The Revenue Divisional Officer lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate applications for land mutation, which must be filed before the Tahsildar according to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

"…to issue a Writ or Order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records and in relation to Proceedings D.Dis.No.D2(B)/1871/2022 dt.21.01.2023 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District and quash the same holding it as illegal, in contravention of Provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act , 1971 to the extent of issuing direction to Tahsildar, Anantapur Rural Mandal for mutating the names of Respondents 5 to 7 in Web Land Adangal with respect to Petitioners’ Open Lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.58 Cents out of total extent of Ac.1.16 Cents in Survey No.36-2 situated at Kakkalapalli (v), Anantapur Rural (M), Anantapur District and pass such other order……"

2. The unofficial respondents 5 to 6 herein submitted a representation/application with a request to take necessary action for mutation of land to an extent of Ac.0.58 cents out of Ac.1.16 cents in Sy.No.36/2 of Kakkalapalli village of Anantapur Rural Mandal. The said land is classified as patta land according to RSR of the Village and stands in the name of one Sanjeevugari Chakari Nalligadu, who is grand-father of the unofficial respondents. Their grandfather Sanjeevugari Chakari Nlligadu is the diglot pattadar to an extent of Ac.1.16 cents in Sy.No.36/2 had two sons by name Chakari Juturu Nallappa and Chakari Juturu Kasemappa. Both the sons of Chakari Nalligadu had been partitioned. The father of the unofficial respondents i.e., Chakari Juturu Kasemappa has filed suit for partition, vide O.S.No.563 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuram, for partition. This suit was referred to Lok Adalat, which issued an award on 03.07.2010, dividing the property into two branches, each holding Ac.0.58 cents. Later, unofficial respondents herein have applied to the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to record their names in the revenue records. The 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer after following due procedure and relying on the Award of the Lok Adalat has permitted the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar, vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.D2(B)/1871/2022 dated 21.01.2023, to mutate the names of the unofficial respondents to an extent of Ac.0.58 cents out of Acs.1.16 cents.

3. The said proceeding dated 21.01.2023 has been challenged in the present Writ Petition by the writ petitioners herein on the basis that an extent of Ac.1.16 cents in Sy.No.36/2 was alienated by Chakari Juturu Nallappa, i.e., first branch of Sanjeevugari Chakari Nalligadu in the year 1945. Subsequently, several transactions were occurred and the 1^st petitioner herein has purchased the property to an extent of Ac.0.58 cents from C.Venkata Rami Reddy, through registered document No.2314/2003 dated 28.01.2003 and the 2^nd petitioner herein has purchased to an extent of Ac.0.58 cents from K.Vedamma Peddamanikyamma, through registered document No.3108/1984 dated 21.01.1984. Since then, they are in the original possession and enjoyment of the property and they are the bona fide purchasers of the property. The Revenue Divisional Officer is not the competent authority to declare the title of the property as per the impugned order and the unofficial respondents cannot file any application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who serves as the Appellate Authority, no representation can be treated as an appeal and it is emphasizing that the right to appeal is a substantive right and must be conferred by a statute and the appeal is provided under Section 5 (5) of the A.P.Rights