Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Therefore, he submits that the statutory remedies available to an aggrieved party against arbitrary and illegal issuance of PPP/TD is required to be considered and protected keeping in view the scope, object and the purpose of the Act.

The Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contends that Ratnamma case has considered the scope, purpose and object of both Sections 5-A and 6-A of the Act and held that appeal is not maintainable against a decision taken or issue of PPP/TD under Section 6-A of the Act. On the maintainability of the revision under Section 9 of the Act, it is contended that the Collector either suo motu or on an application made to him, firstly can call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B of the Act 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. The PPP/TD issued under Section 6-A of the Act does not have any independent standing, but it is a reflection of entries maintained in 1- B Register by the Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer, as the case may be, therefore, an irregularity or illegality in issuing PPP/TD could be examined in revision under Section 9 of the Act. Adverting to the case on hand, particularly after taking note of endorsement issued by respondent No.4, he submits that respondent Nos.5 and 6 can file a revision challenging the entry, maintenance or continuance of the name of the petitioner in record of right together with issuing PPP, and the Collector is under obligation to call for the record, examine legality, correctness or propriety and pass any of the three orders which the Collector empowered to. According to him, the principle in Ratnamma case ought not to be misunderstood as taking away the remedy of revision under Section 9 of the Act.

Section 6-A sub section (2) mandates the Mandal Revenue Officer to cause enquiry on the application made under Section 6- A sub section (1) of the Act in such manner as may be prescribed and shall issue PPP/TD in accordance with the record of rights with such particulars and in such form as may be prescribed. (emphasis added) Therefore, Section 6-A(2) empowers the Mandal Revenue Officer, after due enquiry to issue, PPP/TD, in accordance with the record of rights with such particulars and in such form as may be prescribed. Therefore, the corollary to possessing PPP/TD is that the same contains the details of record of right maintained in Form No.1. Proviso to Section 6-A(2) regulates the discretion of Mandal Revenue Officer in issuing PPP/TD only viz. upon the record of rights has been brought up to date. In the case on hand, the Mandal Revenue Officer without passing order or updating the record under one or the other provisions under the Act or issued PPP/TD to writ petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 pursued the remedy of appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer. For the view taken by the Division Bench in Ratnamma case the remedy of appeal against mere issue of PPP/TD is denied to an aggrieved person.

Now, the next question is whether an aggrieved person is also denied a statutory remedy against issue of PPP/TD under Section 9 of the Act or not.

Point No.2: As already noted, respondent Nos.5 and 6 claim Ac.1.20 cents each in Survey No.266 of Banavanuru Village, Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District. According to respondent Nos.5 and 6, the petitioner, without right or entitlement to the entire extent of Acs.3.61 cents, secured PPP/TD in her favour. The issue of PPP/TD in favour of petitioner is not in accordance with 1-B Register maintained or the PPP/TD is issued pursuant to order passed under Section 5 of the Act. The existence of PPP/TD is not disputed either by the petitioner or by respondent No.4. Section 6-A of the Act and Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 deal with enquiry, issue of PPP etc., and Section 6-A excerpted hereunder:

The scheme of the Act is considered by the Full Bench in Santosh Verma Vs. 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. 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 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.