The appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act is not maintainable for the cancellation of pattadar pass books; the petitioner’s rights were validated through possession and title deeds.

ORDER :

T.C.D.SEKHAR, J.

1. The petitioner claims that she was assigned land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.36 cents in Sy.No.576/2 of Jammalamadugu Revenue Village fields, Jammalamadugu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District through D-Form patta No.2/1411,dated 28.12.2001 under landless poor quota.

2. It is further case of the petitioner that since the date of assignment she is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said land. In due recognizition of her possession over the subject lands, her name was mutated in revenue records and she was also issued pattadar pass books and title deeds.

3. It is further case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent approached Lok Adalat by filing a petition vide L.A.C.No.10 of 2006 stating that the subject land belongs to his father and taking advantage of his absence in the village, the writ petitioner fraudulently obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds over the land in dispute and prayed to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in his favour.

4. Upon filing of L.A.C.No.10 of 2006, a notice was served on the writ petitioner and Lok Adalat called for a report from the 4th respondent. In pursuance of the same, the 4th respondent submitted report in proceedings Ref.No.E/132/2005, dt. 15.03.2006 stating that the subject land was assigned in favour of the petitioner on 28.12.2001 vide DKT No.2/1411 and pattadar pass book was issued in favour of the writ petitioner. The said report further reveals that the 4th respondent personally inspected the subject lands and found that the writ petitioner was cultivating the same and the land was never in possession of the 5th respondent herein. Having considered the said report filed by the 4th respondent, L.A.C.No. 10/2006 filed by the 5th respondent was closed by advising the 5th respondent to approach common law Court for redressal of his grievance.

5. It is further case of the petitioner that having kept quiet for fourteen (14) long years, the 5th respondent made a representation to the 3rd respondent questioning the entries made in favour of the 5th respondent including the issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds. The said representation of the 5th respondent was taken on file treating it as appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. It is specific case of the petitioner that she appeared before the 3rd respondent and produced all relevant documents in respect of her claim. Despite the same, the 3rd respondent while passing impugned order it is stated that the writ petitioner did not attend for enquiry nor produced documentary evidence to substantiate her case and passed impugned order whereby and where under cancelled the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the writ petitioner and directed to delete the entries in respect of subject lands.

6. The 3rd respondent further directed the 4th respondent to issue E-pattadar pass books in favour of 5th respondent over the subject land. The said order is being assailed in the present writ petition.

7. On the other hand, the 4th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that land admeasuring an extent of 10.83 acres in Sy.No.576 is classified as burial ground as per RSR. It is further stated that an extent of Ac.1.56 cents was sub divided from the total extent with Sy.No.576/2. It is further stated that in the counter affidavit that the name of the 5th respondent is recorded in Web Land Adangal vide 1-B Khata No. 1004.

8. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the father of the 5th respondent purchased the subject land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 21.03.1966 and since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment. It is further stated that taking into advantage of his absence in Jammalamadugu Village the petitioner managed the then revenue officials and got pattadar pass books in his name by deleting the name of the 5th respondent.

9. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not produce DKT patta