A Revisioning Authority under the ROR Act cannot unilaterally cancel a pattadar passbook without assigning reasons, especially when the holder of the passbook has material documents indicating their ownership of the land.

ORDER :

Heard Mr.S.Lakshmikanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court, seeking the following relief :

“To issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order in Revision Petition No.E5/920/2016 dated 25.07.2017 as being illegal, arbitrary contrary to provision of ROR Act 1971 and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and Article 300-A of Constitution of India. Consequently set aside the impugned order in Revision Petition No.E5/920/2016 dated 25.07.2017 passed by the Respondent No.2 herein forthwith in the interest of justice.”

3. The averments as per the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the present writ petition, in brief are as under:

(i) The petitioner is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.0-08 guntas situated in Sy.No.637-B of Bheemaram Village of Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District. The petitioner purchased the same from his vendor by a simple sale deed in the year 1980 and had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said subject property. The petitioner obtained necessary permission in the year 1992 from the competent authority and constructed a compound wall around the entire land to an extent of Ac.0.08 guntas, situated in Sy.No.637-B of Bheemaram Village of Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District. Petitioner constructed a tin sheeted shed and obtained water connection by paying necessary taxes to the Grampanchayat and thereafter in the year 2005 a regular enquiry was conducted by the then Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar) Hasanparthy Mandal and after due enquiry, the Tahsildar had issued pattadar passbook and title deed jointly in favour of petitioner and petitioner’s mother Smt.Vuppu Badramma.

(ii) It is further the case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent without there being any right, title and interest over the said subject property with an intention to grab the property made claim over the subject property in the year 2012 based on fabricated documents before the 3rd respondent herein. After receipt of notice from the office of the 3rd respondent, in respect of proceedings in Appeal vide R.C.No.A/2535/2012, the petitioner produced all the relevant documents along with the counter affidavit. Respondent No.3 after appreciating the material available on record and duly considering the oral and documentary evidence disposed of the Appeal vide R.C.No.A/2535/2012 on 16.11.2013 observing as under:

“From the above it is not understandable why the appellant is claiming the land in Sy.No.637/B both on the basis of an Agreement of Sale, dated 23.06.1990 and by virtue of a registered sale deed No.1852/2005, secondly the subject land is not an agricultural land and the claim of both the parties are based on different documents, and their rights cannot be decided under the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971. Therefore the Appellant is directed to approach the Competent Civil Court for claiming her rights and the appeal is hereby disposed.”

(iii) It is further the case of the petitioners that respondent No.5 instead of approaching the competent civil Court for adjudication of rights and title over the subject schedule property preferred a revision under Section 9 of ROR Act before the 2nd respondent herein and the 5th respondent preferred the said Revision vide Revision Petition No.920 of 2016 wherein the 3rd respondent herein passed impugned order on 25.07.2017. Vide the said impugned order dated 25.07.2017 respondent No.2 on one hand directed the petitioner and respondent No.5 to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of their grievance on the other hand the 2nd respondent unilaterally cancelled the pattadar passbook a