Kakarla Sudhakar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one In the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the

¶19

2

¶20

RRR, J

¶21

W.P.No.34054 of 2017

¶22

2nd Respondent in passing orders vide D.Dis.No.3159/2015/G dt.04.09.2017, which was passed basing on the representation made by the 5th Respondent in set aside the mutation proceedings affected in favour of the Petitioner in the year 2001 as Illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.21689 of 1999 and consequently set aside the same and to pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 42348 OF 2017

¶24

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

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶26

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 pleased to vacate the interim orders Dt.11.10.2017 passed in in W.P.M.P.No.42348 of 2017 in W.P.No.34054 of 2017 and dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.K NARSI REDDY

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.M KARIBASAIAH

¶31

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶32

3.N ASWARTHA NARAYANA

¶33

3

¶34

RRR, J W.P.No.34054 of 2017

¶35

The Court made the following Order:

¶36

Heard Sri K. Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents.

¶37

The petitioner herein claims title and ownership over Ac.6.78 cents of land in Sy.No.16-A of Bathlapalli Village, Anantapur District. The revenue records also reflect the name of the petitioner as owner and possessor of this land.

¶38

The 5^th respondent, who is the cousin brother of the petitioner, filed a representation before the Tahsildar, Bathlapalli, dated 23.12.2014, contending that the said property had actually fallen to the share of the branch of the 5^th respondent and that the petitioner had wrongly got entries made in his favour in the revenue records. On this basis, the 5^th respondent sought correction of the revenue records.

¶39

It appears that the said representation was taken up by the 2^nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, who treated it as an appeal under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (here-in-after referred to as “ROR Act”) and further conducted enquiry, by holding that the mutation effected in relation to Sy.No.16-A, to an extent of Ac.6.78 cents, was irregular and had set aside the said mutation.

¶40

4

¶41

RRR, J W.P.No.34054 of 2017

¶42

Apart from this, the Revenue Divisional Officer also remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar with a direction to conduct a de novo enquiry, after service of notice to the persons interested and after due publication as required under the ROR Act and the rules.

¶43

The petitioner, being aggrieved by these proceedings, dated 04.09.2017, has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶44

Apart from this, the petitioner had also moved a revision before the Collector, which was subsequently withdrawn and the petitioner is only pursuing the present Writ Petition.

¶45

The primary contention of the petitioner is that the Revenue Divisional Officer does not have appellate jurisdiction in the matter inasmuch as there was no proceeding or order passed under Section 5 of the Act which is maintainable against the entries made in the revenue records.

¶46

Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent has made his submissions on the merits of the case and would contend that the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent was to the effect of removing the illegal entry and the matter was remanded back to the Tahsildar to conduct a proper enquiry to determine the person in whose favor the entries should be made in the record.

¶47

This Court does not propose to go into the merits of the issue, inasmuch as any finding of this Court would affect the proceedings and also in

¶48

5

¶49

RRR, J W.P.No.34054 of 2017

¶50

view of the fact that the present Writ Petition would have to be disposed of on the ground of jurisdiction.

¶51

Section 5 (5) of the ROR Act, which was applicable at the relevant point of time, provided for an appeal against every order, making amendments in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment. This would mean that the appeal would be available only against a particular order or proceeding. In the absence of such an order or proceeding, there would be no right of appeal. However, the affected party is not without remedy inasmuch as Section 9 of the ROR Act grants jurisdiction to the Collector to carry out necessary corrections in any record which are not in accordance with the actual title of the persons owning the said land.

¶52

In the present case, the grievance of the 5^th respondent was that the entries had been made irregularly. The 5^th respondent did not appeal to any particular order passed by any revenue authority. In such circumstances, the un-amended provisions of Section 5 (5) of the Act would not be available for the Revenue Divisional Officer to exercise appellate jurisdiction.

¶53

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 04.09.2017, and it would be open to the 5^th respondent to approach the Collector, under Section 9 of the ROR Act for adjudicating the complaint of the 5^th respondent. Needless to say, the Collector or a person empowered by the Collector, in accordance with law, shall take up any such representation, which is filed by the 5^th respondent and

¶54

6

¶55

RRR, J W.P.No.34054 of 2017

¶56

dispose of the same, after due notice to the petitioner, within a period of three

¶57

(03) months from the date of the representation filed by the 5^th respondent.

¶58

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

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