THOTA NARASINGA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the owner of land admeasuring Acs.5.10 in survey Nos.45/2 and 45/3 situated at Nerellavalasa village of Bheemunipatnam Mandal of Visakhapatnam District (subject land, for brevity). He is statedly continuously in possession for over fifty years. In 1995, the third respondent issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed (PPB/TD), vide proceedings, dated 01.05.1995. He states that in July, 2006, he came to know that the PPB/TD issued in 1995 was ordered to be cancelled. On further enquiry, it was revealed to him that third respondent, by letter, dated 18.02.2006, submitted a report and recommended to the second respondent to cancel PPB/TD. As a sequence thereto, the second respondent entertained suo motu appeal purportedly under sub-section (5) of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity) and passed orders vide proceedings No.Ac.6/926/2006/C, dated 20.04.2006, cancelling PPB/TD issued to the petitioner in respect of the subject land. Aggrieved by this, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) It is the main contention of the petitioner that the second respondent lacks suo motu power of appeal against the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) in issuing PPB/TD.

(3.) The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The contents thereof are as follows. As per Settlement Fair Adangal, the subject land in survey Nos.45/2 (Acs.4.48) and 45/3 (Acs.0.62) is held in the name of one Thota Satyanarayana. As per 1-B Register (ROR Register) PPB was issued to the petitioner whereas the pattadar, Thota Satyanarayana, has got three brothers and one son. The fourth respondent submitted an application for cancellation of PPB. The third respondent enquired into the same and found that Thota Satyanarayana, Gurunadha Rao and Lakshminarayana executed unregistered settlement deed in favour of petitioner on 15.05.1950. The MRO entertained a doubt about genuineness of the settlement/gift deed in favour of the petitioner when the survey and settlement operations were taken up in 1956. On enquiry, third respondent came to know that grandfather of the third respondent never executed the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner. The third respondent submitted a report opining that the petitioner obtained PPB on the basis of false and concocted settlement deed and recommended for cancellation. The same was entertained as appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act and notices were sent to the petitioner and third respondent. The notice was not served on the petitioner, and therefore, the same was served by substituted service but he did not attend the enquiry. Therefore, the impugned order is passed based on the record after considering the representation of the fourth respondent. The matter was decided on merits. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations made in the counter affidavit of the second respondent. It is however, not necessary to refer to the same in detail.