CHINNAM PANDURANGAM Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been placed before the Larger Bench for considering whether the judgment of the Division Bench in B.G.Laxman (died) per L.Rs. v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District runs contrary to the plain language of Section 5 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act') and requires re-consideration.

(2.) Petitioner- Chinnam Pandurangam and respondent No.3 - Chinnam Narsimlu are real brothers. Their father Manaiah died in 1984 leaving behind several properties including land measuring Ac. 1-14 guntas comprised in Survey No.346 of Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Even after his death, the name of late Manaiah continued to be shown as pattedar in the Record of Rights. On 24.3.2001, the petitioner made an application to Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (respondent No. 1 herein) to mutate his own name along with that of respondent No.3 in respect of the land comprised in Survey No.346 in equal shares. The same was rejected by respondent No.1 vide his order dated 4.8.2001 on the ground that the land in question is being used for non-agricultural purpose and the provisions of the Act are not applicable to such land. The petitioner challenged that order in Writ Petition No.5213 of 2004. During the pendency of that petition, respondent No.3 made an application dated 20.1.2004 for review of order dated 4.8.2001 and mutation of his name in the revenue records to the extent of land allotted to his share in the partition effected on 1.6.1981. Respondent No.1 got published a notice in Form-VIII inviting claims and objections from the public and then passed order dated 16.3.2004 mutating the names of respondent No.3 and the petitioner to the extent of 0.29 guntas and 0.06 guntas respectively.

(3.) The petitioner questioned the aforementioned order in Writ Petition No.7868 of 2004 on the ground of violation of Section 5 (3) of the Act and the rules of natural justice by contending that he was not given notice of the application filed by respondent No.3. In the counter filed by respondent No.3, it was averred that the publication of notice in Form-VIII was sufficient compliance of Section 5(3) of the Act.