THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.11515 of 2015

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the Respondent No.3 i.e., Revenue Divisional officer, Mancherial in Case No.G/2079/2012 dated 28.6.2014 setting aside the Mutation Proceedings issued by the Tahasildar, Luxettipet in favour of the petitioner vide Proceedings No.D/ROR/2011 dated 30.12.2011, and the consequential proceedings issued by the Tahasildar, Luxettipet vide ROR No.D/1477/2014 dated 5.1.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of AP Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and also well settled principles of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court while deciding the cases arising under the provisions of AP Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 and set aside the same… .”

2. Heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri A.L.Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.6 and 7 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5.

3. Learned senior counsel submits the petitioner is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.0.12 gts. covered by Survey No.119 situated at Uthkoor Shivar, Luxettipet Mandal, Adilabad District and the same was purchased, with the funds provided by his father, from the father of respondent Nos.6 and 7 through registered sale deed vide document bearing No.425 of 1995, dated 09.02.1995, and his name was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass book and title deed was issued in his favour. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 taking advantages of the names of their grandfather continued in the revenue records up to 1999-2000 as pattadar in pattadar and occupier columns falsely claiming rights over the subject property, though the possession of the subject property was delivered to the petitioner while executing the registered sale deed by their father in the year 1995 itself.

3.1. He further submits that basing on the alleged revenue entries, respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed a suit O.S.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Luxxettipet, on 11.08.2008 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0.03 gts. in Sy.No.119, subsequent to filing of the application dated 01.08.2008 by the petitioner for mutation of his name in the revenue records. Respondent No.4 after following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder (for short, ‘the Act’), issued mutation proceedings vide Proc.No.D/ROR/39/2011 dated 30.12.2011.

3.2. Questioning the said order, respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed appeal on 05.05.2012, after expiry of statutory period of limitation before respondent No.3, invoking the provisions of Section 5-B of the ROR Act, 1971, though the said provision is not applicable. He vehemently contended that as per the provision of Section 5(5) of the Act, respondent Nos.6 and 7 ought to have filed appeal within a period of 60 days. Whereas, they filed appeal after lapse of more than five (5)

months, even without filing any application for seeking condonation of the delay nor without giving any reasons in the memorandum of appeal, for the said delay. In spite of the same, respondent No.3 without giving opportunity to the petitioner passed the impugned order dated 28.06.2014 by setting aside the order of respondent No.4 dated 30.12.2011, on the alleged ground that in spite of the directions issued by respondent No.3, respondent No.4 failed to submit the record. The impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to law.

3.3. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy v. Joint Collector, Cuddapah and others, [2009 (1)