Allowed

Devineni Gopi, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the R.D.O

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Nov 2022WP/20865/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order cancelling the petitioner's land entries. The court held that the Revenue Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to treat a complaint as an appeal without a prior order from the Mandal Revenue Officer.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 23.05.2016 issued by the 1st Respondent was set aside as it was without jurisdiction.

Devineni Gopi, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.20865 of 2016

¶2

ORDER

¶3

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India, seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“….to issue a Writ of Mandamus, (a) to declare that the proceedings dated 23.05.2016 issued by the 1^st Respondent in Appeal Case No 19/2013 in RC.No.3661/13A cancelling the entries recorded in Passbook and Title Deed issued in favour of the Petitioner for the land in Survey No. 118 to an extent of Acres 4.39 Cents of Tangirala Village, Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District, is illegal, arbitary and voilative of Article 14 and 300A of Constitution of India (b) to declare that the proceedings dated 23.05.2016 issued by the 1^st Respondent in Appeal Case No.19/2013 in RC No.3661/13A is illegal arbitary and voilative of the provisions of A P Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and without Jurisdiction…”

¶6

The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land in Ac.4.39 cents in Survey No.118 of Tangirala Village, Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District, having been inherited from his father. Recognizing the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, the revenue authorities also issued pattadhar passbook and title deeds in favour of the petitioner in the year, 2005, which is also evidenced by pattadar pass book standing in the name of petitioner, the Adangal pertaining to the said land, the Enjoyment Certificate issued by the Tahsildhar, Nuzendla on

¶7

¶8

23.05.2013 and the Endorsement Certificate of the Mandal Surveyor, Nuzendla, issued on 21.11.2014 along with FMB. The name of the petitioner was also entered in the Record of Rights under the provisions of AP rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971(hereinafter referred as “the Act”).

¶9

The unofficial respondent No.4 has approached the District Collector, respondent No.2 and filed a representation in Prajavani Programme vide complaint No.10977 dated 17.06.2013, for cancellation of Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed, stating that the name of his grandfather Myneni Pedasubbaiah was recorded in FLR of Tangirala Village, in respect of land in Survey No.118. The 2^nd respondent forwarded the representation of 4^th respondent to the 1^st respondent, which was taken on file as an appeal (Appeal Case No.19/2013 in RC No.3661/13-A,under Section 5(5) of the Act, though such an appeal is not maintainable in law.

¶10

While so, on 28.01.2015, the 1^st respondent issued notice requesting the writ petitioner in this case as well as the unofficial respondent No.4 herein, to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, on 07.02.2015 at 4.00 p.m and final notice was also issued on 10.07.2015. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the 1^st respondent on the dates given and also

¶11

¶12

submitted all the documents to the 1^st respondent. However, the 1^st respondent, without considering the same, passed the impugned orders on 23.05.2016 in appeal case No.19 of 2013 in R.C.No.3662/13-A, challenging which, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶13

Heard Sri.V.Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for Respondents No.1 to 3. Though notice was ordered none appeared for the unofficial respondent No.4.

¶14

At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner reiterated the contentions of the Writ Petition and contended that the impugned order is not maintainable and also draws the attention of this Court the relevant provisions of the Act are as under.

¶15

Section 3(3) of A.P.Rights in Land and Pasttadar Pass books of 1971, any person effected by an entry in record of rights, may apply for rectification before the concerned MRO., within a period of one year from the date of the notification issued under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3.

¶16

Section 4 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pasttadar Pass books of 1971, if any person acquires any right over any land either by succession, survivorship etc., it shall be intimated to the MRO., within 90 days from the date of such acquisition.

¶17

¶18

Section 5 of the said Act, on receipt of such intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred in Section 4, the concerned MRO., after enquiry may amend and update the records of the rights.

¶19

Then only against an order of the MRO., either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the RDO., within a period of 60 days under Section 5(5) of the said Act.

¶20

Rules 15 to 17 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pasttadar Pass Books rules, 1989 deals with rectification of entries in record of rights. Rule 21 provides an appeal to be preferred against an order of MRO., regarding amendment in record of rights.

¶21

Further, the 1^st respondent being RDO., cannot take a

¶22

complaint directly as an appeal under the provisions of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books of 1971, unless an order for amendment/rectification is passed by the MRO. The pattadar passbook and title deed was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year, 2005 only on his application and only after conducting any enquiry, any amendment or rectification shall be done, if any objection/complaint is filed within a period of one(01) year.

¶23

The 4^th respondent’s representation/appeal challenging the issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed, in favour of

¶24

the petitioner, is not maintainable in law,

¶25

¶26

in as much as the entries in the revenue records have not been challenged. The act of respondent No.1 in taking up the representation of respondent No.4 as an appeal vide impugned proceedings is illegal, arbitrary and relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported, in “Ratnamma Vs. RDO., Dharmavaram”¹ , wherein it was observed that:

¶27

„The Revenue Divisional Officer, has no authority to treat the representation/complaint as an appeal in the absence of any order passed by the Tahsildar, by exercising power under Section 5(5) of the Act read with Rules, 1989‟

¶28

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, supported the Impugned Order

¶29

In view of the submission of both side counsel, the only question is whether respondent No.1 is competent to treat the representation/application submitted by respondent No.4 in Prajavani Programme, which is having no statutory basis, as an appeal in the absence of any order passed by the Tahsildar?.

¶30

Section 5(5) of the Act deals with appeal, which is as follows:

¶31

1 .2015(1) ALT 361

¶32

¶33

„(5) 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‟

¶34

The Revenue Divisional Officer is entitled to exercise appeal jurisdiction only against the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment in the Record of Rights or refusing to make such an amendment within a period of sixty(60) days from the date of communication of the said order.

¶35

In the present case, the 4^th respondent instead of challenging the original order passed by the Tahsildar, granting pattadar pass book in favour of the petitioner, has requested the 4^th respondent to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner by making complaint dated 17.06.2013 in „Prajavani programme‟ to the 2^nd respondent .

¶36

In the absence of any order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, entertaining an appeal under Section 5(5) of

¶37

¶38

the Act, treating the complaint/representation as an appeal is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in “Ratnamma Vs. RDO., Dharmavaram” .

¶39

Therefore, by applying the principle laid down in the said judgment, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is liable to be set aside as it is without jurisdiction since the order passed by the Tahsildar is not under challenge in the said appeal.

¶40

In the result, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the 1^st respondent in Rc.No.3661/113-A, Appeal Case No.19/13, leaving it open to the 4^th respondent to approach the competent Civil Court, if at all he has any grievance against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶42

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶43

Date : 02.11.2022 AVTP

¶44

¶45

168

¶46

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶47