APHC010019492022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1348/2022 Between:

J. Narayana Swamy, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. Y MAHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:

ORDER Challenging the orders dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide ROC No.B/2248/2021, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Heard Sri Ch.Venkatesh, learned counsel for learned counsel for petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. Despite service of notice, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 did not choose either to appear or put up their appearance through any counsel.

3. Sri Ch.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit and placing reliance on the decision in Ratnamma vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, submitted that the

1 Revenue Divisional Officer contended that without having power or authority under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (For short, ‘Act No. 26 of 1971’) and in sheer violation of the observations made in Ratnamma’s case and in utter violation of the procedure envisaged under Section 5 of the Act 26 of 1971; the Revenue Divisional Officer had cancelled the Pattadar passbooks and title deed issued in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel would further contend that without filing an appeal under Section 5B of the Act,1971, the Revenue Divisional Officer will not get any jurisdiction. Further, the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor granted adinterim injunction in the suit filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction in respect of the subject property and the report submitted by Tahsildar upon enquiry would show that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. However, without considering the report submitted by the Tahsildar, without reference to the adinterim injunction granted by the Court and even without issuing any notice

1.2015(6)ALD 609.

to the petitioner and without hearing him, the Revenue Divisional Officer had passed the orders impugned. Thus, the orders are passed in utter ignorance of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders impugned in the writ petition are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that on the complaint made by parents of the petitioner seeking cancellation of pattadar and title deed passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner in relation to the subject property, the respondent no.3- Revenue Divisional Officer, called for a report from the Tahsildar and upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material, had rightly passed the impugned orders. There is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the impugned orders and there are no valid grounds to interfere with the orders impugned.

Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.

9. In T.Rajeswari v. Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore District, this

Court held as follows:

“As per the scheme of the Act, it is only the order, which was passed under

Section 5(3) of the Act is appealable under Section 5(5) of the Act. In the

2. 2015(6) ALT 339

absence of any order having been passed in the present case, there could not have been any appeal. The Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the appellate authority, while passing the order pursuant to the order of this Court, also did not verify as to what are the pending cases, and likewise the Joint Collector also did not make any efforts to set out the details. In other words, in the present case, there is no primary orde