BONUS REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the order in proceedings D. DIS D4/1873/2004 dated 05.05.2013 of respondent No. 2 confirming the order in proceedings D. Dis B2/4799/03 dated 12.02.2004 of respondent No. 3. In August, 2001, respondent No. 4 granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of Acs. 7.80 cents of land in survey Nos. 274/2 and 244/3 etc., in favour of respondent No. 5. More than two years later, the father of the petitioner approached respondent No. 4 feeling aggrieved by the said action. Respondent No. 4, thereupon, referred the dispute to respondent No. 3, who entertained the dispute as an appeal and after hearing both the parties, respondent No. 3 opined that since the parties are claiming rights through their respective Wills set up by them, it is appropriate that the parties get their dispute settled through a civil suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner's father filed a revision petition purportedly under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') before respondent No. 2. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner's father died. The petitioner has, therefore, come on record in place of his deceased father. After hearing both the parties, respondent No. 2 has endorsed the view taken by respondent No. 3 and dismissed the revision petition.

(2.) At the hearing, Sri T. Vijay Hanuman Singh, learned counsel representing Sri P. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously argued that before issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of respondent No. 5, respondent No. 4 has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act as no notice was issued to the petitioner's father and that therefore, issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of respondent No. 5 is vitiated.

(3.) If a person is aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he is entitled to file an appeal before respondent No. 3. It needs to be observed at this stage that even though Section 5(5) of the Act does not in express terms subject issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds under Section 6A of the Act to the appellate jurisdiction under Section 5(5) of the Act, this Court in many a case interpreted Section 5(5) of the Act as to comprehend an action taken under Section 6A of the Act as well. Therefore, the father of the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act before respondent No. 3. Instead, he has approached respondent No. 4 with a petition, which was forwarded by the said respondent to respondent No. 3, who thereupon treated the same as an appeal. This procedure, in my opinion, is not envisaged under the Act.