%V % IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 1002 OF 2022 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 08.09.2022 in WP No. 3696/2022 on the file of the High Court. Between; The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri Division (The Sub Collector, Erstwhile Kandukur Sub-division), Prakasam District. Tahsildar, Marripudi 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...Petitioners/Appellants AND 1. Ravipati Koteswara Rao, s/o late Singaiah,Chilamkur Marripudi mandal Prakasam District. Respondent/Writ Petitioner ...Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2. Ravipati Ramanmma, W/o Ravipati Lakshmi Narasaih, Chilamkur Village, Marripudi mandal, Prakasam District. Talluri Nageswararao, S/o Tirupalau, Chilamkur Village, Marripudi mandal, Prakasam District. y/ 3. 4. Jannepogu Subbarao, S/o Kotaiah, Chilamkur Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District ...Respondents/Respondents 6,7 and 6 lA NO: 2 OF 2022^ 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 suspend the operation of the orders made in W.P.No.3696/2022, dt: 08-09-2022, pending disposal of the above writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. GP FOR REVENUE . Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI PRABHU NATH VASIREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU The Court made the following order: APHC010663352022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] m MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 1002/2022 Between; The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...APPELLANT{S) AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Ravipati Koteswara Rao and Others Counsel for the Appellant($): 1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU 2.PRABHU NATH VASIREDDY The Court made the following Judgement: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) An extent of 90 cents of land in Sy.No.82/4 and 42 cents of land in Sy.No.82/a of Chilamkur Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District is claimed by both the 1®* respondent as well as the 2"^ respondent in the present Writ Appeal. 2 RRR, J&JS,J W.A.No.1002 of 2022 The 2"'' respondent approached the Sub-Collector of erstwhile Kandukuru Sub-Division, complaining that the name of the respondent had been illegally included in the revenue records in relation to the aforesaid lands and the same requires to be corrected. On the basis of this complaint, the Sub-Collector, Kandukuru Sub-Division had passed an order, dated 02.01.2021 in proceedings bearing D.Dis.No.l368/2019, holding that the said land was originally classfied as “gayalu”, which would mean government land and the same has been shown in the name of the 1^* respondent, without any underlying documentation or proceedings. On the basis of this finding the Sub-Collector set aside the entries made in favour of the 1®' respondent. It appears that the pattadar passbook and title deed, that is said to have been issued in favour of the 1®* respondent, has not been set aside, though there is a remark that the khata bearing No.239, relating to the 1®‘ respondent, should be cancelled. 2. 3. Aggrieved by the same, a revision came to be filed against this order before the Joint Collector, Prakasam District. The said revision came to be dismissed by an order, dated 21.01.2022, on the ground that the order of the Sub-Collector, that no assignment had been made in favour of any of the person, was correct and the title deed and the pattadar passbook could not have been issued without any underlying D-Form Patta. Apart from this, the Joint Collector also held that land could not have been assigned to the 1®' respondent as he was in possession of more than Ac.7.00 of land. 3 % RRR, J&JS,J W.A.No.l002of2022 Aggrieved by these two orders, the 1®* respondent herein approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.3696 of 2022, contending that the 4. Sub-Collector could not have passed the impugned order as it is without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the revisional order would also have to be set aside as it is on the basis of an order which is without jurisdiction. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order, dated 5. 08.09.2022, had disposed of the Writ Petition on the ground that the orders of the Sub-Collectorare not supported by any provision of law. Aggrieved by the same, the State of Andhra Pradesh and the a. Revenue Authorities have approached this Court by way of the present Writ Appeal. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue as well as Sri Inakollu Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel for the 2'^^ respondent would contend that entries have been manipulated in favour of the respondent and the order passed by the Revenue Authorities is for correction of such illegal manipulations and the same ought to have been upheld. 7. The question before this Court is not on the merits of the case. 8. but the question of jurisdiction. The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books 9. Act, 1971 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”), regulates making of entries into the revenue records as well as changes in the revenue records. Section 5 4 RRR, J&JS,J W.A.No.1002 of 2022 of the Act empowers the Mandal Revenue Officer or the Tahsildar to make necessary entries into the revenue records or to make changes in the revenue records to reflect the correct owners as well as possessors of the land in question. While Section 5 (1) and subsequent sub sections empowers the Mandal Revenue Officer to discharge such functions, an appeal against order passed under Section 5 (1) would lie under Secton 5 (5) of the Act (As amended). an In the present case, it is an admitted case on both sides that there is no underlying order passed before entries had been made in the revenue records. In the absence of such an order, no appeal would lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5 (5) of the unamended Act. The language of Section 5 (5) of the Act makes it clear that appeal would lie only against an order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. In the absence of such an order, no appeal could have been filed before the Revenue Divisional 10. Officer or the Joint Collector. 11. In the present case, the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Sub-Collector, without any order being available, had initiated appeal proceedings under Section 5 (5) and the same is clearly without jurisdiction. 12. However, this Court would also have to note that Section 9 of the Act clearly empowers the Joint Collector or Collector of the District to take steps to rectify such situations. Unfortunately, the Sub-Collector, without 4 5 RRR, J&JS,J W.A.No.1002 of 2022 noticing the provision of Section 5 (5) as well as Section 9, took it on himself to correct what is said to be a manifest irregularity in the revenue records. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with 13. the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed, leaving it open to the authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law and after due notice and hearing being given to the affected parties. There shall be no order 14. as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU deputy registrati //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. Inakollu Venkateswarlu Advocate [OPUC]- 2. One CC to Sri. Prabhu Nath Vasireddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT],, 4. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED: 16/06/2025 ORDER WA.No.1002 of 2022 DISMISSING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS