Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
Budda Jagadish Chandra Prakash and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ganti Satya Kalyani and Ors.- Respondents
Review IA 1 of 2022 in Writ Petition No. 24500/2015
Decided On : 18-06-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.R.S. Srinivas
For the Respondents: V. Himabindu
IMPORTANT POINT
An appeal against the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds under Section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 is not maintainable.
Headnote:
(A) The Andhra Pradesh (Rights In Land) And Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Sections 5(5) and 6-A - Review petition against the order declaring the cancellation of title deeds and pattadar passbooks as illegal and arbitrary - The court held that an appeal against the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds under Section 6-A is not maintainable, reaffirming the principle established in Ratnamma v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District 2015(6) ALD 609. (Paras 2, 12, 15)
(B) Review Jurisdiction - Error apparent on the face of the record - The court emphasized that a review is not an appeal in disguise and can only be entertained for glaring omissions or patent mistakes. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought review of a prior order that declared the cancellation of their title deeds and pattadar passbooks illegal, arguing that the appeal against such cancellation was not maintainable under the Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the learned single Judge erred in applying the law from Ratnamma's case, leading to an error apparent on the record.
Issues: The main issues were whether an error apparent existed to warrant a review and the maintainability of the appeal against the issuance of title deeds and pattadar passbooks.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the issuance of title deeds and pattadar passbooks does not adversely affect substantive rights and thus does not allow for an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act.
Result: Review petition allowed; prior order set aside.
ORDER :
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
1. This review petition is filed by the petitioners/respondents 4 and 5 seeking review of the order dated 06.01.2022 in W.P.No.24500/2015 passed by learned single Judge allowing the writ petition and declaring the order dated 29.07.2015 in Appeal No.412/2015 passed by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently directing the 3rd respondent therein to restore the title deeds (TDs) and pattadar-passbooks (PPBs) issued in favour of the writ petitioners.
2. The factual matrix of the case is thus:
(a) Writ Petition No.24500/2015 is filed by the respondents 4 and 5 / writ 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 of the 2nd respondent in Appeal No 412/2015, dated 29.07.2015 (wrongly typed as 29.07.2014) in cancelling the pattadar pass books and title deeds of the petitioner for the lands in an extent of Ac 4.04 cents in S.Nos.217/1 to 3 an extent of Ac.5.86 cents in S.Nos.218/1 and 2 respectively of Jagapathinagaram Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and against the Principles of natural justice contrary to the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh (Rights In Land) And Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 and violative of fundamental rights apart from Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders..."
(b) Their case is that they purchased the above lands under registered sale deeds dated 05.02.2014 from their vendor Yellapu Bulli Raju @ Veeranna. Their vendor was the adopted son of Yellapu Narasa Rao and Smt. Yellapu Bapirajamma and in a partition suit in O.S.No.112/2003 between their vendor and his family members, he succeeded and his adoption was upheld.
(c) After purchase, the writ petitioners applied for PPBs and TDs U/s 6-A of The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short "Act, 1971) and after due enquiry the Tahsildar issued TDs and PPBs.
(d) The further case of the writ petitioners is that the unofficial respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition filed appeal No.412/2015 before the RDO, Peddapuram Revenue Division/2nd respondent in the writ petition U/s 5(5) of the Act, 1971 questioning the issuance of the TDs and PPBs in favour of the writ petitioners. Under law the said appeal is not maintainable. However, the 2nd respondent without following due process of law, passed the order dated 29.07.2015 and cancelled PPBs and TDs issued in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the writ petition. The unofficial respondents 4 and 5 have contested.
(e) In the writ petition, inter-alia, the contention of the petitioners is that as against the order passed by the Tahsildar U/s 6-A of the Act, 1971, no appeal is maintainable which has been held by a Division Bench of common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ratnamma v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District 2015(6) ALD 609 and therefore the 2nd respondent ought not to have entertained the appeal. The said argument weighed with learned single Judge as in the said judgment, the Division Bench observed thus:
"From a bare reading of Section 5(5) of the Act, it can be held that against every order of recording authority either making an amendment in the Record of Rights or appeal to the RDO, is provided within the Act, making an amendment in the Record of Rights is a crucial stage and a substantive decision rendered by the recording authority. Therefore, right of appeal is provided against such decisions. Likewise, from the reading of Section 5(5) of the Act, it cannot be construed that Section 5(5) provides remedy of appeal against orders under Section 6-A of the Act. Issuance of PPB/TD or making entries therein is always a step consequential to the Record of Rights prepared. Therefore, the plain reading of Section 5(5) makes
