The two petitioners purchased land admeasuring Acs.8.04 guntas in survey Nos.276 and 278/A situated at Pedda Kaparthi village of Chityal Mandal in Nalgonda District under two registered sale deeds, dated 18.12.2003 and 20.12.2003. On an application made by petitioners, first respondent mutated their names in revenue records and also issued Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds (PPBs/TDs). Second respondent is daughter of petitioners’ vendor, Smt.Danamma. Second respondent filed a suit being O.S.No.50 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, for partition and separate possession. Petitioners herein are defendants 2 and 3 therein. Learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit on 21.07.2008. After obtaining copy of the same, second respondent approached first respondent for implementing the Judgment under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity) and Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (the Rules, for brevity). By impugned proceedings, dated 21.08.2008, first respondent purportedly sanctioned partition in favour of second respondent apportioning half of the land admeasuring Acs.4.02 guntas in her favour. He also gave a direction to petitioners to surrender their PPBs/TDs for rectification.

At the stage of admission itself, second respondent appeared and filed counter affidavit. Learned Assistant Government Pleader obtained instructions from first respondent and made submissions.

Two submissions are made by learned counsel for petitioners. First, the impugned order without notice is non est and cannot be enforced. Secondly, as per Rule 19(1) read with Form VIII of the Rules, first respondent has to issue notice of forty five days before ordering alteration of record of rights, in the absence of which it is illegal exercise of power. He placed reliance on the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam v Mandal Revenue Officer. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (TA) and learned counsel for second respondent submits that when competent revenue official alters/modifies record of rights under Rule 27(4) of the Rules in pursuance of a Court decree, procedure contemplated under Section 5(3) of the Act read with Rules 19 and 22 of the Rules is not necessary. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Musku Mallaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh.

There is no dispute that the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, passed decree on 21.07.2008 and second respondent made application on 15.08.2008. Impugned order was issued on 21.08.2008 without waiting for forty five days. If this ground can be sustained on its own without anything else, the impugned order must go. However, this point would be incidental to the main point raised by learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned counsel for second respondent.

Rule 27 of the Rules contains procedure for effecting alterations/modifications of record of rights. Rule 27(4) reads as under.

Whenever a Court decree about acquisition of title by purchase of land through deeds on plain paper or by oral purchase is received from court or presented to the Mandal Revenue Officer for implementing and incorporating charges in the Record of Rights and Pattadar Pass Books, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall incorporate changes in the Record of Rights and Pattadar Pass Book, based on Court decree only after collection of stamp duty and registration fee on the sale price of the land or market value of the land whichever is higher. If the person seeking execution of Court decree claims that he had already paid proper and adequate stamp duty in the Court and produces certificate issued by the Court to this effect and other evidence to the satisfaction of Mandal Revenue Officer, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall demand and collect only registration fee and incorporate changes in the Record of Rights and Pattadar Pass Books. If the decree is received or