KRISHTAPPA Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue in the writ petition arises under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act'). The present writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to and leading upto Proceedings No. (B)2301/97, dated 8.1.1998 of the 2nd respondent and as confirmed in Proceedings No. D4/7123/98, dated 13.3.2003 and quash the same.

(2.) The averments in brief are as follows:

(3.) It is borne out by record that after issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of writ petitioners, respondents 4 to 6 filed objection petition before the Tahsildar, Kundurpi Mandal against the issuance of pattadar passbooks for the extents stated above. The grievance before Tahsildar was that pattadar passbooks were issued to petitioners for more extent than what is actually possessed by them on ground. It appears through the said objection, respondents 4 to 6 requested respondent No.3 to effect necessary changes to the extent column in the passbooks already issued to writ petitioners. From the order of respondent No.2, it is clear that the 3rd respondent with a report has forwarded the objection of respondents 4 to 6 to the 2nd respondent, who in turn has taken up the matter in File No. (B)2301/97, dated 8.1.1998, as if an appeal is presented against pattadar passbooks referred to above. It is relevant to refer at this stage that respondents 4 to 6 have not filed appeal against the order updating the record of rights for Sy. No. 204-2A of Kundurpi Village under Section 5 of the Act. The 2nd respondent by assuming the jurisdiction of appeal against the grant of pattadar passbooks ordered notices to writ petitioners. The order of the 2nd respondent dated 8.1.1998 refers to the alleged attempt of respondent No. 3 to serve the notices on writ petitioners and the alleged blunt refusal by them. The fact of the matter is that without presentation of appeal against an order updating issuance of pattadar pass books much less without hearing the writ petitioners, the 2nd respondent directed change of extents in the pattadar passbooks in line with Rule 26 sub-rule (6) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules'). The writ petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer filed revision before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent through order dated 13.3.2003 has gone into various aspects of matter, but not the real controversy in the matter, confirmed the order of 2nd respondent dated 8.1.1998. Hence, the writ petition.