APHC010407652022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3505]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 25222/2022 Between:

Sri Busi Narayana Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order:

1. The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.58 cents in Sy.No.128/3 and an extent of Ac.1.39 cents in Sy.No.129/1 of Moolapalli Village, Sidhout Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

2. It is further case of the petitioner that he was also issued pattadar pass books and title deed in respect of the above lands. It is further stated that the 5^th respondent without having any right over land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.58 cents in Sy.No.128/3 approached the 3^rd respondent seeking to rectify the revenue records by deleting his names and to incorporate her name.

3. It is further case of the petitioner that the 3^rd respondent without issuing notice to him passed order dated 21.12.2017, directing the 4^th respondent to rectify the entries in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.57 cents in Sy.No.128/3 of Moolapalli Village. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed revision petition before the 2^nd respondent and after hearing parties, the 2^nd respondent confirmed the order passed by the 3^rd respondent, aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

5. Perused material available on record.

6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is in actual physical possession of the subject land and in support of his claim, he filed revenue records viz., Form-1(B) and adangal in respect of land admeasuring an Ac.1.58 cents in Sy.No.128/3 wherein the petitioner’s father name was recorded as pattadar.

7. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the appeal filed by the 5^th respondent is not maintainable on the ground that the same is filed for cancellation of pattadar pass books issued in favour of the petitioner. In support of his contention the counsel for the petitioner relied on order passed by coordinate bench of this Court in WP No.3465 of 2020. On careful perusal of the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition, it is clear that the appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer under section 5(5) of RoR Act, 1971 seeking to cancel the pattadar passbooks. This Court held that such an appeal is not maintainable in the absence of power conferred under the statute. Coming to the case on hand, on a perusal of the appeal filed by the 5^th respondent, it is clear that she requested the 3^rd respondent to rectify the revenue records in respect of subject lands by deleting the name of the petitioner and to incorporate her name. The said appeal was entertained and an order was passed after following the principles of natural justice. On perusal of the order passed by the 3^rd respondent, it is clear that the petitioner is failed to substantiate his claim in respect of subject lands. It is the specific case of the 5^th respondent and the official respondents that the subject land was assigned in favour of the 5^th respondent, but inadvertently while issuing DKT patta in her favour, the Survey Number was wrongly noted. Therefore, she filed appeal to get the survey number rectified inasmuch as she is in actual, physical possession of the subject land. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not filed documentary proof to show that the subject land was assigned in favour of his father. Further, it is the specific case of the respondents that the name of the petitioner was entered into revenue records without there being any valid DKT patta in his favour. At any rate, the petitioner did not