1 APHC010141652020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO:8541/2020 Between: 1. BYRA ADHI LAKSHMI,, W/O RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O SANKAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, E.G.DIST., ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI AT KAKINADA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PEDDAPURAM DIVISION, PEDDAPURAM, E.G.DIST., 4. THE THASILDHAR, SANKAVARAM MANDAL, SANKAVARAM, E.G. DISTRICT. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANNAVARAM POLICE STATION, E.G.DISTRICT. 6. GANTA VENKATA APPARAO, S/O SOMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O SANKAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, E.G.DIST., ...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 topleased to issue Order or direction one in the nature of Writ of 2 Mandamus Mardamus declaring the Order in Ref.no.0/ROR/Appeal/32/2018 dated 23-11-2019 on the file of the 3rd Respondent and cancelling the Pattadhar Passbooks and title deeds issued standings in the name of the petitioner over the land situated in Survey nos. 31/2, 31/3, 31/4,31/6 and 31/7 to an entent of Ac.3.44 cents of Jaggampeta Village, Sankavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, is illegal, arbitrary nonest in the eye of Law without Jurisdiction and contrary to the Law declared by this Hon'ble Court in the Ratnamma Vs RDO, Dharmavaram Revenue District and others (vide 2015 (6) ALD 609 DB) and set-aside the same and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to suspend the Order in Ref.no.0/ROR/Appeal/32/2018 dated 23-11- 2019 on the file of the 3rd Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 pleased to direct the 5th respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner form the land situated in survey no. 31/2,31/3,31/4,31/6 and 31/7 to an entent of Ac 3.4cents of jaggampeta village sankavaram mandal, east godavari district at the instance of the 4th respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to Vacate the order dated 11-5-2020 in I.A.No.1/2020 in W.P.no.8541 of 2020 in the interest of justice, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 leased to vacate the interim order dated 11.05.2020 in IA.No.1 of 2020 and WP.No.8541 of 2020 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 3 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 May be pleased to grant leave to file the reply affidavit in W.P.No.8541 of 2020 in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V N NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. G RAMA GOPAL The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO:8541/2020 ORDER:- Heard Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and learned counsel Sri G. Rama Gopal, appearing for the unofficial respondent No.6. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Ref.No.C/ROR/Appeal/32/2018 dated 23.11.2019 cancelling the Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds issued in the name of the petitioner in respect of the subject land situated in Survey Nos.31/2, 31/3, 31/4, 31/6 and 31/7 to an extent of Ac.3.44 cents of Jaggampeta Village, Sankavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 3. It is contended that the petitioner had purchased the subject agricultural land vide unregistered sale deed dated 05.11.2015 from its original owners. In the revenue records, the name of the petitioner has been mutated. However, acting on the application of the unofficial respondent No.6, the 3rd respondent treating the same as an appeal filed by respondent No.6, issued notice to the petitioner. It is contended that the 3rd respondent, after obtaining reports from the Revenue Surveyor and Village Revenue Officer, cancelled the pattadar pass books issued in the name of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved against the said order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner 5 filed Revision under Sec.9 of the ROR Act before the 2nd respondent. Apart from filing Revision Petition, challenging the said order of the 3rd respondent, the instant Writ Petition has also been filed. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed against the order granting pattadar pass books, however he exceeded the jurisdiction in cancelling the pattadar pass books. Since the 3rd respondent lacks the jurisdiction in passing the impugned cancellation of pass books, the Writ Petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a letter before the 2nd respondent seeking withdrawal of the Revision Petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent No.6 while arguing that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in the light of the provisions of Sec.9 of the Act, relies on the judgment of the erstwhile composite High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana at Hyderabad, in the case of Kuruva Hanumanthamma Vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and Others1, wherein it was observed as under: “28. 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 maintained by recording authority can 1 2018 (1) ALD 290 6 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. 5. Having regard to the provisions of Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) the learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent contends that a Revision under Section 9 of the Act would be maintainable. 6. Having regard to the contentions advanced, I am of the view that the appeal before the RDO against the order of the Tahsildar issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds, is not maintainable and the orders issuing the 7 cancellation proceedings, cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner is without jurisdiction. However, having regard to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent, the respective parties are at liberty to avail the remedies available under law, particularly the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.11.2019 is set aside. The unofficial respondent is granted liberty to file a Revision before the revisional authority against the proceedings of the Tahsildar. Upon filing of such an application, the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) months from the date of filing of such application, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. 8. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:10.03.2026 MVK 8 254 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.8541 of 2020 Date:10.03.2026 MVK