Revenue authorities can issue pattadar passbooks based on records but lack jurisdiction to resolve title disputes, which must be addressed in civil court.

ORDER :

J. Sreenivas Rao, J.

1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

"...to issue a writ, order or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order of the Respondent No.1 vide Order No. ROR Revision Petition No.5/A/2002, dated 18.05.2009 confirming the orders passed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, dated 30.11.2000 and dated 10.02.1997 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to record and without jurisdiction and consequently, set-aside the proceedings and further direct the Respondent No.3 to issue passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners."

2. Heard Sri Kowturi Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms.V.Yashoda, learned counsel, representing Sri G.V.L. Murthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.6 to 39.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners' ancestors namely Sri. Gurjala Kotaiah, Gurjala Pullaiah and Gurjala Venkanna were the pattadars of the agriculture dry land admeasuring Ac.115.09 gts in Sy.No.350 situated at Singareddypalem Village, Nelakondapally Mandal, Khammam District and after their death, petitioners have succeeded the said property by way of succession. Respondent No.4 without issuing any notice to the petitioners effected changes in the revenue records and issued Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds on 28.08.1996 in favour of the unofficial respondents. After knowing the said effect, petitioners submitted representation to respondent No.4 on 03.10.1996 to conduct enquiry and cancel the Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds issued in favour of the unofficial respondents. Respondent No.4 without properly considering the same, rejected the claim of the petitioners through order dated 10.02.1997.

3.1. Questioning the same, petitioners have filed appeal vide RC.No.A2/1065/97 before respondent No.3, under Section 5(b) of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (herein after called as "Act" for brevity). Respondent No.3 also without considering the contentions of the petitioners dismissed the appeal holding that the said property belongs to the unofficial respondents by its order dated 30.11.2000. Aggrieved by the above said order, petitioners have filed Revision Petition vide No.5/A/2002 before respondent No.2 and the revisional authority also without considering the grounds raised in the Revision Petition simply confirmed the order passed by the respondent No.2 on 18.05.2009.

3.2. Learned counsel vehemently contended that respondent No.4 without issuing any notice and without following the due procedure as contemplated under the provision of Rule 26(6) of the Rules, entered the names of the unofficial respondents in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass book and title deeds behind the back of the petitioners and the same is contrary to law. He further contended the revenue authorities have no power or jurisdiction to decide the complicated questions relating to title and possession.

3.3. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.142 of 2009, dated 13.10.2023. In such circumstances, respondents ought to have directed the parties to approach the competent Civil Court to establish their rights over the property.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondents submit that, unofficial respondents are absolute owners and their names are continuing in the revenue records since more than 43 years back and respondent No.4 after following the due procedure as contemplated under the 'Act' and rules made thereunder, issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of them and the petitioners are not having any right, interest and title over the subject property. Questioning the order passed by the respondent No.4, dated 10.02.1997, petitioners filed appeal before respondent No.2 and the same was dismissed on 30.11.2000, by giving cogent reasons and