The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of challenging changes in revenue records in appeals under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and the requirement of jurisdiction and adherence to principles of natural justice in appeal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. - Heard Sri. Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. M.R.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, Smt. S. Pranathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 11 and Sri Gangisetti Uma Sankar, learned counsel for the applicants in I.A.No.2 of 2023.

2. Mr. L.W. Griffin, who died in 1959, was said to be the owner of Ac.25.00 cents of land in Sy.No.179/2 of Chinnamusidivada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam. He is said to have executed a Will bequeathing his property in favour of his brothers J.J. Griffin and Robert James Griffin. The probate of the Will was taken up in O.P.No.13 of 1960 on the file of District Court, Visakhapatnam. One Mrs. Ruth Paul set up a claim over the property. The District Judge, after considering her claim, had observed that she had made out a case for making a claim over the property and the question of title in regard to this land cannot be decided in any application for the grant of letters of administration. On that basis, letters of administration were granted to the brother of late Sri Griffin, except the Ac.25.00 cents of land mentioned above.

3. Thereafter, Smt. Ruth Paul is said to have gifted this land to her niece Smt. R.J. Paul. In parallel proceedings, the brother of late Sri Griffin sold away about Ac.8.65 cents of the said land to one Sri S. Pydaiah, by way of a registered deed of sale, in 1968. Subsequently, the remaining Ac.17.30 cents were also sold to Sri S. Pydaiah, who in turn, sold away Ac.8.65 cents of land, purchased by him in 1968, to Sri M. China Apparao, in 1978. Subsequently, Sri M. Chinna Apparao and Sri Sadaram Apparao, the son of S. Pydaiah, who had passed away in the meanwhile, had entered into a development agreement with M/s.Ravi Tej Constructions (respondents 5 and 6) for developing the said land.

4. It may also be mentioned that Smt. R.J. Paul had been given pattadar pass book and title deeds, on 13/9/1996, and her name was included as owner of the land in the revenue records. Aggrieved by these proceedings, Sri M. China Apparao, who is arrayed as 3rd respondent in the writ petition, filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, on 18/10/1999. This appeal is said to have been filed under Sec. 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the R.O.R Act'). The said provision does not provide for any appeal. This power has to be traced to Sec. 5 (5) of the R.O.R Act and this appeal would have to be treated as filed under Sec. 5 (5) of the ROR Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order dtd. 10/12/1999, set-aside the pattadar pass book and title deed. However, no orders were passed in relation to the changes in the revenue records as no such request had been made. Smt. R.J. Paul being aggrieved by this order moved a revision before the Joint Collector which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, she moved this Court, by way of the present writ petition. Smt. R.J. Paul passed away during the pendency of this writ petition and petitioner No.2 impleaded himself as the legal representative of the late Smt. R. J. Paul. His claim was based on a Will said to have been executed in his favour by Smt. R. J. Paul.

5. Smt. R.J. Paul also appears to have executed various deeds of alienation in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 11 and they have impleaded themselves as successors in interest of Smt. R.J. Paul.

6. Sri Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd petitioner and Smt. S. Pranathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 11 contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer could not have taken up the appeal as the said appeal is not maintainable. They contend that the appeal was filed only to the extent of the issuance of the pattadar pass book and title deed and no appeal was filed for chang