Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gali Bharath Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 October, 2024
RC,J
W.P.No.24535 of 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3332]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 24535 of 2022
Between:
Gali Bharath Kumar Reddy ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V.Bindu
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. T. DIWARAKA REDDY
The Court made the following:
ORDER
Challenging the orders dated 08.04.2022 passed by respondent no.3- Joint Collector, in R.P.No.D.Dis.D7/2760/2015 confirming the orders passed by respondent no.4-Revenue Divisional Officer vide D.Dis.No.A/20/2015, dated 17.07.2015, the present writ petition has been filed.
RC,J W.P.No.24535 of 2022 2
2. Heard Sri Yadavalli Ramesh, learned counsel for Ms.V.Bindu, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader, and Sri T.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent nos.8 to 10.
3. Sri Yadavalli Ramesh, 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 Revenue Divisional Officer 1 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 and aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed revision and the respondent no.3-Joint Collector without appreciating the facts of the case as well as law dismissed the revision confirming the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Both the orders are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 1 .2015(6)ALD 609.
RC,J W.P.No.24535 of 2022 3
4. On the other hand, T.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial respondents, submitted that the petitioner's father filed suit in O.S.No.515 of 2022 for specific performance of agreement of sale, whereas the unofficial respondents filed suit in O.S.No.595 of 2022 for injunction and subject to outcome of the suits, the petitioner can approach the authorities and apply for issuance of fresh pattadar passbooks. There is no irregularity in passing the orders. The writ petition being meritless is liable to be set aside.
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per the provisions of Act 26 of 1971 and the observations made in Ratnamma's case, the Revenue Divisional Officer has no power or authority to cancel pattadar passbooks and the aggrieved must necessarily approach the Joint Collector to redress his grievance.
6. Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that since the Tahsildar, contrary to Rules, though the petitioner has no title to the property, issued pattadar passbooks to the petitioner; the Revenue Divisional Officer had cancelled those passbooks and the said order was confirmed by the Joint Collector. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal.
RC,J W.P.No.24535 of 2022 4
8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.
9. A division bench of this Court in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram (supra 1) held that the appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer is not maintainable against mere issuance of pattadar pass book and title deeds under Section 6-A of the Act. In paras 24 and 25,the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
"Sections 5-B and 6-A are introduced through Amendment Act 9 of 1994. Through the amendment, remedy of appeal against regularization order under Section 5-A of the Act and provision for issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act is enacted. Sub-section (3) of Section 6-A provides for correction of entries in the PPB/TD by the Mandal Revenue Officer either suo motu or on an application. As already noticed, the record-of-rights is prepared under Section 3 of the Act, updated/ maintained under Sections 4, 5 and also as a consequence of regularization under Section 5-A of the Act. Issuance of PPB is covered by Section 6-A of the Act. The PPB is nothing but a copy or reflection of entries in the record of rights prepared or maintained at one or the other stages under the Act as stated above. The PPB/TD is maintained and issued in Form No. 14- C of the Rules. PPB/TD contains the entries as borne out by 1-B Register. With the issue of pass book to any person whose name in the applicable column is recorded in record of rights, it cannot be said such issuance adversely affects any person. A person is certainly aggrieved by illegal preparation of record of rights and against such illegal preparation the remedy is provided under Section 3(3) of the Act. Likewise, against illegal or erroneous updation of record of rights under Sections 4 and 5 or regularization under Section 5-A of the Act, the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) or Section 5-B respectively is available to an aggrieved party. On the other hand, Section 6-A(3) provides for correction of erroneous entries in PPB/TD issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The reason for not providing any appeal against the issuance of PPB/TD is manifest from the Scheme of the Act viz., that the issuance of TD/PPB does not by itself adversely affect the substantive right of a person, RC,J W.P.No.24535 of 2022 5 who claims or has a right in the property for which PPB is issued. In other words, the issuance of PPB/TD is a consequential act and entries in PPB/TD are mere reflection of entries of 1-B Register. Mere filing of appeal against issuance of pattadar pass book which is only a copy of 1-B register is not an efficacious remedy under the scheme of the Act."
10. As per the above observations, Issuance of PPB is covered by Section 6-A of the Act. Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed contain the entries as borne out by 1-B Register. With the issue of pass book to any person whose name in the applicable column is recorded in record of rights, it cannot be said such issuance adversely affects any person and hence no appeal is provided against mere issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds.
11. This Court in Kuruva Hanumanthamma vs. State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department2 held at paras- 24, 25, 27 and 35 as follows:
"24. The scheme of the Act is considered by the Full Bench in Santosh Verma v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and keeping in view the opinion of Full Bench, this Court examines point No. 2. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act regulates the jurisdiction of Recording Authority or Mandal Revenue Officer in issuing PPP/TD, by stipulating that PPP/TD shall not be issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer unless the record of rights have been brought up to date (emphasis added). The words have been brought up to date, in sub- section (2) of Section 6-A, are related to or appreciated in the same way the words amendment and updating of record of rights used in Section 5 of the Act.
25. Therefore, If PPP/TD is issued in conformity with the requirement of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act, then there is no difficulty in holding that a person aggrieved by the updation and resulting in issuance of PPP, works out the remedy of appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act as decided by Ratnamma case. Sub-section (3) of Section 6-A authorizes the Mandal Revenue 2 . 2018(1) ALD 290 RC,J W.P.No.24535 of 2022 6 Officer to correct the entries in the PPP/TD, and scope of sub-section 3 is limited to correction of errors of entries and nothing more. Therefore by interpreting Section 6-A (2) of the Act, this Court holds that the recording authority in cases coming under Section 5 of the Act has jurisdiction to issue PPP/TD after the record is updated or amended. As in the present case, PPP/TD is issued, independent of or de hors the entries made in record of rights maintained under 1-B, then what is the remedy available to an aggrieved party is the moot point for consideration of this Court.
Section 9 reads as follows:
9. Revision:--The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly:
Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this Section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation.
******* "27. The Collector is given power of entertaining revision either suo motu or on an application filed by an aggrieved party. The Collector in a pending revision is entitled to call for and examine the record of order under revision viz. from (a) recording authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B in respect of any record of right prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof. (b) The Collector has jurisdiction to modify, annul, reverse or remit for reconsideration of a decision, order or proceedings made in respect of record of rights. From plain construction of Section 9, this Court is of the view that the revisional jurisdiction of Collector embraces different situations warranting interference by him and thus ensures maintenance, preparation or continuation of record of rights on the touch stone of the entries being regular, correct, legal or propriety. I would refer to Ramanatha Aiyers Law Laxicon and Websters Dictionary for excerpting the meaning of the words viz. Regularity; correctness; legality and propriety.
***
35. Having regard to the scope of Section 9 of the Act, a person, if aggrieved against an entry made or maintained in record of rights or continued to be maintained by recording authority can file revision under Section 9 of the Act. Likewise on the same analogy the aggrieved person can file revision against the RC,J W.P.No.24535 of 2022 7 issuance of PPP/TD. The Collector is obliged by the revisional jurisdiction he enjoys to examine all the aspects namely regularity, correctness, legality or propriety in the issue of PPP/TD and pass orders on the entries in record of rights and also on the legality or otherwise of PPP/TD against which revision is made before him. This Court is of the view that by adopting the above interpretation to Section 9 and Section 6-A of the Act before a litigant is compelled to work out the remedies under Section 8 of the Act, can avail the remedy within the framework of the Act by filing revision and obtain orders in this behalf. The point is answered by holding that in cases where the PPP/TD is issued either in breach of sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act or otherwise particularly without an order or proceeding under Section 5 of the Act, an aggrieved party is not without remedy and legal wrong can be canvassed by fling revision under Section 9 of the Act. The remedy available under Section 8 of the Act is always independent and a party if advised, whether before filing the revision or after awaiting the outcome of revision, can work out the remedy of establishing title etc. before the competent civil Court. The other remedies referred in Ratnamma case are to be understood as held in this order."
12. In view of the observations made in the above decisions, if a person is aggrieved by issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he can file a revision under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the Act.
13. Thus, the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer being ultra vires are unsustainable and are liable to be dismissed. As a corollary, the orders passed by respondent no.3-Joint Collector confirming such orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer must also fail and they too are liable to be set aside.
RC,J W.P.No.24535 of 2022 8
14. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the orders of respondent no.3 passed in R.P.No.D.Dis.D7/2670/ 2015, dated 08.04.2022 and the orders of respondent no.4 passed in D.Dis.No.A/20/2015, dated 17.07.2015 are set aside. The concerned shall restore pattadar and title deed passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner. This order does not preclude respondent nos.7 to 10 from taking steps for cancellation of passbooks as per the procedure contemplated under law, if they are so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR