Appeals against cancellation of pattadar pass books under Section 5(5) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1971 are not maintainable, reinforcing that an agreement of sale does not confer title.

JUDGMENT :

T.C.D. SEKHAR, J.

1. The present writ appeal is filed aggrieved by order dated 28.02.2025 passed in WP No.21817 of 2020. The appellant is the petitioner in the said writ petition. She claims that the husband of the 5^th respondent along with his son executed agreement of sale dated 30.04.1977 vide document No.555 of 1977 in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.24 cents in Sy.No.274 of Etheru Revenue Village, Bapatla Mandal and District for total sale consideration of Rs.56,000/-.

2. It is further stated that the appellant paid an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards part-payment and possession was delivered to her. It is agreed that the appellant has to discharge the loans mentioned in the said agreement of sale. It is further stated that the appellant got mutated her name in revenue records as the possession was delivered to her by virtue of the said agreement of sale and the unofficial respondents did not object to the same.

-

3. Be that as it may, the 5^th respondent filed suit in OS No.118 of 2015, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla against the appellant seeking declaration of title and to grant permanent injunction in respect of the subject land. Incidentally, a representation dated 04.05.2015 was filed to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of subject lands before the 3rd respondent. In turn, the same was entertained and by order dated 18.01.2019, the 3^rd respondent cancelled pattadar pass books issued in favour of the appellant. As against the said order, a revision was filed before the 2^nd respondent whereunder the order of the 3^rd respondent was confirmed by order dated 03.10.2020. Questioning the same, the appellant filed writ petition vide W.P.No.21817 of 2020 and the same was dismissed by order dated 28.02.2025, which is impugned in the present writ appeal.

4. Heard counsel for the appellant, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and counsel for the Respondent No.6.

5. It is the case of the appellant that her name was mutated in revenue records based on agreement of sale dated 30.04.1977 said to have been executed by the husband of 5^th respondent along with his son. Admittedly no sale deed is executed in her favour till today. Furthermore, the 5^th respondent filed suit for declaration in OS No.118 of 2015, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla and the same is pending adjudication. As seen from the order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that as per Section 4 of Act 26 of 1971, who ever acquired right by succession, inheritance, partition, patta or decree of a Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee is entitled to mutate his name in revenue records. While referring to the said provision, the learned Single Judge observed that the agreement of sale does not fall within the documents mentioned under the said provision and further observed that the appellant by playing fraud got mutated her name in revenue records.

-

6. Be that as it may, it is settled proposition of law that appeal under Section 5(5) of the said Act is not maintainable as against the cancellation of the pattadar pass books as held by this Court in Ratnamma Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram and Others, 2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB).

7. On considerations of submissions made by both counsel, as rightly contended by the counsel for the appellant, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh