The court clarified the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the permissibility of an inquiry into the authenticity of passbooks and title deeds under the R.O.R Act.

JUDGMENT :

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

Heard Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents 1 to 5 in W.A.No.1132 of 2023 and respondents 1 to 14 in W.A.No.1172 of 2023, Sri Subba Rao Korrapati learned Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 13 in W.A.No.1132 of 2023 and respondents 15 to 22 in W.A.No.1172 of 2023.

2. The appellants 5 to 10 are said to have purchased Ac.10.81 cents of land in Sy.Nos.64 and 68 to 70 of Nagari Village and Mandal from the writ petitioners 2 to 4 and the father of writ petitioner No.1, by way of a deed of sale dated 04.06.2012, registered as document No.1363 of 2012. Subsequently, respondents 6 to 13 are said to have approached the 2nd respondent-District Collector, through the local representative of the people, contending that certain bogus pass books have been issued in relation to the Ac.10.81 cents of land and the sale deed mentioned above had been registered on the basis of the said bogus pass books and title deeds and the same need to be revoked. The said complaint is said to have been forwarded to the 5th respondent-Tahsildar, who submitted a report to the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, Chittoor and the said 3rd respondent endorsed the report to the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to take up the issue as an appeal and to initiate further action.

3. On this basis, the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer issued a notice, dated 01.10.2019, to the appellants and the 1st petitioner in the Writ Petition to appear before the 4th respondent on 11.10.2019. On that date, the appellants appeared before the 4th respondent and submitted their objections. Thereafter, the 4th respondent by his proceedings bearing ROC.No.G/2920/2019 dated 17.10.2019, without considering the objections of the appellants, had directed that the said land be kept in the dispute Register of the Tahsildar’s login. Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.10.2019 and initiation of the proceedings by way of the notice dated 01.10.2019 in proceedings ROC.No.G/2920/2019, the appellants and the 1st petitioner, in the writ petition, had approached this court by way of W.P.No.18066 of 2019 to set aside the above order as well as the proceedings initiated against the appellants and the 1st Petitioner in the writ petition.

4. It was the case of the appellants that there were various litigations going on between the parties, including criminal cases in Crime No.129 of 2012 and 130 of 2012 before the Nagari Police Station, O.S.No.18 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur which was decreed, O.S.No.87 of 2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, O.S.No.88 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur and W.P.No.2003 of 2019 which is pending before this Court, and that the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer could not have initiated any proceedings under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971(for short “The R.O.R Act”). The Appellants contend that Section 8 of the R.O.R Act prohibits statutory authorities from entertaining any enquiry in relation to issues which are before the competent civil Court. The appellants would also contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who appears to have initiated these proceedings under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R Act does not have any jurisdiction to initiate suo-motu action on the question whether pattadar passbooks and title deeds are correct or not, under the said provision.

5. The respondents 6 to 13, opposed the said Writ Petition. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition by his order dated 30.08.2023. The learned Single Judge took the view that the proceedings of the 4th respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R Act is without jurisdiction, as such an appeal cannot be initiated, suomotu, and in the absence of any appeal filed by the aggrieved person. However,