1. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in passing the order dated 05.10.2019 in Revision Petition No.E3/1589/2018, thereby confirming the orders of respondent No.3 dated 03.03.2018 in File No.A/2931/2017 and the order of respondent No.4 dated 03.06.2017 in Rc.No.B/138/2016, as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the A.P Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the ROR Act’) and the Rules made thereunder and consequently, prayed to set aside the orders, dated 05.10.2019.
2. Heard Sri C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.3 to 6, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondents Nos.5 to 7.
3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that originally, Katta Adireddy was the pattadar and owner of land admeasuring Acs.3-27 guntas in Sy.No.374/A of Kadipikonda Village, Hanamkonda Mandal (presently Kazipet Mandal); that on his demise, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 succeeded to the subject property as his legal heirs and they were issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in the year 1994 and 1995; that they executed registered Agreement of sale-cum-General power of attorney, dated 14.09.2007, in favour of one Puli Swamy and others, who in turn executed sale deed dated 29.01.2011 in favour of petitioner Nos.3 to 6; that subsequently petitioner No.4 executed a registered release deed bearing document No.10904/2015 dated 14.10.2015 in favour of petitioner No.3, 5 and 6, thus, petitioner Nos.3, 5 and 6 became absolute owners of the subject property and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
3.1. It is further averred that while so, respondent Nos.5 to 7 approached respondent No.3, objecting the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of late Katta Adireddy, and claimed the subject property based on an unregistered partition deed dated 04.12.1960 and that respondent No.3, without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without conducting any enquiry, passed orders, dated 15.10.2008, cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of late Katta Adireddy; and later, respondent No.4 issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of respondent No.5 to 7. Aggrieved by the orders of respondent No.3 dated 15.10.2008, the petitioners preferred Revision before respondent No.2 and as no action was being taken, they filed W.P.No.16268 of 2012 and the same was disposed of, vide orders dated 05.06.2012, directing respondent No.2 to dispose of the Revision within four weeks and also granted status quo as regards the entries in revenue records for a period of four weeks. In pursuance of the said order, respondent No.2 considered the Revision and dismissed the same by order dated 31.08.2012 and that, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.29022 of 2012 and this Court vide orders dated 24.11.2015 set aside the impugned order therein and remanded the matter to respondent No.4-Tahsildar to consider the application filed by respondent No.5 therein (respondent No.6 herein) and another and to pass orders in accordance of law.
3.2. That in pursuance thereof, respondent No.4 passed orders dated 03.06.2017 in Rc.No.B1/138/2016, confirming the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7; that aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred appeal before respondent No.3, which stood dismissed on 03.06.2017; and that challenging the same, the petitioners preferred Revision before respondent No.2, who, vide orders dated 03.06.2017 dismissed the said case. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.4655/2019 and the same was allowed setting aside the orders passed by respondent No.2 and the matter was remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration and to pass orders in accordance of law. That on remand, the petitioners raised specific contentions before respondent No.2, who dismissed the Revision by orders dated 05.10.2019. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner Nos.3 to 6 submitted that in the impugned order, respondent No.2 observed that the revenue authorities have no competence to decide the genuinity of the unregistered partition deed, but contrary to the same, he confirmed the orders of respondent Nos.3 and 4, whereunder respondent Nos.5 to 7 were issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds based on the unregistered partition deed, dated 04.12.1960.
4.1. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that respondent Nos.5 to 7 have approached the respondent authorities on 22.05.2007, i.e., after a lapse of 12 years, objecting the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of petitioners in the years 1994 and 1995, but, the said delay aspect was ignored by all the hierarchal revenue authorities; and further, the respondent authorities have passed orders without issuing any notice to the petitioners, who are the affected parties, and without conducting any enquiry, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable.
4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.3 has grossly erred in entertaining the objections raised by respondent Nos.5 to 7 in the year 2007, basing their claim on the unregistered alleged partition deed which was executed 48 years ago, i.e., on dated 04.12.1960.
4.3. Learned counsel for petitioner Nos.3 to 6 further submitted that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to give a finding over an alleged unregistered partition deed and decide that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favor of petitioners to be illegal. He finally submitted that the respondent authorities failed to consider the documents and submissions made by petitioners and upheld the rights of respondent Nos.5 to 7 based on an alleged partition deed, therefore, the respondent authorities have committed grave illegality and irregularity in passing the orders and hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.3 to 6 relied upon the following judgments rendered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh:-
1. Adapa Poshetty V. Sri Venkata Raja Reddy Nagula (W.A No.507/2019)
2. Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy V. Joint Collector(2008 SCC Online AP 533)
3. B. Pushpamma V. Joint Collector(2005(1)ALT240)
6. In Adapa Poshetty’s case (cited supra), it is held as follows
“The Revenue Divisional Officer exercising powers under Section-5(B) of the Act, 1971, must follow the procedure prescribed, including the payment of court fees and setting forth the grounds of appeal. Jurisdiction cannot be created by consent or submission of parties.”
7. In Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy case (cited supra), it is held as hereunder:-
“The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) can exercise appellate jurisdiction under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 197, only when a proper statutory appeal is filed within the prescribed limitation and in the manner required by Rule 21 of the Rules,1889.”
8. In B. Pushpamma’s case (cited supra), it is held as follows:-
“A partition deed is not an “alienation” or “transfer” within the meaning of Section 5-A, because partition merely adjusts pre-existing rights among co-sharers; it does not create a transfer of ownership from one person to another. Therefore, an unregistered partition deed cannot be regularized under Section 5-A and the proper remedy is mutation under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, not validation under Section 5-A. When there is a serious dispute regarding title or exclusive ownership, revenue authorities cannot decide such questions in a summary enquiry under the Act, 1971 and it can be decided only by a competent civil court.”
9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 submitted that originally one Katta Mallaiah @ Malla Reddy had lands in Sy.No.374 admeasuring Acs.16.02 guntas and Acs.9.34 guntas in Sy.No.380; that after his demise, his four sons partitioned the aforesaid lands on 04.12.1960; that Katta Adireddy-one of the sons of Katta Mallaiah sold the entire extent of land i.e., Acs.4.37 gts which fell to his share in Sy.No.380 to one Katta Seetharam Reddy and his son-Katta Jagan Mohan Reddy.
9.1. Learned counsel further submitted that after the demise of Katta Adireddy, his wife and his son i.e., petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein fraudulently executed a registered G.P.A dated 07.07.2011 vide Doc.No.240 in favour of Sri Budde Venkateshwarlu and Gare Venkatesh in respect of land admeasuring Acs.4.37 guntas in Sy.No.380. Further, they sold an extent of Ac.1.22 guntas in Sy.No.374 on 29.02.2000 to Gangula Vasudeva Reddy, who in turn, sold the same to Dameruppula Bhadraiah and the same is evident from the affidavit which is given by petitioner No.3 to Tahsildar, Hanmakonda. That from the sales effected by Katta Adireddy during his lifetime, and also by his wife and son after his demise, it is evident that the entire extent of land in Sy.Nos.374 and 380 which fell to the share of Katta Adireddy was alienated.
9.2. He further submitted that the wife and son of Katta Adireddy have applied for mutation in the year 1998 for the land in Sy.No.374/A by way of succession, but the same was rejected by respondent No.4-Tahsildar on the ground that Katta Adireddy had alienated the said property and reported to respondent No.3.
9.3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 further submitted that no notice was issued to respondent Nos.5 to 7 before issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners; that on coming to know about issuance of pattadar passbooks in favour of petitioners, respondent Nos.5 to 7 approached the revenue authorities for cancellation of the same and respondent No.3, after issuing notice to the petitioners and after following due procedure, had passed order dated 15.10.2008 observing that pattadar pass books issued in favour of petitioners are irregular and accordingly, cancelled the same and issued pattadar pass books in favour of respondent No.5 to 7 on 19.03.2008; and the said orders of respondent No.3 was rightly confirmed by respondent No.2.
9.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the suit in OS.No.902 of 2022 (Old OS.No.46 of 2012) filed by respondent No.5 herein seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over land admeasuring Acs.3.27 guntas in Sy.No.374/A was decreed, vide judgment and decree dated 24.01.2024. The said matter was carried in Appeal before the Court of I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, in AS.No.10 of 2024 and the said Appeal stood dismissed, and thus, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have no land in Sy.No.374/A, and as such, petitioners Nos.3 to 6, who are the subsequent purchasers have no right or title over the land in Sy.No.374/A and hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
10. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel for respondents relied upon the judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chinnam Pandurangam V. Mandal Revenue Officer(2007(6) ALT 134 (FB)) and Ratnamma V. Revenue Divisional Officer(2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB)).
11. In Chinnam Pandurangam’s case (cited supra), it is held thus:-
“notice shall be issued to all persons whose names are entered in the revenue records and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment.”
12. In Ratnamma’s case (cited supra)( 2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB)), it is held as follows:-
“An appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 is not maintainable against the mere issuance of Pattadar Pass Books (PPB) or Title Deeds (TD) under Section 6-A of the Act.”
13. This Court considered the applicability of the citations relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, to the present case.
14. In Adapa Poshetty’s case, it is held that the Revenue Divisional Officer must follow the procedure prescribed under Section 5(B) of the ROR Act. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioners except vaguely contending that proper procedure was not followed by the RDO, has failed point out as to how the RDO has deviated from the procedure prescribed under the ROR Act.
15. As regards the limitation prescribed by Rule-21 of the Rules, 1889, for filing a statutory appeal as observed in Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy’s case (cited supra by learned counsel for petitioners), there is no quarrel with regard to the limitation aspect, however, in the instant case, it is to be seen that at the first instance, when respondent Nos.5 to 7 filed appeal before the RDO seeking cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein, though petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein were served with notices, they have not chosen to appear before respondent No.2-RDO and put forth their case along with relevant documents and hence, respondent No.2, basing on the documents filed by respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein and the report of the Tahsildar, cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 approached this Court as many as three times by filing Writ Petitions and in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions, the matter was remanded to respondent No.4-Tahsildar and subsequently, challenging the order passed by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, appeal was filed, which was dismissed and later, the Revision filed against the said order also stood dismissed. Perusal of record shows that before none of the revenue authorities or this Court, the petitioners have agitated the limitation aspect and further, the matter being lying before the revenue authorities since 2007 and decided by hierarchal authorities basing on merits, now, it is not open to the petitioners to raise the limitation aspect, and as such, the aspect of limitation which is sought to be raised by learned counsel for petitioners in the present Writ Petition assumes no importance.
16. In B.Pushpamma’s case (cited supra), which is relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners, it is held that unregistered partition deed cannot be regularised under Sections 4 and 5 of the ROR Act and that, when there is a serious dispute regarding title or exclusive ownership, revenue authorities cannot decide such questions in a summary enquiry under the ROR Act, 1971.
17. In the instant case, the parties have already approached the competent civil Court by filing OS.No.205 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, and that aggrieved by the judgment rendered therein, the unsuccessful party carried the matter in appeal before the High Court and the matter is pending consideration before this Court. So, it cannot be said that revenue authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction and decided the title or exclusive ownership of the parties.
18. The ratio laid down by the Full Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chinnam Pandurangam’s case (cited supra), that notice shall be issued to all persons whose names are entered in the revenue records and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment, is squarely applicable to be case on hand, since the respondent authorities have not issued any notice to respondent Nos.5 to 7, who are the affected parties, before issuing pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners.
19. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material available on record.
20. Admittedly, one Katta Mallaiah was owner of land admeasuring Acs.25.36 guntas in Sy.Nos.374 and 380 of Kadipikonda Village, Hanamkonda Mandal (presently Kazipet Mandal). According to respondent Nos.5 to 7, the said lands were partitioned among his four sons, viz., Seetharam Reddy, Samba Reddy, Adi Reddy and Krishna Reddy, through unregistered partition deed dated 04.12.1960, in which, Katta Adi Reddy was allotted an extent of Ac.1.22 gts in Sy.No.374 and Katta Seetha Ram Reddy, father of rsp Nos.5 to 7, was allotted an extent of Acs.6.19 guntas towards his share in Sy.No.374 and subsequently, he purchased an extent of Ac.1.24 gts and Ac.1.27 gts in Sy.No.374 from his brother-Samba Reddy on 28.12.1965 and 12.04.1973, respectively and also purchased an extent of Ac.1.22 gts in Sy.No.374 from Krishna Reddy on 24.02.1965, which fell to their respective shares in the partition, and thus, Katta Seetharam Reddy became owner and possessor of Acs.11.12 gts in Sy.No.374. Whereas, petitioner Nos.1 and 2, successors of Katta Adi Reddy, disputed the genuineness of the alleged unregistered partition deed.
21. To resolve this aspect primarily, it is appropriate to peruse the pahanies that are produced before this Court.
22. In the Khasara pahani of the year 1954-55, which is a foundational revenue document that details agricultural land parcels and a crucial record for determining ownership, the total extent of Sy.No.374 is mentioned as Acs.13.34 gts, which is sub-divided as Sy.No.374/A to an extent of Acs.11.03 gts and Sy.No.374/AA (subsequently, mentioned as Sy.No.374/B)to an extent of Acs.2.31 gts.
23. In the pahanies of the year 1964-65, which is said to be after partition among the sons of Katta Mallaiah in the year 1960, the names of all his sons were reflected therein as joint pattadars of land in Sy.No.374/A to an extent of Acs.11.03, the name of Seetharam Reddy was shown as pattadar for an extent of Ac.1.22 gts in Sy.No.374/B.
24. In the pahanies of the years 1970-71, 1980-81, 1982-1983, 1984-85, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1990-91, and in all the said pahanies, except for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96, the name of Seetharam Reddy is shown as pattadar of Acs.11.03 gts of land in Sy.No.374/A and the name of Adi Reddy along with Samba Reddy is shown as pattadar of Acs.2.31 gts of land in Sy.No.374/B. In none of the pahanies, the name of Adi Reddy is reflected as pattadar against Sy.No.374/A. Further, the said pahanies show that Adi Reddy is pattadar of Ac.1.22 guntas in Sy.No.374/B.
25. Thus, in the pahani of the year 1960-61, the names of Mallaiah and Seetharam Reddy were reflected as pattadars of Sy.Nos.374/A and 374/B and in pahanies of the subsequent years, the name of Katta Mallaiah is not shown, and only the names of his sons were reflected therein against their respective extents.
26. It is trite to note that during the life time of Katta Adi Reddy, he never challenged the entries in the pahanies, which were allegedly made pursuant to the shares allotted in the unregistered partition deed, therefore, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, being successors of Katta Adi Reddy, are estopped from claiming that the alleged partition deed is forged and fabricated one.
27. A perusal of the impugned order passed by respondent No.2-Joint Collector shows that in paragraph No.43 of the said order, respondent No.2 has particularly pointed out the said aspect and answered the same, which is in accordance with the law laid down in B.Pushpamma’s case (cited supra).
28. This Court has meticulously perused all the material available on record, particularly the pahanies filed by both the parties.
29. Furthermore, in the impugned order, respondent No.2 has noted that in the pahanies of the years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96, the name of Katta Seetharam Reddy is recorded as pattadar and names of Adireddy, Venkat Reddy and Katta Seetharam Reddy were recorded as occupants without mentioning the extents in their occupation individually.
30. However, in the pahani of the year 1996-97, the names of Katta Seetharam Reddy, Katta Adi Reddy and Katta Samba Reddy were recorded as pattadars and in occupants column, seetharam Reddy is shown as occupant of Acs.3.28 gts and Katta Adi Reddy is shown as occupant of Acs.3.27 gts. However, in the pahani of the year 1997-98, Katta Seetharam Reddy is shown as occupant of Acs.7.26 gts and Katta Adi Reddy is occupant of Acs.3.27 gts.
31. Thus, the entries in the pahanies against the pattadar and occupier columns are not consistent and there is a lot of discrepancy in the extents shown against the parties in the occupiers column. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 claim right and title over an extent of Acs.3.27 gts in Sy.No.374/A having succeeded from Katta Adi Reddy. However, no document is placed on record as to how the said extent of land is succeeded by them from Katta Adi Reddy. When the revenue entries consistently show the name of Katta Seetharam Reddy against Sy.No.374/A to an extent of Acs.11.03 gts, the petitioners claim of Acs.3.27 gts in the said Survey Number is under cloud of suspicion and is untenable.
32. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records are not conclusive proof of title and ownership, but it is merely for fiscal purposes. (See Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao & Ors Vs. Government of A.P. & Ors(2026 INSC 450(kanoon)(SC)) ). Therefore, prima facie, though the entries in the pahanies does not decide the title and ownership, the parties who claim title and ownership over the land contrary to the entries in the revenue records have to necessarily prove the same by adducing other relevant documents. In the instant case, in almost all the revenue records, though the name of Adi Reddy is reflected as pattadar as against Sy.No.374/B, this Court is at loss to understand as to how petitioner Nos.1 and 2 claim to have succeeded to Acs.3.27 gts in Sy.No.374/A from one Adi Reddy and obtained pattadar pass books to that effect in the year 1994-95.
33. In addition to the above, in the impugned order, respondent No.2 has categorically observed that even on inspection by the Tahsildar, respondent Nos.5 to 7 were found to be in possession of land in Sy.No.374/A. Therefore, petitioner Nos.3 to 6 who claim to be subsequent purchasers from petitioner Nos.1 and 2 cannot have better title than their vendors.
34. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that respondent No.2 has rightly appreciated the material placed before him and passed the impugned order with sound reasons and findings and as such, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
35. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
36. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
