Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
Pukkala Sreenu, Visakhapatnam Dist – Appellant
Versus
PRL Secy, Revenue Dept, Guntur Dist & 5 Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No.8434 of 2017
Decided on : 24-03-2020
Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 5 (5) - petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders in ROR Appeal passed by the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and contrary to Section 5 (5) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 – Held, even if the appeal is presumed to be maintainable, still it is barred by limitation as under Section 5 (5), an appeal has to be preferred before the R.D.O within 60 days. This argument also does not hold water. As stated supra, in the proceedings before the Tahsildar, the 5th respondent was not a party and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to know that an order in D.Dis.No.397/2015/A was passed by the Tahsildar on 25.01.2016. He made an application through mee-seva on 28.03.2016 for issuance of PPB/TD and subsequently, he came to know about passing of the order on 25.01.2016. He received the order copy on 05.05.2016 and he submitted a representation to the Tahsildar to take up enquiry afresh, but the Tahsildar issued an endorsement dated 01.08.2016 directing the writ petitioner and 5th respondent to approach competent authority for getting clear title over the land. The 5th respondent received the said order copy on 10.08.2016 and filed appeal before the 3rd respondent within two months. Hence, the appeal cannot be said to be time barred - acquisition is still a controversial question. Considering all the aforesaid aspects and also that the 5th respondent was not made as a party in the proceedings before the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, the 3rd respondent, in my considered view, rightly set aside the order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Tahsildar and remanded the matter for de novo/fresh enquiry into the claim of the both parties. Ergo, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned.
Facts of the Case:
One Maddula Rama Murthy was owner of Ac.0.60 cents in S.No.40/2 of Chepaluppada village, Bhimunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. He sold Ac.0.28 cents in favour of the petitioner’s grandfather late Pukkala Nesthalu under a registered sale deed No.523/1959 and ever since the petitioner’s family has been in possession of the said extent. While so, M.Rama Murthy sold the remaining extent of Ac.0.32 cents in favour of Vasupalli Yerraiah, the father of 6th respondent. Later, S.No.40/2 was sub divided as 40/2A2. While so, the Government have acquired Ac.0.30 cents for Social Welfare Department in the year 1983 and V.Yerraiah received compensation for that extent. The balance of Ac.0.02 cents of land was also acquired for laying the road. Therefore, the 6th respondent and his father V.Yerraiah were left with no land after above acquisitions.
Finding of the court:
even if the appeal is presumed to be maintainable, still it is barred by limitation as under Section 5 (5), an appeal has to be preferred before the R.D.O within 60 days. This argument also does not hold water. As stated supra, in the proceedings before the Tahsildar, the 5th respondent was not a party and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to know that an order in D.Dis.No.397/2015/A was passed by the Tahsildar on 25.01.2016. He made an application through mee-seva on 28.03.2016 for issuance of PPB/TD and subsequently, he came to know about passing of the order on 25.01.2016. He received the order copy on 05.05.2016 and he submitted a representation to the Tahsildar to take up enquiry afresh, but the Tahsildar issued an endorsement dated 01.08.2016 directing the writ petitioner and 5th respondent to approach competent authority for getting clear title over the land. The 5th respondent received the said order copy on 10.08.2016 and filed appeal before the 3rd respondent within two months. Hence, the appeal cannot be said to be time barred - acquisition is still a controversial question. Considering all the aforesaid aspects and also that the 5th respondent was not made as a party in the proceedings before the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, the 3rd respondent, in my considered view, rightly set aside the order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Tahsildar and remanded the matter for de novo/fresh enquiry into the claim of the both parties. Ergo, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned.
Result: Writ petition is dismissed
ORDER :
The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders in ROR Appeal No.10945/2016, dated 17.02.2017 passed by the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and contrary to Section 5 (5) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act, 1971”) and for a consequential direction to set aside the said order.
2. Petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:
(b) The further case of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent basing on sale deed obtained by him, made a representation before the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam for mutation of his name in the revenue records. The Tahsildar, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and conducting enquiry, incorporated the name of 5th respondent in the revenue records as pattadar with reference to AC.0.28 cents in S.No.40/2A2. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and the said authority having found that no notice was issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar, passed an order dated 13.10.2015 and remanded the matter to Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam with a direction to conduct a fresh enquiry. He further ordered to suspend the pattadar pass book and title deed bearing unique No.0301027025000147 issued in favour of Vasupalli Yerraiah, the father of 6th respondent.
(c) On remand, the Tahsildar conducted a detailed enquiry and passed an order dated 25.01.2016, wherein, basing on the report of Mandal Revenue Inspector – 1 (M.R.I), Bheemunipatnam and V.R.O. Chepaluppada, the Tahsildar held that the schedule property measuring Ac.0.28 cents in S.No.40/2 Part is under possession and enjoyment of the writ petitioner and his family and the surrounding area was developed as residential layout and hence, the provisions of the Act, 1971 are not applicable to the schedule land. The Tahsildar in his order directed the M.R.I and V.R.O to reflect the name of writ petitioner as enjoyer in the web land in respect of the schedule property of Ac.0.28 cents in S.No.40/2 Part. He, however, gave liberty to both parties to vindicate their title before a competent civil Court.
(d) The further case of writ petitioner is that aggrieved by the above order, the 5th respondent preferred an appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act, 1971 before the 3rd respondent. The said appeal is not maintainable in view of judgment in Ratnamma Vs. R.D.O, Ananthapur, 2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB) as no appeal is maintainable against the issuance of 1-B ROR (e-pass book). His further case is that the appeal is not maintainable also for the reason that it was time barred. However, the 3rd respondent without considering the above legal and other factual aspects, passed the impugned order in ROR Appeal No.10945/2016, dated 17.02.2017, while setting aside the order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, r
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
