1 I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 38610 OF 2022 Between: 1. Palavala Ramachandra Reddy, S/o. P.Pulla Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Thimmampalli Village, Yellanur Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 2. Palavala Obula Reddy, S/o. Chinnapa Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Thimmampalli Village, Yellanur Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 3. Pala.vala Harikarna Reddy, W/o. Obul Reddy, Aged about 36 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Thimmmpalli Village, Yellanur Mandal, Anantapuramu District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Rep. by its Principal Secretary. 2. The Joint Collector, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District. 4. The Tahsildar, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 5. Smt.P.Lakshmamma, W/o. P.Muthyal Reddy, R/o. Nadimidoddi Village, Narpala Mandal, Anantapuramu District. ...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 of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records relating to the order of the 2"^^ respondent passed in RC.No.1722/2020/CO-ORDN.ROR date 14.11.2022 in confirming the order^of the S'"* respondent passed in D.Dis.No.D2/1281/2019 dated ind quash the same. 2 \ -jf JA No5i (jg 2022 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 of the 2 nd respondent passed in RC.No.1722/2020/CO-ORDN.ROR date 14.11.2022 in confirming the order of the 3'^'' respondent passed in D.Dis.No.D2/ 1281/2019 dated 25.02.2020 pending disposal of the WP. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 The Joint Collector, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. Palavala Ramachandra Reddy, S/o. P.Pulla Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Thimmampalli Village, Yellanur Mandal Anantapuramu District. 2. Palavala Obula Reddy, S/o, Chinnapa Reddy, Aged about 37 Occ Agriculture, r Anantapuramu District. 3. Palavala Harikarna Reddy, W/o. Obul Reddy, Aged about 36 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Thimmmpalli Village, Yellanur Mandal, Anantapuramu District. years, R/o. Thimmampalli Village, Yellanur Mandal, ...Respondents/Petitioners 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Rep. by its Principal Secretary. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District. 6. The Tahsildar, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 7. Smt.P.Lakshmamma, W/o. P.Muthyal Reddy, R/o. Nadimidoddi Village Narpala Mandal, Anantapuramu District. ...Respondents/Respondents (R4 to R7 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 order dated 01.12.2022 in WP.No.38610 of 2022 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s O M R LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SMT V SESHA KUMARI The Court made the following order: ‘.W(p.9{o.38610 of2022 1 APHC010647582022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] { MONDAY .THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 38610/2022 Between: Palavala Ramachandra Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.0 MR LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.VSESHA KUMARI The Court made the following: ORDER ...RESPONDENT(S) Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the orders passed in RC.No.1722/2020/CO-ORDN.ROR, dated 14.11.2022 by respondent no.2- Joint Collector, confirming the order passed in D.Dis.No.D2/1281 /2019, dated 25.02.2020 passed by respondent no.3-Revenue Divisional Officer. 2. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel, for petitioners and Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel, for Ms.V.Sesha Kumari, '.W(P.9io.38610 of2022 2 learned counsel for respondent no.5 and Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 4. 3. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel, in elaboration, would submit that, the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 did not provide for appeal remedy against issuance of pattadar pass books and Title deeds and the appeal provided under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short. 'the Act') is only against the order of recording authority either making an amendment in the revenue records of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, but not against issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds under Section 6-A of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel placed reliance on Ratnamma vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer^ of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, wherein it was held that remedy of appeal under Section 6-A of the Act is not available. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, on a petition filed by the respondent, the Tahsildar submitted proposals to respondent no.3-Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of the pattadar passbooks along with a report and based on the said report, the respondent no.3 went into the question of partition and also title to the property and holding that the pattadar and title deed passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner are not as per division of property, cancelled the the ‘KCJ .W(PMo.38610 of2022 pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner vide orders dated 25.02.2020. In the revision filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 joint collector, though came to the conclusion that the matter pertains to private property and the issue involves the questions of Registration Act and Hindu Succession Act and thus civil court alone is competent to decide disputes over title to the property, however confirmed the orders of respondent no.3. Therefore, the orders passed by joint collector and that of the Revenue Divisional Officer are u/tra w/esand they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 7. On the other hand, Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for respondent no.5, while reiterating the contents of the counter-affidavit would contend that since the petitioner obtained pattadar and title deed for the share allotted to the respondent passbooks no.5 in the family partition suppressing the factum of family partition; the respondent no.5 filed a petition before the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar after conducting an enquiry, sent report and proposals to respondent no.3-Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of pattadar and title deed passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner and pursuantly the respondent no.3, upon issuing notices and upon hearing the parties, cancelled the pattadar and title deed passbooks and directed the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry and the Joint Collector dismissed revision filed by the petitioner directing him to approach competent the civil .W(PMo.38610 of2022 4 Court. The orders passed by Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector do not warrant any interference of this Court, since they were passed by the authorities by exercising the powers conferred upon them by the statue. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Whereas the learned Assistant Government Pleader justified the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Joint Collector in passing the orders and contended that there are no grounds in this writ petition warranting interference with the orders impugned and further contended that the petitioners, if aggrieved, have to file suit before competent civil Court, but not this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and the same has to be dismissed. 9. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 10. Perusal of the record discloses that the 5*^ respondent filed a petition before the Tahsildar for cancellation of the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in the name of the petitioners. Thereupon, the Tahsildar, having found that the petitioners have no legal right over the extents of lands for which pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued, submitted .W(PMo.38610 of2022 proposals for cancollation of pattadar and titio dood passbooks issuod favour of the petitioners and also a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer and thereupon the Revenue Divisional Officer, based on the said report and having come to the conclusion that that pattadar and title deed passbooks were not issued according to the division of properties, cancelled the in passbooks. In the revision filed by the petitioners impugning the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer; the respondent no.2-Joint Collector held that the issue therein involves various provisions of Registration Act as well as Hindu Succession Act and for resolution petitioners have to approach competent civil Court. of the said issues the However, the Joint Collector did not interfere with the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 11. Regarding maintainability of appeal or revision as against issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds is concerned, A division bench of this Court in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, 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 ‘.WcpMoJSeiO of2022 entries in the PPBrTD by the Mandal Revenue Officer either suo motu or 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 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 erflection 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." the above observations. Issuance of PPB is covered by on an 12. As per Section 6-A of the Act. Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed contain the entries 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. as m3 .W(P.?fo.38610 of2022 XS. 7 13. This Court in Kuruva Hanumanthamma vs. State of A. P., rep. by its Principal Secretary^ Revenue Departmeni^ 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. 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 ^ 2018(1) ALD 290 ".WcPMoJSeiO of2022 8 to satisfy himself as to the reoularitv Prepared or maintained a decision, order or proceedings made in'respect of reco d of' rTohr?'"^‘°? construction of Section 9 this Court i<; nf rho w u, ^ P'^'^ mmmmM 35. Having regard to the scope of Section 9 of the Act a nprcrnn if ^ iss™nS of W^r-The Cdiert^ f '‘evision against the t«*»i he an M. In view of the observations made in the above decision, if is aggrieved by issuance of pattadar passbooks and revision under Section 9 of the Act. a person title deeds, he can file a 15. Thus, the 5^'" respondent has to prefer the Act, but not a petition before the Tahsildar a revision under Section 9 of as was done by her. ‘W.(P.J^o.38610 of2022 9 Therefore, the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside and so also the orders passed by the 2"^ respondent-joint Collector confirming the said orders cannot sustain. 16. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the orders passed by respondent no.2 vide Rc.No.l722/2020/CO-ORDN.ROR, dated 14.11.2022 and also the orders passed by the 2"'' respondent- Joint D.Dis.No.D2/1281/2019, dated 25.02.2020. The Collector, Guntur in respondent no.5 is free to take steps, if she is so desires, for cancellation of pattadar and title deed passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 1. Pradesh, 2. The Joint Collector, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District. Divisional Officer, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District. 3. The Revenue 4. The Tahsildar, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 5. One CC to M/s O M R Law Firm, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Smt V Sesha Kumari, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue 8. Two CD Copies RAM V""' 1 HIGH COURT DATED: 17/02/2025 ^^OFANO^ S 1 7 MA>^ 20?5 .. Current oeciion , ^ ORDER WP.No.38610 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS