1 APHC010337962023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 17407/2023 Between: 1. T VISHWANATH REDDY, S/O T.SUBBI REDDY, R/O YERRAGUNTLA VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DIST. 2. T.PRABHAVATHI,, W/O T.VISHWANATH REDDY, R/O YERRAGUNTLA VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DIST. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DIST. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DIST. 5. T NARAYANA REDDY, S/O T.KONDA REDDY, R/O YERRAGUNTLA VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR 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 a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent 2 in entertaining the appeal vide R.C.No.960/2022/D2/(B) filed by the 5th respondent without having any jurisdiction is illegal arbitrary and set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 stay all further proceedings in appeal vide R.C.No.960/2022/D2/(B) filed by the 5th respondent before the 3rd respondent 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 pleased to grant leave to file the present counter in W. P. No. 17407 OF 2023 IA NO: 2 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 pleased to vacate the interim order dated 17.07.2023 passed in W. P. No. 17407 OF 2023, and dismiss the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M KARIBASAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. K SRINIVAS The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.17407 of 2023 The Court made the following ORDER:- The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in entertaining the appeal vide R.C.No.960/2022/D2/(B) filed by the 5th respondent without having any jurisdiction is illegal arbitrary and set aside the same and pass…” 2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the notice issued by respondent No.3 /Revenue Divisional officer. 3. Heard Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 4. The Respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional officer entertained the appeal filed by unofficial respondent and issued notice to the petitioner herein directing to appear before him on 01.07.2023, indicating that if the petitioner fails to appear, the appeal will be disposed of on merits without further notice. The said notice dated 01.07.2023, is impugned in the present Writ Petition on the ground, that entertaining the appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer is contrary to the Judgment of this Court at Hyderabad in the case of Ratnamma W/o B.K. Jayaramireddy Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmavaram, reported in (2015) 6 ALD 609 (DB) and further argued that there is no source to file an appeal, hence, prayed to quash the notice. 5. In Ratnamma W/o B.K. Jayaramireddy Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmavaram, reported in (2015) 6 ALD 609 (DB), a Division Bench of the Common High Court inter alia held that no representation can be 4 treated as an appeal and it is axiomatic that the right of appeal is a substantive right and must be conferred by a statute and the appeal is provided under Section 5(5) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short hereafter called as ‘the Act’) for against the original proceedings or substantive determination under Sections 4, 5 and 5-A of the Act. 6. In the present case, there is no impugned proceedings to prefer an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. The notice was issued to appear before the respondent No.2/Revenue Divisional officer is unsustainable. The respondent No.3 is not having any jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Therefore, the said judgment, Ratnamma W/o B.K. Jayaramireddy Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmavaram, reported in (2015) 6 ALD 609 (DB), is aptly applicable to the present case. On the said ground, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed, impugned notice dated 01.07.2023 is hereby set aside. The unofficial respondent is at liberty to avail remedy whatever is available under law. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO,J Dated 29.01.2026 SSA