IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:lAMARAVATI (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: 3323 OF 2022 Between: K. Abdul Sattar Sab, S/o. Late K. Peeru Sab, Aged 70 years, R/o. Golden Residency, Plot No.102, 1st floor, Jaihind Nagar Colony, Shaikpeta, Hyderabad-500008. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District. The Sub Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Penukonda, Anantapur District. The Tahasildar, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District. J. Naveen Kumar, S/o. J. Swamy Rao, R/o. D.No.7-2-111, Dhanalakshmi Road, Hindupur, Anantapur District. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...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 nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders vide Rc.No.2036/2020/B, Dt.05.01.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent in canceling the entries made in IB Khata No.2607 in respect of petitioner's land in Sy.No.250-4 to an extent of Ac. 1.32 cents of Kotnuru Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District without having any jurisdiction and in contrary to the Rules as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the impugned orders vide Rc.No.2036/2020/B, Dt.05.01.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent •' 'f; X 1 OF 2022 t- ' 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 V - pleased to suspend the impugned orders vide Rc.No.2036/2020/B, Dt.05.01.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3. The Sub Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Penukonda, Anantapur District. 4. The Tahasildar, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District. ... Petitioners/Repsondents AND 1. K. Abdul Sattar Sab, S/o. Late K. Peeru Sab, Aged 70 years, R/o. Golden Residency, Plot No. 102, 1st floor, Jaihind Nagar Colony, Shaikpeta, Hyderabad-500008. ...Respondent/Petitioner 2. J. Naveen Kumar, S/o. J. Swamy Rao, R/o. D.No.7-2-111, Dhanalakshmi Road, Hindupur, Anantapur District. ... Respondent/Respondent (R2 is not necessary party 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 granted on 10.02.2022 in W.P.No. 3323 of 2022 / lA NO: 3 OF 2022 Between: J. Naveen Kumar, S/o. J. Swamy Rao, R/o. D.No.7-2-111, Dhanalakshmi Road, Hindupur, Anantapur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3. The Sub Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Penukonda, Anantapur District. 4. The Tahasildar, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District. 5. K. Abdul Sattar Sab, S/o. Late K. Peeru Sab, Aged 70 years, R/o. Golden Residency, Plot No. 102, 1st floor, Jaihind Nagar Colony, Shaikpeta, Hyderabad-500008. ...Respondents 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 in I.A No. 1/2021 in W.P. No. 3323/2022 dated 10- 02-2022 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI SEELAM KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: Order 1 r APHC010050582022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] ■iJL' THURSDAY. THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 3323/2022 Between: K. Abdul Sattar Sab, ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.S KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner, in short, is that without having jurisdiction and without following the due procedure of law, respondent No.3 passed order vide Rc.No.2036/2020/B, dated 05.01.2022 cancelling the entries made in IB Khata No.2607 in respect of his land situated in survey No.250-4 to an extent of Ac.1.32 cents of Kotnuru village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District Heard Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for official respondents and Sri S.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contented that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject land by way of succession. Basing on the representation made by respondent No.5 requesting to cancel the entry made in 1B Khata No.2607 in favour of petitioner, respondent No.4 has submitted a report to respondent No.3 and basing on the said report, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No.3 has passed orders cancelling the entries made in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject land. He further submitted that earlier, questioning the action of respondent No.4 in keeping the petitioner’s subject land under red mark in 1-B adangal without issuing notice to the petitioner and without giving any valid reason, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.28587 of 2021 and the same is pending before this Court, but without waiting for the decision, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order in violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to decide the matter, such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 3. as 3 Dharmavaram\ wherein it is held that the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is not provided against the issuance of Pattadar Pass Book- cum-title deed under section 6-A of the Act. He further submitted that this Court vide order dated 10.02.2022 granted interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 05.01.2022. As such, prayed to pass orders treating the interim order as final order. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit of respondent No.3 contended that basing on the report submitted by the Tahsildar Hindupur and after issuing notice to the petitioner, respondent No.3 has rightly passed the impugned order and cancelled the entries entered irregularly in the webland but does not went into the title aspect of the subject land. He further submitted that instead of availing the remedy of preferring Revision before the Joint Collector, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. He further submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the impugned order. The petitioner has not raised any grounds warranting interference of this Court. As such, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Sri S.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5 on counter submitted that the petitioner is the permanent resident of Hyderabad and he had never cultivated the subject land and he has no right or title over the 2015(6) ALD 609 . He further submitted that respondent No.5 along with others filed a suit same vide O.S.No.43 of 2022 on the file of the Vacation Court-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner and others and the same is pending. He further submitted that subsequent to passing of interim order by this Court, the petitioner and respondent No.4 colluded together and respondent No.4 entered the name of petitioner with regard to subject property in 1B register. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the 6. learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the unofficial respondent along with others filed a suit against the petitioner and others vide O.S.No.43 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur for declaration and permanent injunction and the same is pending. 7. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the case has been taken on file by respondent No.3 under Section 5(5) of ROR Act, 1971. The order impugned would further indicate that the Tahsildar has made mutation in favour of the petitioner without following the provisions of ROR Rules 1989 and accordingly declared as void ab initio & null and void and entries made in favour of the petitioner have been cancelled. In fact to entertain an appeal 8. 5 under Section 5(5) of Act, 1971 for cancelling the entry made in IB Katha, there should be an order passed under Section 5(3) of the Act, 1971. In the present case, there is no material to show that earlier Tahsildar has issued proceedings under Section 5(3) of the Act while mutating the petitioner’s name in the revenue records. When there is no mutation orders passed by the Tahsildar under Section 5(3) of the Act, 1971, the Revenue Divisional officer/Sub-collector, as the case may be, has no power or authority to entertain the appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971. In the case of T.Rajeswari v. Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore District , this Court held as follows 9. 10. “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 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. ” ^2015(6) ALT 339 6 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. In light of the above, in the absence of any proceeding under Section 5(3) of the Act, issuance of impugned orders under Section 5(5) of the Act vide Roc.No.2036/2020/B dated 05.01.2022 is unsustainable, contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside. Further when a suit for declaration is 11. pending adjudication, the revenue authorities are precluded from entertaining ROR Act by virtue of Section 8(2) of Act, 1971. In this regard, it would be benefited to refer the judgment in the case of Erukala Lima v. Government of Andhra Pradesh^, wherein the Hon’ble Apex court held that: ‘‘10. Keeping this legislative scheme in mind, it is difficult to accept the contention that the moment any civil suit is filed, the authorities under the ROR Act have to stay their hands and cannot exercise any of the statutory powers under the ROR Act, awaiting decision of the civil Oourt. The remedies under the ROR Act are provided to give expeditious relief in respect of rights in land and pattadar pass books. Such right, therefore, does not get affected merely because of pendency of any civil suit before any court. But Section 8(2) of the Act specifies that only the decree in such suits seeking declaration of right under Chapter VI to Specific Relief Act would be binding on the authorities under the ROR Act.” ^2014(2)ALD228 of the case and the judgment authority to pass the In view of the facts and circumstances r" 12. respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction or referred supra impugned order and the judgment the facts of this case Petition by passing the following order. relied by the petitioner is not applicable to Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ The order of respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.2036/2020/B, dated The unofficial respondent is at liberty accordance with law subject to the 05.01.2022 is hereby set aside, to approach appropriate forum outcome of the civil suit. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as in 13. to costs. interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY registrar As a sequel thereto, Petition, shall also stand closed. //true copy// r.SECTION OFFICER Le^rtmeTTlUS Joint Collector, Anantapur and Sub To , Anantapur District. Divisional Magistrate Penukonda 2. The 3 The Sub Collector Anantapur District. Mandal, Anantapur District. NARAYANA Advocate [OPUC] of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Advocate [OPUC] 4 The Tahasildar, Hindupur SRI N ASWARTHA for REVENUE, High Court SEELAM KRISHNA REDDY, 5. One CC to 6. Two CCS to GP 7. One CC to SRI 8. Three CD Copies gsg 1 HIGH COURT DATED; 23/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.3323 of 2022 S 15 MAR 2C23 c» ^ Current Section ^ disposing the wp WITHOUT COSTS