THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A REPRESENTATION QUESTIONING THE MUTATION OF NAMES IN REVENUE RECORDS WITHOUT AN APPEAL BEING FILED UNDER SECTION 5(5) OF THE ROR ACT.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref./D.Dis.No.8141/2015C dt.14/9/2018 issued by the 3rd respondent entertaining the representation made by the 5 to 7 respondents against the issuance of pattadar pass books (PPB) and title deed in favour of the petitioners relating to the property of an extent of Ac.2.80 cts in Sy.No.13/1, 13/1A, 13/2 and 13/2C of Anakapalli, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as appeal and passed orders as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of AP Rights in land and pattadar pass book Act and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ...."

2. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject property, having acquired the same from his ancestors, by virtue of the partition affected in the year 1970. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar, after considering the records and the documents, issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the 1st petitioner, in the year 1995 and revenue records were mutated in his name. In the year 2014, the 1st petitioner executed settlement deed in favour of his wife-2 nd petitioner for an extent of Ac.1.40 1/2 cts of the subject property and the 4th respondent issued pattadar passbooks in her favour on 20/5/2015, after making necessary entries in the Revenue Records.

While so, Respondents 5 to 7 submitted a representation dtd. 21/7/2015, to the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, claiming right over the subject property and sought cancellation of the Pattadar Passbooks and the entries made in online account in Katha No.433, 665 and 10407 and requested to enter their names. Acting on the said representation, the 3 rd respondent called for a report from the 4th respondent, who in turn stated that the entries made in favour of the petitioners are correct.

The petitioners having come to know about the representation, filed objections, specifically stating that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the representation as appeal and there is no appeal provided against issuance of pattadar passbooks and further informed that the petitioners filed O.S.No.121 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, against respondents 5 to 7. It is the further case of the petitioners that when there was threat of dispossession, they filed W.P.No.2557 of 2018, before this Court questioning the proceedings taken up by the 3rd respondent as appeal and the same was disposed of vide order dtd. 30/1/2018, giving liberty to the petitioners to raise all the grounds including the point of jurisdiction before the 3rd respondent and directed the 3rd respondent to consider the point of jurisdiction.

However, the 3rd respondent, without considering the point of jurisdiction, has entertained the representation of respondents 5 to 7 as appeal and passed orders directing the 4th respondent to revoke the digital signature and hold the concerned record in dispute register, till finalization of the civil suit and also withheld the passbooks. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri PSP Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for Respondents 5 to 7 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration of what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the Tahsildar, on the request made by the petitioners issued passbooks and title deeds to the petitioners, which are placed on record and has drawn attention of the Court to the same.

It is further contended that the respondents 5 to 7 herein, after two years of issuance of pattadar passbooks to the pe