APHC010046662023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. BETWEEN: 1. BIRUKOTA RAMANAMMA, W/O. LATE RAJASEKHAR, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O. 72/8A, NEAR URAVAKALI, KALLURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. BIRUDUKOTA KAVITHA,, D/O. LATE RAJASEKHAR, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O.72/8A, NEAR KALLURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL DIVISION, KURNOOL DISTRICT 4. THE TAHASILDAR, KALLUR KURNOOL DIVISION, KURNOOL DISTRICT 5. SMT YASM VEERAMMA, W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA, AGE. 70 YEARS, R/O. KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 2557/2023 BIRUKOTA RAMANAMMA, W/O. LATE RAJASEKHAR, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O. 72/8A, NEAR URAVAKALI, KALLURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH BIRUDUKOTA KAVITHA,, D/O. LATE RAJASEKHAR, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O.72/8A, NEAR URAVAKALI, KALLURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT THE JOINT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL DIVISION, KURNOOL DISTRICT THE TAHASILDAR, KALLUR KURNOOL DIVISION, KURNOOL DISTRICT SMT YASM VEERAMMA, W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA, AGE. 70 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.45/23 C, ASHOK NAGAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO BIRUKOTA RAMANAMMA, W/O. LATE RAJASEKHAR, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O. 72/8A, NEAR URAVAKALI, KALLURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, BIRUDUKOTA KAVITHA,, D/O. LATE RAJASEKHAR, URAVAKALI, KALLURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ...PETITIONER(S) THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, THE JOINT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL THE TAHASILDAR, KALLUR KURNOOL DIVISION, SMT YASM VEERAMMA, W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA, H.NO.45/23 C, ASHOK NAGAR, 2 6. SRI S YELLA REDDY, S/O. LAKSHMI REDDY, AGE. 73 YEARS, H.NO.76/97, SAMPATH NAGAR, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 7. Y RAJESH BABU, S/O. GOWRAIAH, AND AGE. 45 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.45/23-C, ASHOK NAGAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 8. Y VEERESH BABU, S/O. GOWRAIAH, AND AGE. 45 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.45/23-C, ASHOK NAGAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 9. Y SWATHI, AND AGE. 33 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.45/23-C, ASHOK NAGAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 10. Y SIVAKAMESWARI, AND AGE. 38 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.45/23-C, ASHOK NAGAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 11. SMT K LALITHAMMA, W/O. LATE BHASKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 70-126-A4, KALLUR VILLAGE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 12. SRI E NARAYANA SETTY, S/O. VENKATA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.35, SHARAF BAZAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 13. SMT JANGAM VISWESWARAMMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS LEGAL HEIR OF Y.NAGAPPA (DIED) R/O. H.NO.45/23-C, ASHOK NAGAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 14. SMT BUKKA NAGAMANI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS LEGAL HEIR OF Y.NAGAPPA (DIED) R/O. H.NO.45/23- C, ASHOK NAGAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 15. YASAM RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, LEGAL HEIR OF Y.NAGAPPA (DIED) R/O. H.NO.45/23- C, ASHOK NAGAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 16. Y JAGADEESWARI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, LEGAL HEIR OF Y.NAGAPPA (DIED) R/O. H.NO.45/23-C, ASHOK NAGAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 17. Y JAYAMMA, W/O. LATE YASAM RAJ KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, LEGAL HEIR OF Y.NAGAPPA (DIED) R/O. H.NO.45/23-C, ASHOK NAGAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 3 18. SMT YERRAGUNTLA KUMARI ESWARI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, LEGAL HEIR OF Y. NAGAPPA (DIED) R/O. H.NO.45/23-C, ASHOK NAGAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 19. B SREENIVASA REDDY, S/O. A. TIRUPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 70-126-A4, KALLUR VILLAGE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 20. K MANJULA W/O K MALLIKHARJUNA RAO, K MANJULA W/O K MALLIKHARJUNA RAO R/O D NO 70126A4 KALLUR VILLAGE KURNOOL KURNOOL DISTRICT R20 IS IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 27 03 2023 VIDE IN IA NO 2 OF 2023 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari declaring the proceedings of 2nd respondent R.Dis.D5.1349/2021 dated 17.01.2023 as illegal arbitrary and without jurisdiction and in the teeth of the Judgment of the Apex Hon'ble Court reported in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 and consequently quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. HARANADHA RAJU KATTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KILARU NITHIN KRISHNA 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. BANDLA PAVAN 4. AKHIL KRISHNAN 5. CHALLA SIVASANKAR 6. C SUBODH The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s: “…..to issue a Writ order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari declaring the proceedings of 2nd respondent R.Dis.D5, 1349/2021, dated 17.01.2023 as illegal arbitrary, and without jurisdiction and in the teeth of the Judgment of the Apex Hon’ble Court reported in Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.3 of 2020 and consequently quash the same and pass such other order or orders…..” 2. The brief description of the facts presented in the affidavit indicates that the writ petitioners, who are the legal heirs of B. Timmaiah, son of the late Gundappa, claim ownership of the land in Survey Nos. 74/A, 74/B, 117, and 244, with respective extents of Ac. 8.76 cents, Ac. 9.56 cents, Ac. 9.25 cents, and Ac. 13.27 cents, located in Kalluru village and Mandal. They assert that this land originally belonged to the grandfather of Bidurukota Timmaiah, named Peddanarsappa, and was inherited by the petitioners through Bidurukota Timmaiah after his death. The petitioners state that their predecessors have not sold any of this property to anyone else. Furthermore, the petitioners submitted 5 an application to the Tahsildar of Kallur, requesting the cancellation of the Pattadar Passbooks issued to the unofficial respondents. In response, the Tahsildar recommended the cancellation of these passbooks, to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Subsequent to reviewing the case, the Revenue Divisional Officer canceled the Pattadar Passbooks issued to the unofficial respondents through an order dated 16.01.2017. 3. The unofficial respondents filed W.P. Nos.7048 of 2017 and 8795 of 2017 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, challenging the maintainability of the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding the cancellation of the Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds issued in favor of the respondents. The Court allowed the writ petitions, citing the judgment in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional officer, Dharmavaram1, which asserted that the Revenue Divisional Officer does not have the jurisdiction or authority under the statute to entertain an appeal concerning the issuance of Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds as per Section 6(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short hereinafter referred to as Act). 1 2015 (5) ALT 228 (D.B) 6 4. A learned Single Judge of this Court has disposed of the both the writ petitions by common order dated 07.04.2021, stating that the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer from 16.01.2017 are not legally valid. The Judge referenced the judgment in Ratnamma’s case and noted that the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds were issued to the petitioners in 1992. Additionally, the Judge observed that considering a representation to cancel these documents as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is not legally justifiable. The RDO does not have the jurisdiction to decided the appeals regarding the issuance of Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds under Section 6(A) of the Act. This Court directed the writ petitioners to pursue their remedy in accordance with the law as early as possible, setting a timeframe of four weeks for this process. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petitioners herein filed a revision before the Joint Collector in R.Dis.D5/1349/2021. The Joint Collector vide order dated 17.01.2023 has rejected the revision interalia observing that the petitioners have not stated or shown any valid and sufficient cause in filing the revision petition with abnormal delay and the petitioners have not followed the directions, issued by this Court in W.P. Nos.7048 of 2017 and 7 8795 of 2017 dated 07.04.2021 and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners herein in R.Dis.D51349/2025 dated 17.01.2023. 6. The said order in revision in R.Dis.D51349/2025 dated 17.01.2023, was assailed in the present Writ Petition, on the ground that the said proceedings occurred during the Covid period and the petitioners claim that the revisional authority did not take this into account and relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court that extended the limitation during the Covid period. 7. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in Re2, the Supreme Court directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand closed for the purposes of limitation as prescribed in any general or special laws in respect of Judicial, Quasi Judicial Proceedings. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings and urged this Court to remand back the matter to the Revisional Authority, for fresh consideration. 8. The Unofficial Respondent Nos.5 & 6 and 20 have filed their counter affidavits asserting that B. Timmaiah, is not having any right/claim over the property and the authorities under the Act are not competent to resolve title dispute as per the Act and 2 2021 (17) SCC 231 8 reiterating the findings/ observations of the Revisional Authority. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 9. The petitioners in this case did not pursue or availed the revisional remedy as directed or ordered by this Court in W.P. Nos. 7048 and 8795 of 2017, dated 07.09.2021. In the common order dated 07.09.2021, this Court had directed the petitioners to pursue or avail the remedy under the Act within four weeks, though it did not specify whether this period starts from the date of the order or the date the order was received by the petitioner. Additionally, the order does not clarify when the revision was filed by the petitioners. The Revisional Authority has dismissed the revision petition submitted by the petitioners, stating that the respondents did not provide sufficient justification for the delay in filing the appeal within a reasonable time limit. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs and another v. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs and others3 has observed at paragraphs 49 that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred and the Courts may in the larger interests of administration of justice may excuse or overlook a mere irregularity or a trivial breach of 3 (2013) 4 SCC 97 9 law for doing real and substantial justice to the parties and pass orders which will serve the interest of justice best. 11. In the present writ petition, the petitioners except asserting for a general claim that the Supreme Court has excluded the limitation period during the Covid-19 pandemic have not indicated when they submitted the revision petition to the revisional authority, and urged to this Court to allow the writ petition on this basis. The Supreme Court's ruling during the Covid period stated that the time from 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022, shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation set forth in any general or special laws concerning all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. 12. A Division Bench of the common High Court of A.P. vide its judgment dated 19.11.2013, in P.Ghousia Begum & Others V. Basireddy Rukminamma & Others4, observed as under: “ The rights under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 is not the conclusive proof of title and ownership but it merely records rights of the persons. According to us, when the pattadar passbook has been issued, the same cannot be cancelled automatically unless civil court found that there is no justification for issuance of the same. The presumption of correctness in issuance 4 2013 SCC Online AP 1252 10 of pattadar pass book in favour of the person is always in the act and action of Government. 13. Admittedly, the petitioners are claiming the right and tile over the subject matter of the property and the respondents are disputing the same. Unless the issue is settled by the competent Civil Court, the issue cannot be resolved and as correctly noted by the Revisional Authority that the petitioners have not provided any details either in the Memorandum of Revision or in the present Writ Petition, except from a vague assertion that they were unable to seek relief due to the Covid pandemic. The Covid period concluded on 28.02.2022. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Revisional Authority, and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 22.08.2025 Harin 11 135 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 2557 OF 2023 Date: 22-08-2025 Harin