Quashed

R.J.Paul (Died) Per Lr v. the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Feb 2024WP/11503/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside revenue appellate and revisional orders that cancelled the petitioners' title deeds without addressing changes in revenue records or providing a hearing. The Court held such appeals are not maintainable under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R Act when limited to title deeds, directing authorities to consider fresh appeals with proper notice and hearing.

What did the court decide?

Orders of Appellate and Revisional Authorities set aside; respondents free to file fresh appeals with notice and hearing.

R.J.Paul (Died) Per Lr Vs the Joint Collector… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11503 OF 2001

¶7

Between:

¶8

R.J.Paul (DIED) per LR, D/o. Late j.C.Paul, Retd.employee R/o. Chinamushidivada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶9

S. Faqruddin Ali Ahmed, S/o S.K. Vali, R/o PLot No.235, New RTC Colony, Patamata, Vijayawada. (Petitioner No.2 is brought on record as LR of the deceased 1** petitioner as per Court Order dated 02.11.2017 in WPMP.No.36265/2017) ...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, C/o. R.D.O.Office, Visakhapatnam. 3. Malla China Apparao, (Died) S/o. Guruvulu, R/o. Gopalapoatnam Village, Vishakhapantam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶12

Sadaram Apparao, (Died) S/o. Late Pydayya, R/o. Gopalapoatnam Village, Vishakhapantam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶13

M/s. Ravitej Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner Gundavara Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Govind, R/o. Gopalapuram Village, Visakhapatnam District.

¶14

Voggu Venkata Subrahmanya, Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Late Thallaiah, R/o. 49-8-3, Lalithanagar, Akkayapalem, Visakhapatnam, Viskhapatnam District.

¶15

Komanapalli Rajendra Singh, S/o. Late Kripanandam, Aged about 60 years. Rep. by his GPA Holder Adidela Sundar Singh, R/o. D.No.1-50-1/C, MIG-7^ Sector-1, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh

¶16

Adedela Sundar Singh, R/o. D.No.1-50-1/C, MIG-72, Sector-I, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶17

Korada Appala Konda, W/o.Korada Ammatalli, R/o. D.No. 1-50/3, Pumshottapuram, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam^District Andhra Pradesh.

¶18

lO.VTalitha Kumari,(Died per LR No R15), W/o. Late V.Rama Rao, Aged about 65 years, R/o. SC BC Colony, 0pp.Community Hall, Chinamushidiwad a, Visakhapatnam,Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶19

Kotia Rambabu, S/o. Late Kotia Venkat Rao, Aged^{about 43years,R/o.} Kotapadu Village, K.Kotapadu Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶20

12.Pathripalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Demudu, Aged about^{25years,R/o.Kotapadu} Village, K.Kotapadu Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶21

Sadaram Venkata Surya Prakash, S/o. Late Paidaiah,^{R/o.NethajiStreet,} Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶22

14.Sararam Paidathallamma, S/o. Late Paidaiah, R/o. Nethaji Street, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Sukeshni Priya, D/o. Late^V.RamaRao, Aged about 43 years, R/o. SC BC Colony, Opp.Community^Hall Chinamushidiv/ada, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶23

Sukeshni Priaya, S/o. Late V. Rama Rao, Aged about^{45Years,R/o.Nethaji} Street Goplapatnam, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶24

le.Smt.M.Pydithallamma, W/o. Chinna Appara Rao, Aged^{about62years,R/o.} Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶25

Sri M.Suresh, S/o. Chinna Appara Rao, Aged about^62years,R/o. Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶26

(RR 5 & 6 are impleaded as per Court Order in WPMP^{No.14232/2002dt.} 19.07.2022)

¶27

(Respondent No.3 is dismissed as not maintainable as^{perCourtOrder} dt.07.06.2018)

¶28

(Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 impleaded as per Court dated^{20.03.2023VideIA} No.1/2017 (WPMP No.1480/17) in WP No.11503 of 2001) (Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 impleaded as per Court dated^{20.03.2023Vide} lA No.4/2017 (WPMP No.46831/17) in WP No.11503 of 2001.)

¶29

(Respondent Nos. 13 and 14 impleaded as per Court dated^{20.03.2023Vide} lA No.6/2017 (WPMP No.52889/17) in WP No.11503 of 2001)

¶30

(Respondent No. 15 brought on record as Legal Representative to the Deceased 10**’ Respondent vide lA No. 1 of 2023 dt.20.03.2023 in WP No.11503 of 2001)

¶31

(Respondent Nos. 16 and 17 brought on record as LRs^{totheDeceased3rd} respondent, as per Court Order dated 04.05.2023 vide^{lANos.5/2017WPMP} No.52888/2017 and lA No.11/2018 in WP No. 11503 of 2001)

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

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 call for the records pertaining to the order^{inRc.No.1499/2000-D2,dt.} 5-7-2000 on the file of the 1®‘ respondent where under^{theordersofthe} 2"'* respondent in Rc.No.2405/99-E, dt. 10.12.1999 are confirmed^{byissuingaWrit} order or direction more particularly one in the nature^{of"Certiorari"andquashthe} same in the interest of justice.

¶34

i.A. NO: 1 OF 2001fWPMP. NO: 14251 OF 2001)

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to order in Rc.No.2405/99-E, dt. 10.12.1999 as confirmed by the 1®‘ respondent in Rc.No.1499/2000 -D2, dt. 5.7.2000 pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice.

¶36

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2010fWPMP. NO: 40309 OF 2010)

¶37

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petition to appoint the present Advocate A. D. Jaya Prabhaker, Advocate in the WPNO.11503 of 2001.

¶38

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2017fWPMP. NO: 13380 OF 2017)

¶39

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 permit the Petitioners to file the above mentioned documents for better adjudication of the case.

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

Between:

R J PAUL (DIED) PER LR

¶44

D/o Late JC Paul Retd employee

¶45

R/o Chinamushidivada Village Pendurthi Mandal

¶46

Visakhapatnam District

¶47

¶48

Nakka Prema Latha, W/o. (Late) Jada Samuel VIjaya Kumar Aged about 63 years. Retd. Employee Residing at Door No.C-55, SC Colony Duppada, Vizianagareim - 535001

¶49

Jada David, S/o. (Late) Jada Samuel VIjaya Kumar Aged about 36 years. Govt. Employee Residing at Door No.C-55, SC Colony

¶50

Duppada, Vizianagaram - 535001

¶51

Jada Mary Rani, D/o. (Late)Jada Samson Vijay Kumar Aged about 33 years. Unmarried daughter Residing at Door No. 1-17/12-13, Bobbadipeta Contonement Vizianagaram — 535001

¶52

Jada Ranjith Kumar, S/o. (Late)Jada Samson Vijay Kumar Aged about 32 years. Daily Labour

¶53

Residing at Door No. 1-17/12-13, Bobbadipeta Contonement Vizianagaram - 535001 ... Proposed Implead Petitioner as Petitioners

¶54

And

¶55

The Joint Collector Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District

¶56

The Revenue Divisional Officer C/o R D O Office, Visakhapatnam.

¶57

3.	Malla China Apparao, S/o Guruvulu R/o Gopalapoatnam Village, Vishakhapantam Rural Mandal Visakhapatnam District.
4.	Sadaram Apparao, S/o Late Pydayya R/o Gopalapoatnam Village, Vishakhapantam Rural Mandal Visakhapatnam District
5.	M/s Ravitej Constructions Rep by itsManaging Partner GundavaraNageswaraRao S/o Late Govind R/o R/o. 49-8-3 Lalithanagar, AkkayapalemVisakhapat (Respondents 5& 6 are impleaded as per court orders inlA 1/2002(WPMP 14232/2002) nam
6.	M/sRavitej ConstructionsRep by its Managing Partner Voggu Venkata SubrahmanyaMallikarjunaRao S/o Late R/o. 49-8-3 Lalithanagar, Akkayapalem Visakhapatnam (Respondents 5& 6 are impleaded as percourt orders inlA 1/2002(WPMP 14232/2002) Thallaiah
7.	Komanapalli Rajendra Singh, S/o LateKripanandam Aged about 60 years. Rep by his GPA HolderAdidela lyoDNo 150-1/C MIG-72 Sector-IMVP Colony Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh Sundar Singh
8.	Adedela Sundar Singh R/oDNo 150-1/C,MIG-72, Sector-I,MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh
9.	Korada AppalaKonda, W/o Korada Ammatalli R/oDNo 150/3, Purushottapuram, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam, AndhraPradesh
10.	V Lalitha Kumari Died perLRNo R15 W/o LateVRamaRao Aged about 65 years 1^0SCBC Colony, OppCommunity Hall,Chinamushidiwada, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (RespondentNo. ‘s 7 to 10 impleaded as perCourt dated 20 03 2023 VideLA No 1/2017 on WPMPNo 1480/17 i WPNo11503of2001) n

¶58

11.	Kotla Rambabu, S/o Late Kotla Venkat Rao Aged about 43 years R/o Kotapadu Village, K KotapaduMandal,VisakhapatnamAndhraPradesh
12.	Pathripalli Srinivasa Rao,S/o Demudu Aged about 25 years, R/o Kotapadu Village, K Kotapadu Mandal, Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh (RespondentNos 11 and \2 impleaded as per Court dated ^{20 03 2023} VideIANo4/2017 WPMPNo 46831/17 in WP No 11503 of2001)
13.	Sadaram Venkata Surya Prakash, S/o Late Paidaiah R/o Nethaji Street, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam
14.	Sararam Paidathallamma, S/o Late Paidaiah, R/o Nethaji Street, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam (Respondent No’s 13 and 14 impleaded as per Court dated ^{20 03 2023} Vide lA No 6/2017 WPMP No 52889/17 in WP No 11503 of2001)
15.	Sukeshni Priya D/o Late VRama Rao, Aged about 43 years, R/o SC BC Colony, Opp Community ^Hall, Chinamushidiwada, Visakhapatnam (RespondentNo 15 brought on record as Legal Representative ^{to the} Deceased 10th Respondent vide lANo 1 of2023 in WP No ^{11503 of 2001)}
16.	SmtM Pydithallamma, W/o Chinna ApparaRao Aged about 60 years, R/o Gopalapatnam Visakhapatnam
17.	SriM Suresh, S/o Chinna Appara Rao Aged about 40 years, R/o Gopalapatnam Visakhapatnam (Respondent No.’s 16 and 17 brought on record as LRs ^{to the Deceased} 3rd respondent as per Court Order dated 04 05 2023 ^{vide LA. No. 5/2017} WPMPNo 52888/2017 and lANo 11/2018 in WPNo 11503 of2001)
18.	S Faqruddin Ali Ahmed S/o S KVali R/o PLot No 235 New RTC Colony Patamata Vijayawada (PetitionerNo 2 is brought on record as LR ofthe deceased 1st petitioner as per Court Order dated 02 11 2017 in WPMP No 36265/2017) Respondents

¶59

Klp-S.

¶60

¶61

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow the petition to implead the Petitioner 2 to 5 as necessary proper party as Petitioner 3 to 6 as the surviving Legal hires of the deceased 1st Petitioner in both Writ Petition as well as in lA Proceedings before this Hon'ble Court^to file counter Objections in both main Writ Petitioner WP No. 11503 of 2001 and Interlocutory proceedings.

¶62

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶63

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to advance the date of hearing of the writ petition from 25/01/2024 to the earliest date which this Hon'ble court may deem fit proper and convenientⁱⁿ the interest of justice.

¶64

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI SIVALANKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SRI M.R.L. NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : SRI M.V. SURESH KUMAR LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APEARING FOR SRI M.V. PRATAP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to 11 : SMT. S. PRANATHI

¶65

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI V.S.R. ANAJANEYULU

¶66

Counsel for the Respondent No.13 : M/s. GODA RAMA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Applicants in I.A. No.2 of 2023 : SRI GANGISETTI UMA SANKER The Court made the following: ORDER

¶67

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶68

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶69

¶70

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶71

WRIT PETITION No. 11505 of 8001

¶72

Between:

¶73

R.J. Paul (Died.) Per LR D/o. Late J. C Paul, Retired Employee, R/o Chinamusliidivada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶74

S. Faqruddin Ali Alimed, S/o. S. K.Vali, R/o. Plot No.235, New RTC Colony,

¶75

Patamata, Vijayawada.

¶76

(Petitioner No. 2 is brought on record as LR of the deceased l^t petitioner as per Court Order dated 02.11.2017 in WPMP No 36265/2017.)

¶77

...Petitioners

¶78

Versus

¶79

The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam,

¶80

Visakhapatnam District & 5 others.

¶81

...Respondents

¶82

Counsel for the Petitioners :Sri Sivalanka Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. M.R.L. Narasimha Rao.

¶83

¶84

HCJ&RRR,J W.P.No.11503 of2001

¶85

Counsel for respondents 1 &? 2 ;Learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶86

Counsel for respondents 5 6 :Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. M.V. Pratap Kumar.

¶87

Counsel for respondents 7 to 11 : Smt. S. Pranathi.

¶88

Applicants in I.A.No.2 of 2023 : Sri Gangisetti Uma Sanker

¶89

ORDER

¶90

Dt:23.02.2024

¶91

(per Hon’tile Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

¶92

Heard Sri. Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad, learned coimsel appearing on behalf of Sri. M.R.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar,^learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 &■ 6, Smt. S. Pranathi,^{learnedcoimsel} for respondent Nos.7 to 11 and Sri Gangisetti Uma Sankar,^learned counsel for the applicants in I.A.No.2 of 2023.

¶93

Mr. L.W. Griffin, who died in 1959, was said to be^the owner of Ac.25.00 cents of land in Sy.No. 179/2 of Chinnamusidivada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam.^He is said to have executed a Will bequeathing his property^infavourof his brothers J.J. Griffin and Robert James Griffin. The probate of

¶94

¶95

HCJ&RRR,J W.P.No.11503 of2001

¶96

the Will was taken up in O.P.No.13 of 1960 on the file^ofDistrict Court, Visakhapatnam. One Mrs. Ruth Paul set up a claim^overthe property. The District Judge, after considering her claim, had observed that she had made out a case for making a^claimoverthe property and the question of title in regard to this^landcannotbe decided in any apphcation for the grant of letters^{ofadministration.} On that basis, letters of administration were granted^tothebrother of late Sri Griffin, except the Ac.25.00 cents of land^mentioned above.

¶97

Thereafter, Smt. Ruth Paul is said to have gifted this^land to her niece Smt. R.J. Paul. In parallel proceedings,^thebrotherof late Sri Griffin sold away about Ac.8.65 cents of the^saidlandto one Sri S. Pydaiah, by way of a registered deed of sale, in 1968. Subsequently, the remaining Ac. 17.30 cents were also^soldtoSriS. Pydaiah, who in turn, sold away Ac.8.65 cents of land,^purchasedby him in 1968, to Sri M. China Apparao, in 1978. Subsequently,^SriM. Chinna Apparao and Sri Sadaram Apparao, the son of S. Pydaiah, who had passed away in the meanwhile, had entered into a development agreement with M/s.Ravi Tej Constructions (respondents 5 and 6) for developing the said land.

¶98

4 HCJ&RRR,J W.P.No.n503 of2001

¶99

It may also be mentioned that Smt. R.J. Paul had been given pattadar pass book and title deeds, on 13.09.1996,^andher name was included as owner of the land in the revenue records. Aggrieved by these proceedings, Sri M. China Apparao,^who is arrayed as respondent in the writ petition, filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, on 18.10.1999. This appeal is said to have been filed under section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the R.O.R Act’). The said provision does not provide for any appeal. This power has to be traced to Section 5 (5) of the R.O.R Act and this appeal^wouldhave to be treated as filed under Section 5 (5) of the ROR^Act.The Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order dated 10.12.1999,^set-aside the pattadar pass book and title deed. However, no orders were passed in relation to the changes in the revenue records^asnosuch request had been made. Smt. R.J. Paul being aggrieved by this order moved a revision before the Joint Collector which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, she moved this Court, by way of the present writ petition. Smt. R.J. Paul passed away during the pendency of this writ petition and petitioner No.2 impleaded himself as the legal representative of the late Smt. R. J. Paul. His claim^wasbasedona Will said to have been executed in his favour by Smt.^R.J.Paul.

¶100

5 HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.11503 of200l

¶101

Smt. R.J. Paul also appears to have executed various deeds of alienation in favour of respondent Nos. 7 to 11 and they have impleaded themselves as successors in interest of Smt. R.J. Paul.

¶102

Sri Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. S. Pranathi,^{learnedcounsel} appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 11 contend that the^Revenue Divisional Officer could not have taken up the appeal^asthesaid appeal is not maintainable. They contend that the appeal^wasfiled only to the extent of the issuance of the pattadar pass book and title deed and no appeal was filed for change of the revenue records. They would contend that this Court in Ratnamma vs. The Revenue Divisional Offlcer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District^{andOthers^} had held that an appeal under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R Act, cannot be filed if it is only for setting aside the pattadar pass book and title deed and such an appeal would be maintainable only^where the change in the revenue record is sought to be rectified.

¶103

The learned counsel would also submit that the said appeal was disposed of without an opportunity of hearing being given to Smt. R.J. Paul or the persons who had purchased^thelandfrom her. They would submit that the appellate order suffers^fromthe twin vice of lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural ^ LAWS(APH)-2015-7-21

¶104

¶105

HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No. 11503 of 2001

¶106

justice. They would further submit that the revisional order, had been passed without apphcation of mind and without considering either of these contentions raised before the revisional authority and as such both the appellate and the revisional orders would have to be set aside.

¶107

Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior counsel for respondents 5 and 6, contends that the 2^^ petitioner as well as respondent Wo.7 onwards, while attacking the appellate^orderand the revisional order have chosen to remain silent over the significant developments which had taken place, in the Civil Courts.

¶108

Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar would submit that the deceased 1st petitioner, Smt. R.J. Paul, had filed O.S.No.l25 of 1975 for a declaration of title and injunction, before the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the same came to be dismissed on 11.03.1977 holding that Smt. R.J. Paul had no title to the property. Thereafter, A.S.No.66 of 1980 filed by her against^the order of dismissal was also dismissed on 12.09.1986 holding^thatshe was^not the owner of the property and her claim to adverse possession is also not acceptable. Subsequently, L.P.A.No.39 of 1987 filed by Smt. R.J. Paul against the order in A.S.Wo.66 of 1980 was also dismissed on 29.11.2011.

¶109

¶110

hcj&rrr,j W.p. No. 11503 of 2001

¶111

Sri M.V. S. Suresh Kumar would also draw the attention of this Court to O.S.No.83 of 1986 on the file of I Additional Senior Judge, Visakhapatnam for perpetual injimction filed by the 3rd respondent. He would submit that the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, by a Judgment dated 25.09.1996, had decreed the suit and granted perpetual ipjunoUon m favour of the 3« respondent. Subsequently, A.S.No.320 of 1996 filed by the 1 petitioner herein, before the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam was allowed on 30.12.2004 on the ground that the 3rd respondent had not demonstrated his possession over the property. Later, the Second Appeal No.490 of S005 filed against the order in the appeal, was dismissed for default on 31.05.2010 by a Division Bench of this Court.

¶112

Sri M.V. S. Suresh Kumar, on the basis of the above documents would contend that the claim of the petitioners has been rejected and the entries in the revenue record, would make no difference in view of the findings of the civil Court. He would further submit that evan if it is to be held that the appeUate order and revisional order suffers from twin vice of lack of jurisdiction and Violation of principles of natural justice. this Court can always refused to interfere on the principle that an illegal order need not be

¶113

8 HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.11503 of200l

¶114

set aside if setting aside such an illegal order would revive an earlier illegality.

¶115

In the present case, the Civil Court has found in favour of respondents 1 to 6. This court, in Ratnanima vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and Others^ had held that an appeal, under section 5 (5) of the R.O.R Act, for setting aside issue of pattadar passbooks and Title deeds, without a chaUenge to the change in the revenue records is not maintainable. In the present case, the appeal dealt with only the issue of pattadar passbooks and Title deeds and did not deal with the changes made in the revenue records. The orders of the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority are without jurisdiction. The appeal proceedings do not show that any opportunity of hearing has been given to the l^t petitioner, before her pattadar passbook and title deeds were cancelled. The appellate order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It may also be noted that the name of the 1st petitioner continues to be included in the revenue records.

¶116

In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶117

^ 2015 (6) ALD 609{DB)::2015 (5) ALT 228

¶118

¶119

HCJ&RRR,J W.P. No.n503 of200l

¶120

1. The order of the Appellate Authority in Rc.No. 1499/2000 D2 dated 05.07.2000 and the Revisional Authority m1_ Rc.No.2405/99-E dated 10.12.1999 are set-side;

¶121

1. The setting aside of the orders of the appellate authority and the revisional authority will not preclude the respondents¹ to 6 from moving fresh appeals before the revenue divisional officer;

¶122

1. Upon any such appeal being filed, it would be open to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the appeal, in

¶123

accordance with law and after due notice and hearing;

¶124

1. The appeal, if any filed, shall be treated to be in time as the time taken for disposal of the appeal, the revisional order and the present writ petition would have to be excluded. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶125

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶126

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶127

//TRUE COPY//

¶128

SECTION OFFICER

¶129

To, 1. The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam^District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, C/o. R.D.O.Office, Visakhapatnam. 3. One CC to Sri M.R.L. Narasimha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. One CC to Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) 6. One CC to Smt. S. Pranathi, Advocate (OPUC) 7. One CC to Sri Gangisetti Uma Sanker, Advocate (OPUC) 8. One CC to Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Advocate (OPUC) 9. One CC to M/s. Goda Rama Lakshmi, Advocate (OPUC) 10.Three C.D. Copies. Cnr. O'*

HIGH COURT

DATED:23/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.11503 of 2001

%
g 0 5 MAR WA f»h
^ Current Section ^
VL^esPATC^lS^

¶135

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS