B Chandra Reddy Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

B CHANDRA REDDY, S/O CHENGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC FARMER, R/O. PACHIKAPALLAM, VILLAGE, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT..

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, VEDURUKUPPAM, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL.

¶16

K MOGILESWARI, D/O. LATE K.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. PEDDAPODUCHENU, H/O. PACHIKAPALAM VILLAGE VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶20

India seeking the following relief:

¶21

“to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents especially the action of the Respondent No.3 herein in issuing proceedings vide D.Dis.N/1171/2024 dated 04.09.2024 whereby name of the petitioner herein was deleted from the land in Sy. No. 94/22 to an extent of Ac.1.93 cents situated in Kommaragunta Revenue Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal in all revenue recordswithout issuing any notice to the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary, unfair, violative of Principles of Natural Justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar pass book Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder and consequently set aside the proceedings vide D.Dis.N/1171/2024 dated 04.09.2024 issued by the respondent no.3 herein and further direct the respondents no. 3 and 4 to mutate the name of the Petitioner in Sy. No. 94/22 to an extent of Ac. 1.93 cents situated in Kommaragunta Revenue Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal forthwith and pass…:”

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5.

¶23

The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.3 herein in issuing impugned proceedings dated 04.09.2024 whereby name of the petitioner herein was deleted from the land in Sy.no.94/22 to an extent of Ac.1.93 cents situated at Kommaragunta revenue village,

¶24

Vedurukuppam mandal in all revenue records without issuing any notice to the petitioner, which is contrary to the Andhra Pradesh rights in land and pattadar pass book act, 1971 and rules made thereunder.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3^rd and 4^th respondents, by entertaining a mere representation submitted by the 5^th respondent, have proceeded to delete the petitioner’s name from the revenue records without following due process of law. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner was duly mutated in the revenue records by the 4^th respondent in the year 2012, and after a lapse of more than a decade, the 5^th respondent made a representation dated 21.03.2024 before the 3^rd respondent. It is further contended that the 3^rd respondent erroneously entertained the said representation and passed the impugned proceedings dated 04.09.2024, directing the Tahsildar to delete the entries standing in the name of the petitioner and to take further action under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Though the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 9 of the Act, the learned counsel mainly contends that the impugned proceedings are void ab initio, as they were passed without issuing notice to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity of hearing. It is also submitted that the 3rd respondent ought not to have treated the said representation as an appeal under the ROR Act. As per the statutory scheme, an appeal under Section 5(4) lies before the Revenue Divisional Officer. He further submits that the representation of the 5^th respondent, obtained under the Right to

¶26

Information Act, clearly discloses that no appeal under Section 5(4) was filed, and therefore the same could not have been entertained as an appeal or revision.

¶27

Relying on settled legal principles, it is contended that a mere representation cannot be treated as an appeal or revision, and any order passed thereon by an authority lacking jurisdiction is unsustainable in law. A perusal of the impugned proceedings would also reveal that the respondents failed to follow the mandatory procedure and acted in violation of jurisdictional limits.

¶28

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, relying upon the counter affidavit, submits that the respondents considered the representation submitted by the 5th respondent and directed the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar conducted an enquiry and submitted a report. Based on the said report, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued notices to both parties fixing the date of hearing as 27.03.2024. It is submitted that pursuant to the notice, the 5th respondent appeared, whereas the petitioner failed to appear, and thereafter, based on the available records, the impugned proceedings were passed.

¶29

On a careful perusal of the counter affidavit, it is evident that the 3rd respondent entertained the representation of the 5^th respondent and suomotu directed the 4^th respondent to conduct an enquiry and submitted a

¶30

report. This itself clearly demonstrates that the 3^rd respondent entertained the representation after an inordinate delay of more than a decade, even prior to receipt of the report from the Tahsildar and without issuing any notice to the petitioner. With regard to jurisdiction, the learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that prior to the amendment of the Act, the District Revenue Officer was the competent authority under Section 5(4), and that the appellate powers of the Revenue Divisional Officer are limited and circumscribed by statute.

¶31

On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a verification of records would disclose that the patta was originally granted in favour of the mother of the 5th respondent. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that both parties have admitted that the petitioner has not placed material on record to conclusively establish this title over the subject property.

¶32

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the dispute on merits. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether the 3rd respondent was justified in entertaining a mere representation after a lapse of 12 years and passing the impugned proceedings without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶33

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and as conceded by the learned Government Pleader, the 3rd respondent lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 5(4) of the Act. Any appeal against mutation entries under Section 5(3) lies exclusively before the Tahsildar. Even assuming that a representation is made, the same ought to have been referred to the competent authority and could not have been adjudicated by the 3rd respondent himself.

¶34

On this ground alone, the impugned proceedings dated 04.09.2024 are liable to be set aside, as the same have been passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set hereby aside, declaring that the 3^rd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the representation of the 5th respondent or to pass orders under Section 5(4) of the Act. If the 5^th respondent is aggrieved by the entries standing in the name of the petitioner, he is at liberty to file an appropriate application under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, before the competent authority in the appropriate forum. Upon such filing, the competent authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and following the procedure contemplated under the Rules.

¶35