Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(AP) 191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
Pukkala Sreenu, S/o. Trinadh Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi (Amaravathi) Guntur District, and others – Respondent
Writ Appeal No.326 of 2020 & Writ Petition No.3387 of 2021
Decided On : 01-04-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.A. Giridhar Rao
For the Respondent: Mr. Raja Reddy Koneti

Point of Law: Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that appeal against the order under Section 6-A of the Act is not maintainable, as issuance of Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed or making entries thereon is always a step consequential to the Record of Rights prepared.

Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 5(5) - Mutation of name in revenue records - Without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice to writ appellant writ petitioner had incorporated name of respondent in revenue records as with reference to land - Aggrieved by same he had preferred appeal before Revenue Officer by order noticing that no notice was issued to writ appellant Divisional Officer with regard to correction of entries in revenue records and Revenue Division writ petitioner remanded matter to by setting aside earlier entries and consequential actions and directing to conduct fresh enquiry –
Finding of the Court:
Appellate authority in course of his order recorded that appellant did not file any document to show any right title and enjoyment of subject land except orders of Revenue Divisional Officer Report Revenue Inspector Register filed by writ appellant was issued which is subsequent to filing appeal by respondent - In this connection it is also relevant to state that though in writ petition writ appellant was claiming that he is possession land in had recorded in his order that land admeasuring cents part village is in possession and enjoyment of writ appellant and accordingly had directed Revenue Inspector Village Revenue Officer reflect name writ appellant as enjoyer in web page in respect land admeasuring cents - Challenge is made to order passed by Revenue Divisional subsequent order passed - So far as order concerned Revenue Divisional his order set aside order - Therefore there is no question of setting aside order Writ Petition when said order was already set aside in appeal by Revenue Divisional - So far as order is concerned writ petitioner did not assail same at an earlier point of time and had accepted said order and had challenged order as per direction contained in order passed by Revenue Divisional–
Result: Petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. The Writ Petition, namely, W.P.No.3387 of 2021 filed by respondent No.5 in W.A.No.326 of 2020, has been directed to be listed along with W.A.No.326 of 2020 and the same is accordingly listed. The Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are, accordingly, taken up for consideration together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. W.A.No.326 of 2020 is presented against the order dated 24.03.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.8434 of 2017, whereby the learned single Judge refused to interfere with the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the appellate authority – Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, in ROR Appeal No.10945 /2016. It is further provided that, as complicated question of title is involved in this case, the revenue authorities, except making entries in the revenue records after enquiry, cannot decide the title of the parties and that, therefore, to vindicate their title, the parties shall necessarily resort to a competent Court of civil jurisdiction.

3. The appeal was preferred by respondent No.5 under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) to set aside the order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam and to direct the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, to conduct an enquiry afresh by giving him opportunity and thereafter to reflect his name in the web-page as pattadar and enjoyer in the subject land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.28 cents in S.No.40/2 part of Chepaluppada village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

4. By the order dated 25.01.2016, the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer, Chepaluppada were directed to reflect the name of the writ appellant, namely Pukkala Sreenu, as an enjoyer in the web-page for the subject property.

5. The appellate authority – Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, set aside the order dated 25.01.2016 and remanded the case to the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, to conduct de novo enquiry by giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties for submitting their respective claims, along with documentary proof regarding their right, title, possession and enjoyment over the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in S.No.40/2 of Chepaluppada village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. It was also directed that the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, shall keep in abeyance the name of the writ appellant from the 1-B register and web-page for the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.28 cents covered by S.No.40/2A2 of Chepaluppada village, pending disposal of the enquiry.

6. It appears from a perusal of paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition, registered as W.P.No.8434 of 2017, that respondent No.5 had made a representation before the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, for mutation of his name in the revenue records and that without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice to the writ appellant/writ petitioner, the Tahsildar had incorporated the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records as pattadar with reference to the land admeasuring Ac.0.28 cents in S.No.40/2A2 and aggrieved by the same, he had preferred appeal before the Revenue l Officer, by order dated 13.10.2015, after noticing that no notice was issued to the writ appellant/Divisional Officer with regard to the correction of entries in the revenue records and the Revenue Divisionawrit petitioner, remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, by setting aside the earlier entries and consequential actions and directing to conduct fresh enquiry.

7. It was on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 13.10.2015, order dated 25.01.2016 came to be passed by the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal. The order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, is not on record, but from a perusal of the order dated 25.01.2016, it appears that the Tahsi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document