A Pattadar Pass Book cannot be cancelled without a competent court's declaration of title, highlighting the importance of clarity in ownership and rectification processes.

ORDER :

K.SARATH, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned Proceeding in case No.E5/7771/2013 dated 27.08.2018 by which the respondent No.2 dismissed the Revision filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the A.P.Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 with respect to land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.18.15 guntas, situated in Sy.Nos.153, 308, 301/A, 214, 215 and 216 of Ayyagaripalli Village, Kuravi Mandal of Mahabubabad District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’) and sought to set aside the same.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5 and perused the record.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the daughter of Late Bandi Narayana Reddy and the said Bandi Narayana Reddy married mother of the petitioner as second wife consequent on death of his first wife. During his life time, father of the petitioner and son of his first wife i.e. the respondent No.5 herein were arrived a family settlement for partition of agricultural lands in which father of the petitioner got an extent of Ac.18.15 guntas in Sy.Nos.153, 308, 301/A, 214, 215 and 216 of Ayyagaripalli Village of Kuravi Mandal of Mahabubabad District. After death of father of the petitioner, the said lands were mutated in the name of mother of the petitioner namely Bandi Soudhamani and Pattadar Pass Books were also issued vide Patta No.160 in the year, 2007. The mother of the petitioner gifted the said lands in favour of the petitioner vide Gift Settlement Deed No.3580/2012 dated 08.05.2012 and since then the petitioner has been in possession of the said land. The mother of the petitioner died in the month of March, 2013. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 got mutated his name in respect of the subject lands. On coming to know about the same in the year, 2013, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad vide RC No.A/763/2013 and the respondent No.3 by its order dated 15.10.2013, cancelled the patta held in the name of mother of the petitioner, without there being any procedure followed known to law.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the appellate authority/respondent No.3 has given a conclusion among other things that the registered Gift Deed executed in favour of the petitioner is null and void though the said Gift Deed was challenged by the respondent No.5 and his son in O.S.No.267 of 2013 on the file of Principal District Judge, Warangal. The respondent No.3 failed to consider that the name of mother of the petitioner was recorded as pattadar till her death i.e. from the years, 2007 to 2013. After death of mother of the petitioner, the Tahsildar mutated name of the respondent No.5 as Pattadar in the revenue records in place of mother of the petitioner.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that being aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent No.3, the petitioner filed Revision before the respondent No.2/Joint Collector, Mahabubabad in Case No.E/7771/2013 and the said Revision was dismissed on 27.08.2018. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that when ROR proceedings were pending, the respondent No.5 herein and his son filed a suit in O.S.No.267 of 2013 on the file of Principal District Judge, Warangal, (subsequently transferred to Mahabubabad) to declare the son of the respondent No.5 as owner and possessor of the suit schedule land