APHC010396852023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.20410 of 2023 Between: 1. BIJJAM PADMAVATHI, W/O BALIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O DRR APARTMENT, PANDURANGAREDDY NAGAR, GIDDALUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE, AP 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE, AP 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MARKAPUR DIVISION AT MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KOMAROLE MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AP CT IS AMENDED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED.05.10.2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN IA NO.2 OF 2023. 6. SHAIK HABEEBUNISSA, W/O ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O H.NO 11-360A, PRAKASAM NAGAR, PODILI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th 2 respondent in entertaining an appeal directly from the 6th respondent and passing an order in Appeal Petition No D.Dis.A/654/2021, Dt. 10- 10-2022 and in confirming the same by the 3rd respondent in R.P No D.Dis.D7/7/2023 Dt. 12-06-2023 without appreciating the fact that the 4th respondent has no power to entertain the appeal without there being any order passed by the 5th respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of The AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1989(hereinafter will be referred as Act 1989) and consequently to set aside the orders of the 3rd and 4th respondent Dt. 12-06-2022 and 10-10-2022 respectively. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. AYESHA AZMA S The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: "……to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in entertaining an appeal directly from the 6th respondent and passing an order in Appeal Petition No D.Dis.A/654/2021, Dt.10.10.2022 and in confirming the same by the 3rd respondent in R.P No D.Dis.D7/7/2023 Dt.12.06.2023 without appreciating the fact that the 4th respondent has no power to entertain the appeal without there being any order passed by the 5th respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of The AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1989 (hereinafter will be referred as Act 1989) and consequently to set aside the orders of the 3rd and 4th respondent Dt.12.06.2022 and 10.10.2022 respectively and pass such other orders……" 2. The unofficial respondent herein filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’), asserting that the property in Sy.No.136 to an extent of Acs.3.63 cents situated in Daddawada Village and Komarole Mandal, belongs to the grand-father of the unofficial respondent and the unofficial respondent and his family members are continuing in the possession for the last 50 years and the Tahsildar has mutated the name of the writ petitioner in the revenue records, hence, the petitioner submitted an application for mutation the name of the unofficial respondent in the revenue records as well as in the pattadar passbooks. 4 3. The 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has allowed the appeal vide order dated 10.10.2022 in Appeal Petition No.D.Dis.A/654/ 2021 and the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has directed the Tahsildar to mutate the name of the unofficial respondent herein. aggrieved by the order of the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner herein preferred a Revision under Section 9 of the Act and the 3rd respondent-Revisional Authority has confirmed the order of the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. 4. The order of the 3rd respondent-Revisional Authority is assailed in the present Writ Petition, on the ground that the 4th respondent- Tahsildar has wrongly entertained the appeal and it is contrary to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Common High Court in Ratnamma W/o B.K. Jayaramireddy Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmavaram, reported in (2015) 6 ALD 609 (DB) and the said appeal is without there being any source. 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 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 Pasttadar 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. Admittedly, in the present case, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the writ petitioner and the unofficial 5 respondent has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority-cum- R.D.O., to prefer an appeal, there should be a source in pursuance of the above judgment. In the present case, there are no impugned proceedings to prefer an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. Therefore, the said judgment is aptly applicable to the present case. On the said ground, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed. 7. In the present case, a representation was filed to conduct an enquiry and without any order from the primary authority or without out any source. Hence, the writ petitioner cannot maintain any appeal before the appellate authority under Section 5(5) of the Act. As the order of the Appellate Authority is nullity due to lack of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, the consequential order of revision under Section 9 of the Act is deemed to be nullity, as no revision is maintainable against an order of nullity. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent would submit that the 6th respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.143 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Markapur, for declaration of title and the said suit was decreed and the writ petitioner is not having any right or title over the subject property, even assuming that the appellate authority has no authority to entertain the appeal, still, the unofficial respondent is the owner of the property. Hence, considering on the merits, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 9. In reply to the argument of the unofficial respondent’s counsel, the petitioner’s counsel would submit that the petitioner is not a party to the suit and the said suit is decreed ex parte. 6 10. Admittedly, there is no impugned order to entertain an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act by the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. The judgment in Ratnamma W/o B.K. Jayaramireddy Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmavaram, reported in (2015) 6 ALD 609 (DB) is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. 11. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the unofficial respondent is hereby directed to make an appropriate application to the 5th respondent-Tahsildar and, on making such application, the 5th respondent is directed to issue notice to the affected parties and conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders and communicate the decision to both the writ petitioner and the unofficial respondent. 12. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 30.01.2026 siva 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.20410 of 2023 Date: 30.01.2026 siva