Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nomula Ravindra Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 September, 2025
APHC010034492023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 1759/2023
BETWEEN:
1. NOMULA RAVINDRA BABU, S/O YESUDASU, QUARTER
NO.JE151, A-COLONY, VTPS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR
DISTRICT-521456
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETERIAT,
AMARAVATHI.
2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT.
3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R.DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHSILDHAR, CHANDARLAPADU, NANDIGAMA, N.T.R
DISTRICT.
5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDIGAMA, N.T.R
DISTRICT
6. NOMULA PURUSHOTHAM, S/O LATE YOHAN, R/O SRI
VERNAL RAJA RAM ENCLAVE, 16-11-511/D, SURVEY NO-
140 TO 144, FLAT NO- 304, STREET NO-17, SALIVAHANA
NAGAR, DIISHUKNAGAR, HYDERABAD
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that
in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High
Court may be pleased to set aside the appeal orders passed by the
Respondent n.3 vide set aside the orders dated 28-5-2021 vide.
Computer No.8386697, File No.SCVJ - LANDO ROR (CNP)/9/2020-
SA(A@) - SCO-VJA, as the said proceedings are illegal, arbitrary,
contrary to Law and passed with out jurisdiction and to setaside the
Revision order passed by the Respondent no.2 vide
Rc.CORD/225/2022 dated 11-1-2023 issued by Joint Collector, NTR
2
District, Vijayawada, as the said proceedings are illegal, arbitrary,
contrary to Law and passed with out jurisdiction and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. BHANU PRASAD CHUKKAPALLI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. K PALLAVI
The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to set aside the appeal orders passed by the Respondent No.3 vide set aside orders dated 28.5.2021 vide Computer No.8386697, File No.SCVJ-LAND0 ROR (CNP)9/2020-SA(A@) - SCO-VJA, as the said proceedings are illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Law and passed without jurisdiction and to set aside the Revision order passed by the Respondent No.2 vide Rc.CORD/225/2022 dated 11.1.2023 issued by Joint Collector, NTR District, Vijayawada, as the said proceedings are illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Law and passed without jurisdiction and pass such other order or orders......"
2. The petitioner's counsel would submit that there is a oral partition in between the petitioner's father and the unofficial 6th respondent, and petitioner's father got property of Ac.4.00 cents in RS Nos.218/1 and 80 of Gudimetla village and after the death of petitioner's father, Petitioner applied for the Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents. The 4th respondent has issued Pattadar Pass books and title deeds in the year 1997 after due verification and subject to satisfaction of the Revenue Rules.
4
3. The Writ Petitioner filed affidavit in support of the Writ Petition stating that the Unofficial 6th Respondent herein made an application to the Appellate Authority-cum-Sub-Collector to cancel the Pattadar Pass Books issued in favour of the Petitioner herein i.e. Sri Nomula Ravi Babu, asserting that his father Sri Nomula Yohan has got property to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in RS No.218/1 and in an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in RS 80 total extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Gudimetla Village, Chandarlapadu Mandal. And his father is having three children i.e. one daughter namely Smt. Manikyamma died, two sons namely Sri Nomula Yesudasu and Sri Nomula Purushotham. And the Unofficial 6th Respondent's father has not executed any Gift Deed or Partition Deed in his life time and died on 02.12.1982. After death of his father, the Unofficial 6th Respondent and Writ Petitioner's father are the legal heirs of the scheduled property. And the Unofficial 6th Respondent's brother died on 02.03.1996, after the death of his brother, Sri Nomula Ravi Babu who is his brother's son has obtained Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds to total extent of Ac.4.00 cents in RS 218/1 and RS 80 of Gudimetla Village, Chandrlapadu Mandal. And the Appellate Authority has called for report from the 4th Respondent-Tahsildar and after considering the facts and law rejected the appeal, vide order dated 28.05.2021 with the following observation "that there is a title dispute for the joint family property is 5 involved, without any partitions, this authority is not competent to decide the Title at this end, as the Civil Courts have accommodated to decide declaration of title".
4. Assailing the said order, the Unofficial 6th Respondent has filed Revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act), the Revisional Authority has allowed the Revision by setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 28.05.2021 and held that if the Unofficial 6th Respondent found to have been dispossessed from the said property, he shall be at liberty to recover the said property.
5. The order of the Revisional Authority has assailed in the present Writ Petition on the ground that the application filed by the Unofficial 6th Respondent before the Sub-Collector is not maintainable and it is contrary to law and the Appellate Authority ought not have been entertain the Appeal which is contrary to the judgment of the common High Court in Ratnamma v. RDO, Dharmavaram1 and relied on the order of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.3465 of 2020 and learned single Judge of this Court relying on the judgment referred (supra 1), has held that filing a representation is not a appeal to issue Pattadar Pass Books, Title Deeds or entering names of the Petitioner in 1 2015 (1) ALT 361 6 the Revenue Records. Even otherwise the Appeal has to be preferred as prescribed under Section 5(5) of the Act. In the teeth of the above judgments, the Petitioner's counsel urges this Court to set aside impugned order of the Revisional Authority dated 11.01.2023. This Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 25.01.2023, directed that the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 11.01.2023, shall not be effective.
6. The Unofficial 6th Respondent has filed I.A. No.4 of 2023 to vacate the interim orders passed by this Court dated 25.01.2023. It is the case of the Unofficial 6th Respondent that he was an employee in Syndicate Bank and his brother is an employee of Electricity Department. Therefore, by reason of his employment he used to get transfer frequently to number of places and the Writ Petitioner fraudulently changed name in the revenue records without being the resident of the village due to the employment.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Unofficial 6th Respondent would submit that the Writ Petitioner has obtained the Pattadar Pass Books fraudulently without issuing any notice as stipulated in the Act and contrary to the Full Bench Judgment in Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal and others2. The very, obtaining of Pattadar Pass Books by the Writ Petitioner is contrary 2 AIR 2008 AP 15 7 to law. In view of the same the order under challenge is sustainable. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
8. A "fraud" is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage and further stated that property is a joint family property, before issuance of Pattadar Pass Books to the Petitioner herein, the then Tahsildar has not issued any notice to the Unofficial 6th Respondent herein and the very issuance of the Pattadar Pass Books in favour of the Writ Petitioner is contrary to the Judgment of Full Bench of the common High Court in Chinnam Pandurangam case (referred supra 2). The judgment of the Full Bench emphasized the primary requirement of putting of notice on the person interested or affected.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent-Joint Collector filed his counter and stated that on local enquiry conducted by the field level staff, it was revealed that the land belongs to the Petitioner and Unofficial 6th Respondent. During the Panchanama, the Panchayat Dars have stated that the scheduled property belong to both the Petitioner and the Unofficial 6th Respondent and the Appellate 8 Authority has dismissed the appeal with an observation that "this authority is not competent to decide the title at this end, as the Civil Court is having competent jurisdiction to decide the declaration of title". As such the Unofficial 6th Respondent filed Revision Petition before the 2nd Respondent-Join Collector on the ground that the entries were ported in the Web-land Adangal without any registered document produced by the Writ Petitioner.
10. Point for consideration:
After reviewing the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent (Revisional Authority), there was indeed no adverse finding against the Writ Petitioner; the Joint Collector instead observed that the Unofficial 6th Respondent, found to have been dispossessed from the property, shall be at liberty to recover it. As there is no adverse order, hence on the said ground the writ petition can be dismissed.
11. No doubt about the proposition laid in the Judgment relied by the petitioners in Ratnamma's case (referred supra 1) that a representation cannot be considered as appeal and appeal cannot be accepted after the prescribed period, and cannot be filed unless there is an existing impugned order.
12. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971 and Rule 19 (1) of the Rules framed 9 there under, the Act mandates a notice shall be issued to the affected parties: and the notice is referred to, in Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act shall be in Form VIII. And such notice together with a copy of the amendment shall also be published in the manner specified in clause (a) to (e) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5.
13. The Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Chinnam Pandurangam's case (referred supra), it is held that the principle laid down in the judgment, certain procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the Act is mandatory.
14. In the present case, the then Tahsildar has substituted the name of the petitioner in the Web land without following the procedure and in violation of natural justice, hence mutating the name of the Petitioner is contrary to law. Hence, the mutation in the name of the Petitioner in the web land is contrary to the Act and procedure, hence, it is liable to set aside.
15. As per the panchanama report conducted in the village, the land is joint family property and the Unofficial 6th Respondent is having share in the property, the Writ Petitioner herein got mutated the name without following the procedure under the Act 1971 and it is the specific pleading of the Unofficial 6th Respondent that Writ Petitioner fraudulently changed the name in the revenue record without being a 10 resident of the village due to employment and it is further pleading that the property is joint family property and he is having share and the same was not partitioned and no gift deed was executed by his father who acquired the property.
16. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath3, the Supreme Court held as follows:
The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax- evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
17. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh & Ors.4, this Court observed that "Fraud and justice never dwell together"
(Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has not lost temper over all these centuries. It means that any solemn act or 3 (1994) 1 SCC 1 4 2000 (3) SCC 581 11 solemn order obtained through fraudulent means is invalid or non-
existent in the eyes of the law, and anyone benefiting from such fraud must not be allowed to retain those benefits A similar view has been reiterated by the Aped Court in M.P. Mittal v. State of Haryana & Ors5
18. Though fraud has to be established in a particular manner, but however the Writ Petitioner has not denied or not having filed an affidavit-in-rejoinder, denying the averments made in the vacate petition Hence, the petitioner would be deemed to have admitted and acquiesced the facts stated in the counter affidavit. Under Order VIII, Rule 5, C.P.C., if a specific averment in a petition has not been specifically denied in reply, it will be deemed to have been admitted. Although the C.P.C. does not in terms apply to writ proceedings, in the opinion of this Court, the general principles of the C.P.C. applied. Hence, Order VIII, Rule 5, C.P.C., is applicable to writ proceedings also. Hence, the allegations in the vacate petition filed in the writ petition have to be treated as admitted by the Writ Petitioner.
19. The uncontroverted facts are the absence of partition among the family members of the Unofficial 6th Respondent. No Gift Deed was executed by the father of the Unofficial 6th Respondent favouring anyone and conducting of local enquiry. It was also not denied that changing the name of the writ petitioner in the revenue records for the 5 1984 (4) SCC 371 12 joint family property which was contrary to the legal principles established by the High Court of A.P. in the Chinnam Pandurangam case (referred supra 2).
21. Hence, for the discussion supra the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. However, no costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 11.09.2025 Harin 13 130 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 1759 OF 2023 Date: 11-09-2025 Harin