MUVVA ATCHUTHA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner and respondent No.6 are son and father. Respondent No.6, claiming to be owner of the property, made representation before respondent No.4 to cancel pattadar passbook and title deeds granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of land to an extent of Ac.1-41 cents, Ac.1-32 cents and Ac.0-17 cents in survey Nos. 28/1A, 24/3 and 28/3 respectively in Yendrai Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District. In the representation, respondent No.6 stated that by virtue of registered partition, dtd. 22/7/1965, the property referred to supra fell to his share and other properties fell to the share of the petitioner. In the partition deed, there was a clause that respondent No.6 will enjoy the property during his life time and after death of respondent No.6, the properties will be vested with the petitioner. Respondent No.4 without conducting proper enquiry cancelled the pattedar passbook and title deed vide Rc.No.9680/2015-A dtd. 18/4/2016. Against the said order, petitioner preferred revision before respondent No.3 vide D.Dis.No.1675/2016-D5 and the same was dismissed by respondent No.3, on 23/1/2018. Aggrieved by the same, the above writ petition is filed.

(3.) Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5. It was contended, inter alia, that as per the available record, subject property is recorded as patta land, which is ancestral property of respondent No.6. Partition of properties was affected between the petitioner and respondent No.6 vide document No.1137 of 1965 dtd. 22/7/1965. The subject property of this writ petition is in enjoyment of respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 made representation to respondent No.4 under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short the 'ROR Act'), requesting to cancel the entries pertaining to the property mentioned supra, in pattadar passbook, issued in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.4, after conducting enquiry passed the order, against which revision was filed and the same was dismissed. Respondent No.4 considered representation as appeal under Sec. 5(5) of the ROR Act and thereafter passed orders.