) of Section 6-A authorizes the Mandal Revenue Officer to correct the entries in the PPP/TD, and scope of sub-section 3 is limited to correction of errors of entries and nothing more. Therefore by interpreting Section 6-A (2) of the Act, this Court holds that the recording authority in cases coming under Section 5 of the Act has jurisdiction to issue PPP/TD after the record is updated or amended. As in the present case, PPP/TD is issued, independent of or de hors the entries made in record of rights maintained under 1-B, then what is the remedy available to an aggrieved party is the moot point for consideration of this Court. Section 9 reads as follows: 9. Revision:--The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this Section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation. * * * * * * * “27. The Collector is given power of entertaining revision either suo motu or on an application filed by an aggrieved party. The Collector in a pending revision is entitled to call for and examine the record of order under revision viz. from (a) recording authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B in respect of any record of right prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof. (b) The Collector has jurisdiction to modify, annul, reverse or remit for reconsideration of a decision, order or proceedings made in respect of record of rights. From plain construction of Section 9, this Court is of the view that the revisional jurisdiction of Collector embraces different situations warranting interference by him and thus ensures maintenance, preparation or continuation of record of rights on the touch stone of the entries being regular, correct, legal or propriety. I would refer to Ramanatha Aiyers Law Laxicon and Websters Dictionary for excerpting the meaning of the words viz. Regularity; correctness; legality and propriety. *** 35. Having regard to the scope of Section 9 of the Act, a person, if aggrieved against an entry made or maintained in record of rights or continued to be RC,J W.P.No.1348 of 2022 7 maintained by recording authority can file revision under Section 9 of the Act. Likewise on the same analogy the aggrieved person can file revision against the issuance of PPP/TD. The Collector is obliged by the revisional jurisdiction he enjoys to examine all the aspects namely regularity, correctness, legality or propriety in the issue of PPP/TD and pass orders on the entries in record of rights and also on the legality or otherwise of PPP/TD against which revision is made before him. This Court is of the view that by adopting the above interpretation to Section 9 and Section 6-A of the Act before a litigant is compelled to work out the remedies under Section 8 of the Act, can avail the remedy within the framework of the Act by filing revision and obtain orders in this behalf. The point is answered by holding that in cases where the PPP/TD is issued either in breach of sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act or otherwise particularly without an order or proceeding under Section 5 of the Act, an aggrieved party is not without remedy and legal wrong can be canvassed by fling revision under Section 9 of the Act. The remedy available under Section 8 of the Act is always independent and a party if advised, whether before filing the revision or after awaiting the outcome of revision, can work out the remedy of establishing title etc. before the competent civil Court. The other remedies referred in Ratnamma case are to be understood as held in this order.” 13. In view of the observations made in the above decisions, if a person is aggrieved by issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he can file a revision under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the Act. 14. Admittedly, respondent nos.5 & 6 did not file any appeal and the Revenue Divisional Officer treated the Spandana application filed by them as an appeal. Further, the said Spandana application is not made assailing the orders passed under section 5(3) of the Act. In view of the observations made in the decision in T.Rajeswari v. Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore District, in the absence of any order having been passed under Section 5(3), there could not have been any appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. Be that RC,J W.P.No.1348 of 2022 8 as it may, as per the observations made in Ratnamma’s case and Kuruva Hanumanthamma’s case, the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot have jurisdiction to cancel the pattadar and title deed passbooks and the aggrieved must necessarily file Revision under Section 9 of the Act. Thus, the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer being ultra vires are unsustainable and are liable to be quashed. 15. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the orders of respondent no.3 passed vide ROC No.B/2248/2021, dated 23.12.2021. The concerned shall restore pattadar and title deed passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner forthwith. This order does not preclude respondent nos.5 & 6 from taking steps for cancellation of passbooks as per the procedure contemplated under law, if they are so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR