IMPORTANT POINT
Entries in a dispute register require explicit directions from competent authorities, and failure to provide notice renders such actions unlawful.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Raghunandan Rao, J.) :

As all the Writ Appeals arise out of similar orders of a learned Single Judge, dated 23.09.2022, 26.09.2022 and 27.09.2022 and raise the same questions of law and fact, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. The parties to these Writ Appeals are being referred to as they arrayed in W.A.No.943 of 2022.

2. The private respondents, in these Writ appeals, had approached this court by way W.P. No. 29987 of 2022, W.P. No. 29974 of 2022, W.P. No. 29994 of 2022, contending that the 6th respondent- Tahsildar, without notice or opportunity being given to the private respondents, had marked, in orange and red, the adangal record, maintained online, in relation to their lands in Sy.No.165-2 and Sy.No.165-4 of Kopperla Village, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District, and included them in the dispute register and the said action was illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar pass Books Rules, 1989.

3. A learned Single Judge of this Court, at the stage of admission had disposed of these writ petitions, following an earlier order of this Court, dated 24.06.2021, in W.P.No.11738 of 2021.

4. The Judgment in W.P.No.11738 of 2021 dealt with the question of marking of online revenue records with red colour and inclusion of such lands in the dispute register. The learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.11738 of 2021 after noticing Rule 9(1)(iv), Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) and Rule 9(1)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 had held that any such changes can be done only after appropriate notice has been given to all the persons who would be interested in the said entry and failure to issue such notices would render the entries in the disputed register as an illegality.

5. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, in these writ petitions, the appellant herein filed the present appeals with leave.

6. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant also has a right and claim over the said land and had been litigating this issue with the private respondents herein and other persons due to which the recording authority had put an orange mark and red mark against the entries relating to these lands. The appellant contends that his grandfather along Sri Narasimhulu had acquired land to an extent of Ac.3.20 cents in Sy.No.165/1 of Kopperla Village under a deed of sale, dated 16.03.1938, and registered as Document No.591/1938. The appellant also states that the proceedings of Sri Visakha Grameena Bank, Kovvada in the year 1985 and the filing of O.S.No.219 of 1985 against the father of the appellant, for recovery of a loan amount and subsequent sale of Ac.3.02 cents of land, by way of E.P.No.107/1986, demonstrates the ownership of the members of the family of the appellant over this land. It was on this basis that, the Appellant had approached the Tahsildar, who put a orange/red mark against the online entries and entered the details of the land in the dispute register after notice had been given to the private respondents. The appellant contends that none of the facts could be placed before the learned Single Judge due to the disposal of the writ petition at the stage of admission and that there is every need to look into the facts of the case to determine whether the action of the official respondents in placing an orange mark and red mark on the online entries and entering the details in the dispute register is appropriate and legal or not.

7. Both the Tahsildar of the area as well as the private respondents herein have filed their counter affidavits. Reference to the Counter affidavits in Writ Appeal no. 943 of 2022, would suffice for disposing these writ appeals.

8. The affidavit of the Tahsildar states that Kopperla Village was an estate village of the erstwhile Vizianagaram estate which had been taken over under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act. The revenue r