Point of law: Advising the petitioner to settle the dispute in civil court, as it is a title dispute by the third respondent issuing the impugned proceedings is failure to discharge public duty by the Tahsildar under Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Pattadar Passbook Act is limited being a recording authority.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the Endorsement Rc.B/225/2018 dated 08.01.2021 issued by the third respondent without implementing the orders in D.Dis.(B)655/2018 dated 27.01.2019, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and without any authority and consequently direct the third respondent to implement the orders in D.Dis.(B)655/2018 dated 27.01.2019 by restoring an extent of Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No.86/13 of Melupaka Village, Doravarisatram Mandal in the adangal, in the name of this petitioner.

2. The petitioner is represented by General Power of Attorney Holder, who is none other than his father.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that, petitioner’s mother Smt. Sannareddy Annapurnamma purchased land admeasuring Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No.86/13 of Melupaka Village, Doravarisatram Mandal under registered sale deeds bearing Nos.836/1983, 698/1986, 825/1990 and through an unregistered sale letter dated 02.09.1990 which was subsequently regularized by the Tahsildar under Section 5-A of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. Since the date of purchase, mother of the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The name of the mother of this petitioner was mutated as pattdar and enjoyer in adangal and Form IB (ROR); issued pattadar passbook and title deeds in her favour.

4. It is contended that, the petitioner’s mother executed two registered settlement deeds bearing Document Nos. 1006/2006 dated 11.05.2006 and 51/2007 dated 06.01.2007 in respect of the above land in favour of the writ petitioner – her son and delivered possession of the land in his favour. The third respondent –Tahsildar entered the name of the petitioner in adagnal, Form IB (ROR) as pattadar and enjoyer of Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No.86/13 and issued pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour, as such, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. While so, during computerisation of manual land records, the third respondent has shown in the adangal an extent of Ac.3-91 cents in Sy.No.86/3 in favour of this petitioner. After noticing the same, the petitioner made an application to the third respondent for rectification of entries in the adangal. The third respondent issued notice to all the concerned and called reports from Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer, Melupaka village and directed the licensed surveyors to conduct survey as per enjoyment and submit report. Basing on the reports of Mandal Revenue Inspector, Village Revenue Officer and Surveyors, the third respondent issued order in D.Dis.(B)655/2018 dated 27.01.2019 for correction of the mistake in adaganl and enter the extent of land as Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No.86/13. The said order has not been challenged and became final. However, the third respondent has not implemented the order in revenue records. In view of the same, the petitioner made a representation to the third respondent to give effect to the order dated 27.01.2019. The third respondent instead of implementing the order dated 27.01.2019 and restoring the extent of land in the adangal, has issued an Endorsement in Rc.B/225/2018 dated 08.01.2021 directing the petitioner to settle the issue in the Civil Court.

5. Further, till computerization of land records an extent of Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No. 86/13 was recorded in the name of the petitioner and his predecessors in title as pattadars and enjoyers in adangal and Form IB (ROR). In pattadar pass book and title deed issued by the 3rd respondent in favour of the petitioner, the extent owned by the petitioner was shown as Ac.4-20 cents in Sy.No. 86/13. Only during computerization, an extent of Ac.3-91 cents in Sy.No.86/13 is recorded in the adangal. Before recording Ac.3-91 cents instead of Ac.4-20 cents in S.No. 86/13, the 3rd respondent had neither issued any notice nor aff