KASU RAYAPA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Kasu Rayapa Reddy filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings Revision Petition R.C.No.637 of 2018 D-5 dated 31.10.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal improper unjust and contrary to law and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to change the entries in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.3-00 cents in Sy.No.412/94 of Chamarru Village, Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District, pending disposal of the suit in O.S No.418 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenpalli, Guntur District.

(2.) Petitioner is the absolute owner of agricultural land in extent of Ac.3-00 cents in Sy.No.412/94 of Chamarru Village, Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District. He purchased land of an extent of Ac.2-50 cents in Sy.No.412/94 through registered sale deed dated 20.10.2014 vide Document No.11930/2014 and land of an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No.412/94 through registered sale deed dated 24.10.2014 from Gaddam Kotiratnamma w/o late Venkateswarlu. Originally, the said land belong to Gaddam Venkateswarlu and after the said Venkateswarlu, his wife Kotiratnamma succeeded the property. The name of the original owner Gaddam Kotiratnamma was mutated in the revenue records and she also obtained Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') and continuously she was in possession and enjoyment of the property till sale of the property.

(3.) In the recent times, there is a hike in valuation of the property. Hence, with a view to grab the property, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who are adjoining owners of the property of the petitioner, hatched a plan to grab the said property with a malafide intention and having no right over the property in question, they filed ROR Appeal on 05.11.2015 before the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of Khata No.1930 and Pattadar Passbook No.G317384 said to have been issued in the name of the vendor of this petitioner, Gaddam Kotiratnamma, wherein the petitioner was also arrayed as second respondent. The vendor of the petitioner and her children were also impleaded as party respondents in the said appeal. ROR Appeal was contested by the petitioner and his vendor. The appeal ought not to have entertained on the sole ground that the same was filed beyond the limitation period, without accompanying any application of condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of Limitation Act.