An appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 is not maintainable without a prior order under Section 5(3).

ORDER:

The grievance of the petitioner is issuance of impugned proceedings by the 4^th respondent vide Rc.No.327/2022/Dt/ dated 26.11.2022 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and Rules, 1989 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner with respect to its agricultural land to an extent of Ac.21.61 cents in Sy.No.392-1B and Ac.15.55 cents in Sy.No.392-3 in Gadimdidam Village, Rajam Mandal, Srikakulam District.

2. Heard Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B.Rama Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri C.B.Siddarth, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit submitted that feeling aggrieved by the mutation of petitioner society name in the revenue records by the revenue authorities, the 6^th respondent preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer who has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and thereby allowed the appeal vide orders dated 21.11.2022. Impugning the same, the present writ petition is filed. He further submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no right to entertain the appeal by virtue of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and Rules, 1989 (for short Act, 1971 and Rules, 1989). In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgement of this Court in the case of Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, [2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB)], and in view of the same, prayed to allow the writ petition and set aside the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer.

4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the 6^th respondent submitted that the land in Sy.No.329 (originally 392) is in the name of the One Sri father Doragaru and now Sri Nunnam Prasad Rao being the president of the petitioner society which was formed on 03.12.2020 is claiming the said land. Earlier, Sri Nunnam Prasad Rao independently got filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.17657 of 2021 feeling aggrieved by the action of the Tahsildar in marking the Adangal and 1B in orange colour. It is the case of the 6^th respondent that the land in Sy.No.392/1B has been mutated in the name of the petitioner society and after noticing the same, the 6^th respondent tried to obtain the said information under Right to Information Act and it was brought to his notice that the records are not available. In those circumstances, there occurred delay in approaching the Revenue Divisional Officer for filing appeal. However, Revenue Divisional Officer after hearing both the parties has passed orders impugned and if at all the petitioner has any grievance, he can ventilate the same before the Joint Collector by way of revision but cannot straight away file writ petition as there are several factual issues involved. In view of the same, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader on counter contended that having invited order from the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner as well can approach the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. He further submitted that earlier the Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders against the petitioner herein under proceedings dated 19.10.2021 and aggrieved by the same, a writ petition vide W.P.No.26557 of 2021 has been filed on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed orders impugned therein without notice and this Court, with the consent of both the parties rem