IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.
Pratap C. Josisher, and Others Appellant
Vs.
The District Collector and Others - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 21407/2008
Decided On : 24-03-2025
(A) Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 5(5) - Writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to entertain an appeal regarding land title and possession - The petitioner claimed ownership and peaceful possession of land, while the respondents contested this based on prior judgments. The court found that the Revenue Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and that the petitioner’s claims were subject to the outcome of ongoing litigation. (Paras 1, 2, 9, 19, 30)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the appellate authority must consider the legality of the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and that the petitioner could not bypass the appellate process. (Paras 21, 22)
(C) Status Quo - The court noted that the status quo regarding possession was maintained due to ongoing appeals and decrees. (Paras 26, 29)
(D) Final Decision - The court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer regarding the deletion of the name of the original pattadar while sustaining the amendment of the possessor's name, subject to the outcome of the pending appeal. (Paras 30)
ORDER :
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.
The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Anantapur District, in holding enquiry to decide the possession and title of the lands belonging to the petitioner purportedly exercising powers and jurisdiction under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”), vide proceedings in Rc. No.CCH/1743/2007, despite the judgment, dated 30.09.2002 in O.S. No.7 of 1996 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, confirmed by judgment, dated 22.02.2006 in A.S. No.1 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Hindupur, and further confirmed by judgment, dated 20.11.2006, in Second Appeal No.822 of 2006 of this Court, as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and consequently, sought to quash the said proceedings, which were initiated at the instance of the 4th respondent.
2. (a) Petitioner claims to be absolute owner and to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.1847.67 cents in Survey Nos.80-1, 81, 93, 65, 83, 73-2, 97, 94, 67 and 99 of Gudipalli village and Survey No.733-2 of Somandepalli Village and Somandepalli Mandal, Anantapur District. 4th respondent and his farther filed O.S.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, seeking perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner and others from interfering in any manner with the management, administration and possession of the factory viz., Bhanusali Sissal Fibre Industry and Plantations and properties mentioned therein which include those referred above. Petitioner being 1st defendant therein denied the title and possession of the plaintiffs and on contest, the said Suit was dismissed vide judgment, dated 30.09.2002. The learned trial Court has categorically recorded finding that the plaintiffs were not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and on the other hand based on the admission of PW.1, none other than the father of the 4th respondent herein, Court found that the defendants were in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Pending Suit, 1st plaintiff, father of 4th respondent herein, died. Respondents 5 to 8 herein came on record as plaintiff’s legal heirs. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Suit, they preferred A.S. No.1 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Hindupur, which eventually got dismissed by judgment, dated 22.02.2006, confirming the findings rendered by the learned trial Court and in particular that plaintiffs therein were not in possession of the plaint schedule property. Matter was carried in second appeal before this Court in S.A. No.822 of 2006 and the same was also dismissed, vide judgment, dated 20.11.2006, by observing that in case if the appellants felt that possession of respondents therein was illegal, liberty was granted to file a Suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. Taking clue from such observation, respondents 4 to 8 filed O.S. No.19 of 2007 on the file the learned Additional District Judge, Hindupur, for declaration of title to suit schedule property and for grant of consequential injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and/or alternatively in the event, learned Court comes to conclusion that defendants were in possession of the plaint schedule property, sought for delivery of the same. That being so, petitioner sought for amendment of revenue records based on the judgments in O.S. No.7 of 1996; A.S. No.1 of 2003 and S.A. No.822 of 2006 for inclusion of his name and deletion of name of 4th respondent and his father.
(b) The 3rd respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer, Somandepalli, after conducting enquiry as required under Section 5(1) to 5(3) of the Act and Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules
The appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act has jurisdiction to entertain appeals regarding land title and possession, and the status quo must be maint....
The scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and not the decision per se.
The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice to all interested parties in land disputes, ruling that orders passed against deceased persons are null and void.
The Revenue Divisional Officer lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate applications for land mutation, which must be filed before the Tahsildar according to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pa....
The main legal point established is the requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing orders under Sec.5(3) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passb....
The exercise of revisional power under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act after a significant delay is improper and violates principles of natural justice.
The court ruled that orders affecting rights must not be made without providing notice and opportunity to the affected party, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.
A High Court should not bypass established statutory appellate mechanisms in revenue matters simply due to the efflux of time; it must relegate parties to the appropriate statutory authority to ensur....
The court ruled that delayed administrative actions undermining property rights must be resolved through civil courts, emphasizing the importance of timely legal recourse.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.