Date of reserved for orders :08.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 03.09 Date of uploading : 0 APHC010487542023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25287/2023 Between: 1. BALIJA SAROJAMMA, W/O. LATE B.RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.9 H/O.KODURU, CHILAMATHURMANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ASSIGNMENT) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI PUTTAPARTHY ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT., AT PUTTAPARTHY ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, PENUKONDA, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT., ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, CHILAMATHURMANDAL, CHILAMATHUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 6. SMT BALIJA KRISTAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O MORAMPALLI, H/O KODURU VILLAGE, CHILAMATHUR MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT., ER ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 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 par of Writ of Mandamus in questioning the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings RC.No.6622/2017/D4 dated 20.05.2023 against the orders passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings D.Dis.No.348/2015/B dated 04.08.2017 in Revision preferred by 6th respondent herein U/s. 9 of Andhra W.P.No.25287 of 2023 1 08.07.2026 03.09.2026 07.09.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25287/2023 BALIJA SAROJAMMA, W/O. LATE B.RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.9-115, MORAMPALLI, H/O.KODURU, CHILAMATHURMANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ASSIGNMENT) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT., AT PUTTAPARTHY ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT., AT PUTTAPARTHY ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, PENUKONDA, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT., ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. TAHSILDAR, CHILAMATHURMANDAL, CHILAMATHUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. SMT BALIJA KRISTAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O MORAMPALLI, H/O KODURU VILLAGE, CHILAMATHUR MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT., ER ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in questioning the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings RC.No.6622/2017/D4 dated 20.05.2023 against the orders passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings D.Dis.No.348/2015/B dated 2017 in Revision preferred by 6th respondent herein U/s. 9 of Andhra RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BALIJA SAROJAMMA, W/O. LATE B.RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 115, MORAMPALLI, H/O.KODURU, CHILAMATHURMANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ASSIGNMENT) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, DISTRICT., AT THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT., AT THE SUBCOLLECTOR, PENUKONDA, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT., TAHSILDAR, CHILAMATHURMANDAL, CHILAMATHUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. SMT BALIJA KRISTAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O MORAMPALLI, H/O KODURU VILLAGE, CHILAMATHUR MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT., ERSTWHILE ...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 ticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in questioning the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings RC.No.6622/2017/D4 dated 20.05.2023 against the orders passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings D.Dis.No.348/2015/B dated 2017 in Revision preferred by 6th respondent herein U/s. 9 of Andhra RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 2 Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 for cancellation of Revenue Records, PPB/TD granted in favour of petitioner in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.94 cents in Sy.No.772-5 situated at Kodur Village of Chilamathur Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District erstwhile Anantapur District directing 5th respondent to take further action as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and as amended by Act 8 of 2007 and 21 of 2008 Rules in force. Till then the subject land should be kept in dispute register as there is family partition dispute and in consequentially issuing notice in Form I by the 5th Respondent in Rc.No.243/2023 dated 17.08.2023 without assigning valid reasons, beyond jurisdiction as illegal and arbitrary. 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 to suspend the operation of proceedings passed by 3rd respondent in RC.No.6622/2017/D4 dated 20.05.2023 and also consequential proceedings issued by 5th respondent in Form I by the 5th Respondent in Rc.No.243/2023 dated 17.08.2023 in respect of an extent of Ac.1.47 cents out of Ac.2.94 cents in Sy.No.772-5 situated at Koduru Village, Chilumatur Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District erstwhile Anantapur District and pass IA NO: 2 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 to vacate the interim orders granted on 27-09-2023 in IA No. 1 of 2023 in WP no. 25287 of 2023 and dismiss the writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 vacate the interim order Dt: 27-09-2023 in lA.No. 1 of 2023 and dismiss the W.P.No. 25287 of 2023, by imposing heavy cost and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. K SRINIVAS RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 3 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.05.2023 passed by respondent No.3-Joint Collector vide proceedings RC.No.6622/2017/D4 in the revision filed by respondent no.6 under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 preferred against the order dated 04.08.2017 passed by respondent no.4-Revenue Divisional Officer in the appeal preferred by respondent no.6 vide D.Dis.No.348/2015(B), thereby directing respondent no.5-Tahsildar to take further action as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, as amended by Act 8 of 2007 & Rules made thereunder and also the consequential issuance of Form-I notice. 2. The contents of the writ affidavit can, briefly, be summarized as under: The petitioner submits that she is the absolute owner of Ac. 1.47 cents out of total Ac. 2.94 cents in Survey No. 772-5 located at Koduru Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. The land was originally assigned in 1961 to Balija Venkataramappa. Consequent to his death without children, the land was inherited and possessed jointly by his brother’s sons, including the petitioner’s late husband, B. Rangappa. Based on continuous possession and inheritance, revenue authorities mutated the records and issued a Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed in favour of the petitioner for her share. The 6th Respondent, who was married to the original assignee left him and RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 4 remarried one Narasimhappa and presently drawing pension on her new husband’s name, challenged the petitioner's revenue entries. That the 4th Respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, originally rejected her appeal as non- maintainable in 2017, however on revision, the 3rd Respondent-Joint Collector, passed an order on 20.05.2023 directing the 5th Respondent- Tahsildar to take action under the AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and keep the land in a dispute register. Consequently, the 5th Respondent issued a Form-I notice on 17.08.2023. That the impugned orders and Form-I notice are illegal, arbitrary, and beyond jurisdiction. That the revisional authority failed to follow established legal precedents regarding appeal maintainability and ignored recent statutory amendments made to Act 9 of 1977 by way of A.P.Ordinance 9 of 2023 relaxing non-alienation conditions. Unless the impugned order dated 20.05.2023 passed by respondent no.3 and the consequential proceedings are set aside, the same would result in unlawful dispossession of the petitioner from her ancestral land. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The contents of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.3-Joint Collector, in brief are that the land measuring Ac. 2.94 cents in Sy.No. 772-5 of Koduru Village, Chilamathur Mandal, is an assigned land granted to Sri Balija Venkataramappa in 1961. That after the death of his first wife, the original assignee married Smt. Kristamma (the 6th Respondent). However, RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 5 the original assignee allegedly transferred the land to his nephew, Rangappa (husband of the petitioner, Balija Sarojamma), via an unregistered agreement in 1985. The petitioner and her brother-in-law (Adinarayanappa) subsequently obtained Pattadar Passbooks (PPBs) and recorded their names in revenue web records without holding a valid D-Form Patta. That the transfer violated the core conditions of the assignment under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977). That though the 4th Respondent had earlier dismissed Smt. Kristamma’s appeal as not-maintainable under the ROR Act 1971, the 3rd Respondent correctly exercised revisional jurisdiction to direct the Tahsildar, Chilamathur, to first initiate proceedings under the AP Assigned Lands Act 1977, as merely cancelling PPB entries under the ROR Act without addressing the underlying illegal land transfer under Act 9 of 1977 would be ineffective and legally premature. That the petitioner’s claim of ancestral ownership is false, as the land was government-assigned property, and her acquisition of Pattadar Passbooks involved misrepresentation/fraud and furthermore, as the original assignee’s second wife, Smt. Kristamma holds the legitimate right of heirship. The Form-I notice issued by the Tahsildar is merely a fact-finding opportunity for the petitioner to present her case. Therefore, the Writ Petition is premature, aimed at dragging out proceedings, and ought to be dismissed. RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 6 4. Respondent No. 6 filed counter affidavit contending that she is the lawful surviving wife of the original assignee, Late Balija Venkataramappa, and refutes the petitioner’s claim of remarrying someone else. She further states that the land (Ac.2.94 cents in Sy. No. 772-5) was assigned to her late husband as a landless poor person. She further contends that the petitioner’s late husband (Rangappa) and brother-in-law (Adinarayanappa) took advantage of her illiteracy to fraudulently obtained Pattadar Passbooks (PPBs). Furthermore, any alleged transfer via an unregistered sale agreement dated 31.12.1985 is void ab initio under Section 3(3) of the AP Assigned Lands Act, 1977, as assigned land cannot be legally transferred or acquired. She further states that the 3rd Respondent (Joint Collector) acted strictly within his jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act while issuing the order dated 20.05.2023. The respondent no.6 further contends that the revenue authorities failed to issue her mandatory written notice under Section 5(3) of the Record of Rights (ROR) Act before mutating the records, which constitutes a clear violation of natural justice. Respondent No. 6 further contends that the amendment dated 31.07.2023 relaxing non-alienation conditions does not apply here, as this case involves passbooks obtained through fraud and illegal land transfers and as a landless poor widow, she solely entitled to the assigned property as her husband's legal heir. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 7 5. Heard Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 6. Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the petitioner is the absolute owner and lawful possessor of Ac. 1.47 cents (out of Ac. 2.94 cents in Sy. No. 772-5). He would further contend that the property was originally assigned to Balija Venkataramappa and consequent to the death of the original assignee without issues, the property devolved naturally upon his legal heirs—his brother’s sons, including the petitioner’s late husband, B. Rangappa. He would further contend that based on established succession, continuous possession, and enjoyment of the property, revenue authorities rightfully mutated the records and issued a Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed (PPB/TD) in the petitioner's name. He would further contend that Respondent No. 6, who married to the original assignee, abandoned him during his lifetime, remarried another individual (Narasimhppa), and has been drawing a government pension under her new husband's name and since Respondent No.6 did not reside with the deceased assignee nor did she attend his last rites, which were performed entirely by the petitioner’s husband and his brother being the immediate blood relatives and legal heirs, she has no locus standi to question either the entries or the pattadar and title deed passbooks RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 8 issued in favour of the petitioner. He would further contend that the appeal originally filed by Respondent No. 6 was rightly rejected by Respondent No. 4 in 2017 as not maintainable under Section 5(5) of the AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Re-opening this claim via revision before Respondent No. 3 was legally flawed and Respondent No. 3 (Revisional Authority under the ROR Act) acted completely beyond his jurisdiction by directing the Tahsildar to initiate proceedings under the AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. A revisional authority sitting under the ROR Act cannot arbitrarily invoke powers under a separate enactment, making the order dated 20.05.2023 illegal and ultra vires. He would further contend that Respondent No. 3 failed to consider the recent statutory amendments to Act 9 of 1977 (effective via ordinance on 31.07.2023), which relaxed the conditions of non-alienation for assigned lands and the consequential Form-I notice dated 17.08.2023 issued by Respondent No. 5 was passed without assigning valid reasons, without applying independent mind, and in total contradiction of existing legal provisions and binding judicial precedents. He would further contend that the impugned directions to place the property in the dispute register and initiate eviction proceedings threaten to dispossess the petitioner without due process of law. Relying on B K Vasu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (which followed the Division Bench ruling in Ratnamma v. R.D.O., Dharmavaram), the learned RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 9 counsel for the petitioner argues that the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act against a Tahsildar’s issuance of Pattadar Passbooks. Because the underlying appeal before the RDO was legally impermissible, any subsequent revision before the Joint Collector arising from that invalid RDO order is similarly illegal, null, and without jurisdiction. Referring to Kancham Raja Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a revisional authority can examine decisions or records under Sections 3, 5, 5-A, or 5-B of the ROR Act to check their legality and correctness. However, under Gali Nageshwar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Smt. Nagamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the courts clarified that a Joint Collector acting as a revisional authority under the ROR Act cannot exceed those specific statutory powers, such as cancelling passbooks under the POT Act or issuing directions under the Assigned Lands Act, without explicit statutory authority. 7. On the other hand, Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit would contend that the subject property is classified as government-assigned land (D-Patta) originally granted to Sri Balija Venkataramappa in 1961, not privately owned ancestral property and the alleged transfer of assigned land by the original assignee to his nephew RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 10 (Rangappa) via an unregistered agreement in 1985 directly contravenes Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977), making the transaction legally null and void. He would further contend that neither the petitioner nor her brother-in-law (Adinarayanappa) holds a valid D-Form Patta in their names for the subject land. He would further contend that the entry of the petitioner's name in web- land records and the subsequent issuance of Pattadar Passbooks (PPBs) were obtained through suppression of material facts and misrepresentation, rendering these revenue entries irregular and unsustainable in law. He would further contend that merely cancelling PPB entries under the AP Record of Rights (ROR) Act, 1971 without curing or addressing the underlying illegal transfer under Act 9 of 1977 would be legally ineffective and premature and therefore, the Respondent no.3 legitimately exercised revisional powers to direct the Tahsildar (Respondent No. 5) to first initiate statutory proceedings under the AP Assigned Lands Act, 1977 to determine land entitlement before finalizing entries in the revenue records. 8. Whereas, Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for respondent no.6, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit would contend that subsequent to the death of the original assignee's first wife, Respondent No. 6 lawfully married him and stands as his surviving legal widow entitled to heirship and hence the petitioner's claim that the property RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 11 automatically devolved upon nephews, is absolutely false. He would further contend that Form-I notice issued by the Tahsildar is merely a preliminary administrative inquiry giving the petitioner a full opportunity to present her explanation and evidence and challenging a mere show-cause notice through this Writ Petition is an attempt to bypass statutory procedures and delay proceedings; hence, the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. In support of his contentions that the aggrieved party can validly file a revision under Section 9 of the Act against the improper issuance of passbooks, the learned counsel for respondent no.6 placed reliance on Kurava Hanumanthamma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and K. Muralidhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh1. 9. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 10. There is no dispute regarding classification of the subject property being an assigned land assigned to Balija Venkataramappa. It is also not in dispute that the said Venkataramappa, after demise of his first wife, married respondent no.6 as his second wife and they were blessed with a daughter, who died unmarried so also the said Venkataramappa was no more. The petitioner is wife of brother’s son of Venkataramappa. The issues as to 1.CDJ 2017 APHC 649 IN w.p.No.10122 of 2016 RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 12 whether respondent no.6 left her husband and married another person by name Narasimhappa and getting family pension carrying name of her husband as Narasimhappa are disputed facts. The petitioner is claiming the subject property on two counts, one through the unregistered sale agreement executed by the original assignee in favour of her husband and his brother and by succession being immediate blood relations i.e. sons by courtesy of the original assignee. 11. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner is mutated in the revenue records and pattadar and title deed passbooks have been issued in favour of the petitioner. Challenging issuance of the passbooks in favour of the petitioner and her brother-in-law Rangappa each for an extent of Ac.1.47 cents, the respondent no.6 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda and the said appeal was dismissed on the ground that as per the pronouncement of this Court in W.P.No.21689 of 1999, an appeal against issuance of pattadar/title deed passbook is not maintainable. Thereafter, the respondent no.6 carried the matter to respondent no.3-Joint Collector by way of Revision and vide impugned orders, the respondent no.3- Joint Collector, having considered the report of the Tahsildar that the original assignee had transferred the assigned land in favour of his brother’s sons, upon finding that there is violation of D-patta conditions by the original assignee in transferring the subject land in contravention of sections 3(1) and RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 13 3(2) of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, (for short, ‘Act, 1977’) directed to take further action as per the provisions of the Act, 1977 and Rules made thereunder and till then to keep the subject land in dispute register and while directing so ultimately disposed of the revision. 12. 12. Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 says that against every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such authority as may be prescribed, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final. 13. It is also relevant here to extract Rule-21 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, which deals with appeals under Section 5(5) of the Act. 21.(1) An appeal against every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment in the Record of Rights or refusing to make such amendment shall lie under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, to the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector/Assistant Collector or such authority as may be notified by the Commissioner. (2) Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be in writing and shall set forth concisely the grounds thereof within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against. 14. A conjoint reading of Section 5(5) of the Act and Rule 21(2) of the Rules shows that an appeal against every order either making an amendment RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 14 or refusing to make such an amendment in record of rights has to be filed within 60 days from the date of the said order and it must be filed in a prescribed format accompanied by copy of the order appealed against. 15. In T.Rajeswari v. Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore District2, this Court held as follows: “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.” 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. 16. Regarding maintainability of appeal or revision as against issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds is concerned, A division bench of this Court in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, held that the appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer is not maintainable against mere issuance of pattadar pass book and title deeds under Section 6-A of the Act. In paras 24 and 25,the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: 2. 2015(6) ALT 339 RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 15 “Sections 5-B and 6-A are introduced through Amendment Act 9 of 1994. Through the amendment, remedy of appeal against regularization order under Section 5-A of the Act and provision for issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act is enacted. Sub-section (3) of Section 6-A provides for correction of entries in the PPB/TD by the Mandal Revenue Officer either suo motu or on an application. As already noticed, the record-of-rights is prepared under Section 3 of the Act, updated/ maintained under Sections 4, 5 and also as a consequence of regularization under Section 5-A of the Act. Issuance of PPB is covered by Section 6-A of the Act. The PPB is nothing but a copy or reflection of entries in the record of rights prepared or maintained at one or the other stages under the Act as stated above. The PPB/TD is maintained and issued in Form No. 14- C of the Rules. PPB/TD contains the entries as borne out by 1-B Register. With the issue of pass book to any person whose name in the applicable column is recorded in record of rights, it cannot be said such issuance adversely affects any person. A person is certainly aggrieved by illegal preparation of record of rights and against such illegal preparation the remedy is provided under Section 3(3) of the Act. Likewise, against illegal or erroneous updation of record of rights under Sections 4 and 5 or regularization under Section 5-A of the Act, the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) or Section 5-B respectively is available to an aggrieved party. On the other hand, Section 6-A(3) provides for correction of erroneous entries in PPB/TD issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The reason for not providing any appeal against the issuance of PPB/TD is manifest from the Scheme of the Act viz., that the issuance of TD/PPB does not by itself adversely affect the substantive right of a person, who claims or has a right in the property for which PPB is issued. In other words, the issuance of PPB/TD is a consequential act and entries in PPB/TD are mere reflection of entries of 1-B Register. Mere filing of appeal against issuance of pattadar pass book which is only a copy of 1-B register is not an efficacious remedy under the scheme of the Act.” As per the above observations, Issuance of PPB is covered by Section 6- A of the Act. Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed contain the entries as borne out by 1-B Register. With the issue of pass book to any person whose name in the applicable column is recorded in record of rights, it cannot be said such issuance adversely affects any person and hence no appeal is provided against mere issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 16 17. This Court in Kuruva Hanumanthamma vs. State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department3 held at paras- 24, 25, 27 and 35 as follows: “24. The scheme of the Act is considered by the Full Bench in Santosh Verma v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and keeping in view the opinion of Full Bench, this Court examines point No. 2. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act regulates the jurisdiction of Recording Authority or Mandal Revenue Officer in issuing PPP/TD, by stipulating that PPP/TD shall not be issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer unless the record of rights have been brought up to date (emphasis added). The words have been brought up to date, in sub- section (2) of Section 6-A, are related to or appreciated in the same way the words amendment and updating of record of rights used in Section 5 of the Act. 25. Therefore, If PPP/TD is issued in conformity with the requirement of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act, then there is no difficulty in holding that a person aggrieved by the updation and resulting in issuance of PPP, works out the remedy of appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act as decided by Ratnamma case. Sub-section (3) of Section 6-A authorizes the Mandal Revenue Officer to correct the entries in the PPP/TD, and scope of sub-section 3 is limited to correction of errors of entries and nothing more. Therefore by interpreting Section 6-A (2) of the Act, this Court holds that the recording authority in cases coming under Section 5 of the Act has jurisdiction to issue PPP/TD after the record is updated or amended. As in the present case, PPP/TD is issued, independent of or de hors the entries made in record of rights maintained under 1-B, then what is the remedy available to an aggrieved party is the moot point for consideration of this Court. Section 9 reads as follows: 9. Revision:--The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this Section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation. * * * * * * * “27. The Collector is given power of entertaining revision either suo motu or on an application filed by an aggrieved party. The Collector in a pending revision is 3. 2018(1) ALD 290 RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 17 entitled to call for and examine the record of order under revision viz. from (a) recording authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B in respect of any record of right prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof. (b) The Collector has jurisdiction to modify, annul, reverse or remit for reconsideration of a decision, order or proceedings made in respect of record of rights. From plain construction of Section 9, this Court is of the view that the revisional jurisdiction of Collector embraces different situations warranting interference by him and thus ensures maintenance, preparation or continuation of record of rights on the touch stone of the entries being regular, correct, legal or propriety. I would refer to Ramanatha Aiyers Law Laxicon and Websters Dictionary for excerpting the meaning of the words viz. Regularity; correctness; legality and propriety. *** 35. 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 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.” 18. In view of the observations made in the above decision, if a person is aggrieved by issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he can file a revision under Section 9 of the Act. 19. The conspectus of above decisions would demonstrate that the PPB/TD contains the entries as borne out by 1-B Register. With the issue of RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 18 pass book to any person whose name in the applicable column is recorded in record of rights, it cannot be said such issuance adversely affects any person. A person is certainly aggrieved by illegal preparation of record of rights and against such illegal preparation the remedy is provided under Section 3(3) of the Act. Unless the entries in the relevant revenue records are modified, mere laying a challenge by way of revision on the issuance of pattadar/title deed passbooks would be of no avail. 20. In the instant case, the respondent no.4- Revenue Divisional Officer had rightly dismissed the appeal observing that as per the observations made by this Court in W.P. No. 21689 of 1999 (Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram), appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer against issuance of pattadar passbook/title deed under Section 6-A of the ROR Act is not maintainable. 21. Further, the respondent no.-3, Joint Collector, a Revisional authority had also disposed of the revision. However, giving a direction as stated above i.e. to take action under A.P.Assigned Lands (PoT) Act, 1977 as amended by Act 8 of 2007 & 21 of 2008 and Rules made thereunder the to keep the subject property in dispute register in the meantime. 22. The crux of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is that the Joint Collector by giving directions to the Tahsildar overreached without Explicit Authority, since while sitting as a Revisional RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 19 Authority under Section 9 of the AP ROR Act, he cannot use it as a launch pad to trigger enforcement meahcnisms of an entirely separate, specialized penal statute like the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. 23. In Gali Nageshwar Reddy and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others4, a coordinate bench of this Court while considering a case wherein the patta was granted long prior to 1954, which does not contain non-alienation condition and further considering the factual scenario that there are series of transactions since 1951, found fault with the impugned order passed by the Joint Collector in cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deed passbooks while passing the order under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. 24. The factual matrix of the case on hand does not sink into the facts of the case of the above decision and the same cannot be made applicable. 25. In another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Smt. Nagamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh5, a coordinate bench of this Court held thus: ” 12. Further, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 2nd respondent is exercising the powers of a revisional authority under the 4. 2023(2) ALT 212 (AP) 5. Orders dated 17 December, 2025 passed in W.P.No.21340 of 2018 RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 20 provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act. He, therefore cannot issue any directions, more particularly to initiate action under the provisions of the A.P.Assigned Lands (POT) Act through the impugned order unless he is having specific power or authority to do so. Though the learned counsel for the respondents sought to support the order / directions of the 2nd respondent contained in Para A & B, no provision of law is brought to the notice of the Court to support the directions issued by the 2nd respondent. Therefore the contentions advanced by them in this regard merits no acceptance.” 26.Section 5A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, which deals with Regularization of Certain alienations or other transfer of lands states that “(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force, [where a person is an occupant] by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, the alienee or the transferee may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the Mandal Revenue Officer for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid. (2)On receipt of such application, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall after making such enquiry as may be prescribed require the alienee or the transferee to deposit in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer an amount equal to the registration fees and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 as fixed by the registering officer on a reference made to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the basis of the value of the property arrived at in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the Mandal Revenue Officer shall not require the alienee or the transferee to deposit the amount under this sub-section unless he is satisfied that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. (3)Nothing contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall be deemed to validate any alienation where such alienation is in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 21 Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. (4)The Mandal Revenue Officer on deposit of an amount specified in sub- section (2), shall issue a certificate to the alienee or the transferee declaring that the alienation or transfer is valid from the date of issue of certificate and such certificate shall, notwithstanding anything in the Registration Act, 1908 be evidence of such alienation or transfer as against the alienor or transferor or any person claiming interest under him. (5)The recording authority, shall on the production of the certificate issued under sub-section (2) make an entry in the pass book to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property.]” 27. Proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 5A of the Act in clear terms states that the Mandal Revenue Officer shall satisfy himself that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Therefore, for regularizing of certain alienations, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall also ensure that the alienation is not in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. When the primary authority possesses such a power, the appellate or revisional authorities must necessarily possess the same power while exercising jurisdiction under A.P. ROR Act, 1971. 28. The extracted portion of the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner clearly indicates that the learned counsel for respondent therein failed to bring to the notice of the Court the sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act which ordains the Mandal Revenue Officer to satisfy himself that the alienation is not hit by AP POT Act and thus led the RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 22 Court to reach the conclusion. Since the decision by a coordinate bench of this court was rendered in oversight of the clear provision contained in the Act, the said decision is per incuriam and cannot be considered. 29. The District Collector or Joint Collector, serving as both the administrative and revenue head of a district, possesses explicit, overlapping, yet legally distinct statutory powers when enforcing the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act (POT Act) and the Record of Rights Act (ROR Act). While adjudicating matters under the ROR Act, if the authority observes that a particular land alienation violates the restrictive provisions of the POT Act, they are neither required nor expected to remain a passive spectator. The executive head is fully empowered to take notice of such legal infractions and set the law in motion. 30. However, any such administrative or quasi-judicial intervention must strictly adhere to due process. The authority cannot initiate coercive actions or pass adverse orders in violation of the principles of natural justice, which mandate a fair hearing and sufficient notice to the affected parties. In the present case, no final adverse orders have been passed against the aggrieved party, nor has any summary eviction been executed. The District Collector/Joint Collector merely acted within their administrative jurisdiction by directing the jurisdictional Tahsildar to initiate formal, independent inquiry proceedings under the provisions of the POT Act. This directive serves as a RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 23 preliminary administrative step to ensure legal compliance rather than a punitive determination, thereby preserving the parties' rights to contest the matter during the statutory inquiry. 31. No doubt, the competent authority must initiate action independently, based on his own prima facie satisfaction that an illegal transfer of assigned land has occurred, but not solely based on the directive originated from revisional authority, since it takes away the independent statutory discretion of the primary authority. However, in the instant case, it is relevant here to note that the revisional authority had come to the conclusion that the sale was held in contravention of the provisions of the POT Act, based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the primary authority. 32. The next action of the revisional authority in directing to shift the property to dispute register is concerned, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (in short „CCLA‟) Circular vide CCLA‟s Circular Ref.No.LR- II/ROR-II/144/2021, dated 19.03.2024, clearly mentions the circumstances when the lands may be placed in the dispute register: “A: Lands may be placed in the dispute register only under the following circumstances, and under no other circumstances. a. In civil suits/ WPs/ WAs where there is a direction by the competent civil court/ Hon'ble High Court, directing the Tahsildar/ Collector to place the said land in the Dispute register. b. In the case of Title Suits, where there is a specific direction from the Civil Court. RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 24 c. If the family members of a deceased pattadar are unable to come to a settlement AND the Tahsildar is unable to obtain a Joint Statement from all the family members regarding settlement of the lands of deceased pattadar, the same may be included in dispute register. In case of a civil court order deciding upon the succession or the family members coming to an agreement on the division of property, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the dispute register and incorporate the same in the revenue records. d. Cases where an ROR appeal/ review has been filed and is pending before the DRO/ JC respectively, and there is a clear direction from the DRO/ JC directing that the said land be included in the dispute register, the said lands may be included in dispute register till the appeal/ review is finally decided and orders passed. After orders as are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the dispute register and incorporate the orders in the revenue records. e. Cases where an Inam appeal/ review is pending with RDO/ Commissioner- Appeals respectively, and there is a clear direction from the RDO/ Ciommissioner- Appeals directing that the said land be included in the dispute register, such lands shall be included in the dispute register. After orders are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the dispute register and incorporate the orders in the revenue records. f. Cases where an Estate abolition appeal/ review is pending with CSSLR/ Commissioner-Appeals respectively, and there is a clear direction from the CSSLR/ Commissioner- Appeals directing that the said land be included in the dispute register. After orders are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the dispute register and incorporate the orders in the revenue records. g. Cases under the AP Assigned Lands (POT) Act 9/77, where Appeals/ Reviews/ Revision are pending with Joint Collector/ Commissioner- Appeals/ Government respectively, and there is a clear direction from the Joint Collector/ Commissioner -Appeals/ Government directing that the said land be included in the dispute register, such lands shall be included in the dispute register. After orders are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the dispute register and incorporate the orders in the revenue records. h. Cases under Regulation 2/70, where Appeals/ Reviews are pending with CSSLR/ Commissioner- Appeals respectively, and there is a clear direction from the CSSLR/Commissioner- Appeals directing that the said land be included in the dispute register, such lands shall be included in the dispute register. After orders are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the dispute register and incorporate the orders in the revenue records." 33. The instant case clearly falls within the fold of clause (g) of the said circular which states that whenever cases under A.P.Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 are pending, the property can be put in dispute register. RC,J W.P.No.25287 of 2023 25 34. In view of the above, there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity nor excessive exercise of jurisdiction by the revisional authority and he is competent to look into the aspect of violation of provisions of AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, while sitting as revisional authority under AP ROR Act, and can give suitable directions to the authorities subordinate to him. 35. The remedy available to respondent no.6 is to approach the preliminary authority i.e. respondent no.5-Mandal Revenue Officer for redressal of grievance regarding modification of the Revenue Records. 36. Since the record shows that petitioner issued a reply to Form-I notice issued to her, she can participate in the said proceedings for redressal of her grievance by putting forth all her contentions. 37. In the above, view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 3rd September, 2026 RR Whether the order is :   Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No   Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No