An appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 is not maintainable against the issuance of Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds under Section 6(A) of the said Act.

JUDGMENT :

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.

1. The challenge in this appeal at the instance of Respondents 17, 21, 24 and 25 is to the order dated 21.04.2023 in the writ petition No. 10161/2023 passed by learned single Judge disposing of the writ petition with an observation that since there is an effective alternative remedy the petitioner can canvas its case by preferring an appeal before the 4th respondent within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the order, in which case the appellate authority/4th respondent shall consider and dispose of the appeal strictly in accordance with law within a period of four (4) months thereafter.

2. It should be noted the writ petition No. 10161/2023 is filed by the 1st respondent herein on the plea that the writ petitioner is a trust notified U/s 6 of of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (A.P. Endowments Act, 1987) and several properties were assigned to the petitioner Trust under a Trust Deed and an extent of Ac.65.37 cents in T.D. No. 1251 in different survey numbers of Pandranki village was donated to the petitioner Trust and the petitioner trust has been enjoying those properties and while the petitioner trust being the owner of the schedule property, the M.R.O, Padmanabham/3rd respondent issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds to unofficial respondents in the writ petition in respect of the properties owned by the writ petitioner in the year 2016 without issuing any notice to the petitioner trust. The unofficial respondents claimed title over the subject properties by virtue of the alleged Form-II decision said to be made by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam U/s 3(3) of A.P (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short “Inams Abolition Act). Such granting of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour is illegal and unjust. Therefore, challenging the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds to unofficial respondents, the petitioner trust preferred revision bearing R.P No. 47 of 2017 U/s 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “Act 1971”) before the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam/3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent dismissed the revision petition by making an observation that the petitioner trust ought to have filed appeal before RDO-cum- appellate authority, Visakhapatnam U/s 5(5) of the Act, 1971:

(a) Aggrieved by the Joint Collector’s order, the writ petitioner (b) filed W.P.No. 10161/2023 seeking to quash the impugned order on the ground that the said order is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Memo No. 482291/Endts.II/2017 dated 08.02.2017 issued by 1st respondent under Sections 43 and 46 of the A.P. Endowments Act, 1987 and consequently direct the respondents to issue Pattadar Passbook and Title Deeds in favour of the petitioner Trust. During the admission of writ petition, the petitioner Trust argued that the Joint Collector while directing the petitioner Trust to approach the Appellate Authority, made certain observations in its order touching the merits of the case causing detriment to the case of petitioner and therefore, even if the petitioner avails remedy of the appeal, due to those observations in the impugned order, he may not succeed before the Appellate Authority and his rights will be prejudiced. Whereas, the learned AGP argued that the petitioner Trust has an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal and he can avail the same.

(b) Considering the submissions of both sides, learned single Judge having felt that there was no requirement of issuing notice to the unofficial respondents, passed order in the writ petition that in view of the availability of the efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner can canvass its case in the appeal before 4th respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. Learned single Judge directed that upon hearing the petitioner Trust and unofficial respon