Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D.B. Bhosale and S.V. Bhatt, JJ.
Ratnamma – Appellant
Vs.
Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and Ors. – Respondent
W.P. No. 21689 of 1999
Decided On: 24.07.2015
Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 – Sections 6-A and 5 – Learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 – In N. Bal Reddy v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East 2004 (2) ALT 457, a learned Single Judge has taken the view that against the issuance of Pattadar Passbooks (PPB)/Title Deeds (TD) – Through the reference order the correctness of view taken in N. Bal Reddys case 2004 (2) ALT 457 (supra) is doubted by another learned Judge and the writ petition is referred to a Division Bench for decision on maintainability of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act against order or issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act – Held, A person is certainly aggrieved by illegal preparation of record of rights and against such illegal preparation the remedy is provided under Section 3(3) of Act. Likewise, against illegal or erroneous updation of record of rights under Sections 4 and 5 or regularization under Section 5-A of Act, remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) or Section 5-B respectively is available to an aggrieved party – On other hand, Section 6-A(3) provides for correction of erroneous entries in PPB/TD issued by Mandal Revenue Officer – Reason for not providing any appeal against the issuance of PPB/TD is manifest from the Scheme of Act viz., that issuance of TD/PPB does not by itself adversely affect the substantive right of a person, who claims or has a right in property for which PPB is issued – In other words, the issuance of PPB/TD is a consequential act and entries in PPB/TD are mere reflection of entries of 1-B Register. Mere filing of appeal against issuance of pattadar pass book which is only a copy of 1-B register is not an efficacious remedy under the scheme of Act – It is well settled that right of appeal must find its source in legislative authority – Right of appeal accrues to the litigant when it is expressly provided for in statute and axiomatic that right of appeal is a substantive right and must be conferred by a statute – Therefore, on the literal construction of Sections 3 to 6-A of the Act, it can be held that remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is not provided against the issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act – By treating the action under Sections 5 and 6-A of Act as single or mutually dependent, in our considered view, the remedy of appeal against mere issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of Act is not available – Court not agree with view expressed in N. Bal Reddys case and is overruled – The appeal filed in Rc. is not maintainable against issuance of PPB/TD to petitioner and accordingly held as not maintainable – This Court has not examined the rival claims of parties on merits and findings are limited to extent of deciding maintainability of appeal under Section 6-A of Act – Petition is allowed. (Paras 31,32,33 and 34)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The primary issue addressed is the maintainability of an appeal under Section 5(5) of the relevant land records and property law statutes against the issuance of Pattadar Passbooks (PPB) or Title Deeds (TD) under Section 6-A of the Act (!) (!) .
The court clarifies that the issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A is a consequential act reflecting entries in the record of rights, and does not by itself adversely affect substantive rights of the landowner or claimant (!) (!) .
The remedy for grievances related to illegal or erroneous entries in the record of rights is provided under Section 3(3), and appeals against amendments or updates under Sections 4 and 5 are available under Section 5(5). However, no specific appeal is provided against the issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A (!) (!) .
The legislature intentionally did not provide an appeal against the issuance of PPB/TD because it is considered a reflection of the record of rights rather than an independent substantive decision affecting rights directly (!) (!) .
The right of appeal must be expressly conferred by statute; it is a substantive right that cannot be inferred or assumed without clear legislative authority (!) .
The court overruled a prior view that permitted an appeal against the issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A, affirming that such an appeal is not maintainable under the current statutory scheme (!) .
Consequently, an appeal filed against the issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A is not maintainable, and the proper course for an aggrieved party is to pursue other legal remedies available under the Act or common law (!) .
The court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing that its decision is limited to the question of appealability and does not examine the merits of the parties' claims (!) .
Please let me know if you need further assistance or a detailed analysis of any particular aspect.
S.V. Bhatt, J.
1. Heard Mr. Addepalli Suryanarayana learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
2. In N. Bal Reddy v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East 2004 (2) ALT 457, a learned Single Judge has taken the view that against the issuance of Pattadar Passbooks (PPB)/Title Deeds (TD) under Section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short the Act), an appeal under Section 5 sub-section (5) of the Act is maintainable before the Revenue Divisional Officer.
3. Through the reference order dated 25.06.2007, the correctness of view taken in N. Bal Reddys case 2004 (2) ALT 457 (supra) is doubted by another learned Judge and the writ petition is referred to a Division Bench for decision on the maintainability of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act against order or issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act.
4. The order of reference reads thus:
"The law settled on this aspect is that when the statute is silent about the right of appeal, the Courts cannot interpret and say that consequently an appeal is also maintainable. When the cases on hand are looked at in that angle, as stated supra it is only against the orders passed under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act and an order passed under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of the Act, appeals are provided for under Sub-section (5) of Section 5 and Section 5-B of the Act respectively and for others the Act is silent. Of course, it is the contention of learned counsel Sri V. Rama Krishna Reddy, appearing for respondents that the impugned order passed in W.P. No. 13096 of 1998 is only an order passed under Section 5 of the Act, but not an order passed under Section 6-A of the Act, as contended by learned counsel Sri K. Mahipathi Rao, appearing for petitioner."
5. Having heard the matter at length, this Court is of the view that the contention of Sri K. Mahipathi Rao and Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned counsel appearing for petitioners appears to be correct and it is only an order passed under Section 6-A of the Act, but not an order passed under Section 5(1) of the Act. When once it is considered to be an order passed under Section 6-A of the Act, whether the appeal, as preferred by respondents is maintainable or not, is the question. Of course, if the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court is accepted, definitely an appeal is maintainable. But as stated supra, the Courts cannot interpret and give a right of appeal to the parties when the statute itself is silent, and as such, this Court is of the view that the matter requires re-consideration. Hence, for appreciation and determination of law on the subject, these matters have to be referred to a Division bench of this Court.
6. The issue for consideration in the writ petition or in the reference order relates to maintainability of an appeal against issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act.
7. The case of the contesting parties is briefly referred.
8. The subject matter of the writ petition is agricultural land in an extent of Ac.3-48 cents and Ac.2-58 cents in Survey Nos. 171/2 and 172/4 of Basapuram Village, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapur District (for short the petition land).
9. The petitioner prays for writ of Prohibition restraining the 2nd respondent from entertaining and deciding the appeal filed by 3rd respondent in Case No. (B)154/99 under Section 5-B of the Act. At the outset, it is made clear that this Court is not considering the claims of parties on merits, much less pronouncing any view on merits except pronouncing on the maintainability of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act against the orders or issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act.
10. The case of petitioner is that through registered sale deed dated 27.8.1954 the father-in-law of petitioner (Reddy Mallaiah) purchased petition land from 3rd respondent. The father-in-law
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
