IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 9932 of 2008 Between: Mannuru Venugopal Reddy S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy R/o. D.No. 615/42, Peddakapu Layout, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District 2 The Tahsildar, Yer[edu Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 Smt. Indira Raju, W/o. V.N.Raju, rep. by its GPA, R.L.N.P.K. Ranga Rao, S/o. Raja Rao Ramalinga Rayaningaru R/o. Nehru Street, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction order or orders callings for the records relating to the order passed by the R.D.O. the 1st respondent in Roc.No. 2166/2007 dated 5-4-2008 and quash the same as wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and void and also offending the principles or natural justice in so far it relates to the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.P.CHANDRAMOULI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} O R D E R:- Questioning the order dated 05.04.2008, passed by the 1st respondent, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, allowing the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent and canceling the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued by the 2nd respondent, namely the Tahsildar, Yerpedu Mandal, in respect of the land in question, in his favour and four others, as being illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner asserts that one D. Achamamba, who is the owner of the land in an extent of Acs. 4.49 cents with a kunta in Paimash No.1186 situated in Chinna Anjimedu village, sold the same to one Arangonda Ramakrishnaiah Mudali, under registered sale deed dated 22.02.1946. The said purchaser, subsequently gifted the same to his daughter one Nanamma towards pasupu kunkuma. Subsequently, the said Nanamma, sold the same to one Gajjala Subrahmanyam, under a registered sale deed dated 02.07.1986. Later, the said Gajjala Subrahmanyam, sold the land in question to the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 24.07.1989, and since then the petitioner states that has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While the matters stood thus, the petitioner states that the 3rd respondent, represented by her GPA filed suit in O.S. No. 23 of 1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, seeking declaration of her title and permanent injunction, inter alia stating that she is the joint owner of the land in question along with four others, and that taking advantage of her absence in the village, the petitioner had encroached upon the land in an extent of Acs. 4.49 cents. The petitioner states that he contested the suit by filing written statement, and that the said Court after framing the issues and conducting full-fledged trial, and after considering the rival contentions and on appreciation of the evidence on record, by judgment dated 09.11.2002, dismissed the suit filed by the 3rd respondent. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner states that the 3rd respondent preferred appeal in A.S. No. 3 of 2003 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Tirupati, and the same is still pending. Thereafter, the petitioner states that he applied for grant of pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the land in question under the provisions of Section 6-A of the Right in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and the 2nd respondent, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yerpedu, after enquiry, issued pattadar pass book and title deed to him on 10.03.2006. Questioning the issuance of pattadar passbook and title deeds by the 2nd respondent, in his favour, the petitioner states that the 3rd respondent preferred appeal before the 1st respondent, stating that the petitioner got included his name as joint pattadar along with four others. Questioning the maintainability of the said appeal, the petitioner states that he filed writ petition in W.P. No. 4030 of 2008, and brought the same to the notice of the 1st respondent. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the 1st respondent, without considering the same, passed the impugned order dated 05.04.2008 allowing the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent, and cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds, issued in the name of the petitioner and four other persons. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner filed a Memo dated 5.4.2008 before the 1st respondent to the effect that he filed W.P. No.4030 of 2008 seeking declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in entertaining the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent, as arbitrary and illegal, and that the same is pending, the 1st respondent, without taking the same into consideration and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his version, allowed the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent, vide orders dated 5.4.2008, and cancelled the pattadar pass book and title deed granted in his favour. Heard Sri. M.P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for official 1st and 2nd respondents and Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent, allowed the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent and cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds granted in his favour in respect of the land in question, mainly on the following grounds: a) The Recording Authority has failed to issue notices in writing to the affected persons, which is mandatory U/s.5(3) of the R.O.R. Act. b) Sub-Division statements must be prepared according to the possession and enjoyment in the instant case no sub-division records were prepared. c) When the matter is pending before the civil Court, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued pattadar passbook and title deeds is sub judice. In the instance case, A.S.No.5/2002 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Tirupati is pending. Apart from the above grounds, the 1st respondent, on verification of the file, further found that no notice inviting objections, if any, from interested persons, that no link documents were verified, that no enquiry was conducted either by the recording authority or by the Mandal Revenue Officer, and that simple mentioning in Telugu that the claimant purchased the lands through registered document, granted pattadar pass books and title deeds. Observing so, he passed the following order: In the circumstances mentioned above, the pattadar pass book and title deeds granted in favour of Sri (1) P.Mohan Rao vide PPB No.242078, (2) N.Ramakrishnaiah Naidu vide PPB No.242076, (3) K.Satyanarayana Raju vide PPPB No.242075, (4) K.Murali Manohar Prasad vide PPB No.24077 (5) M.Venugopal Reddy vide PPB No.220136 are hereby cancelled and the Tahsildar, Yerpedu is directed to conduct fresh enquiry strictly in accordance with the Record of Rights Act by conducting Grama Sabhas in the village duly effecting the sub-division of the said land. Keeping in view of the paimashi numbers which are correlated to Sy.No.34/2 accordingly the appeal is allowed.” Thus, the 1st respondent, having found fault with the action of the 2nd respondent in granting pattadar pass book and title deeds to the petitioner and four others, without following the procedures, set aside the same and directed the 2nd respondent to conduct fresh enquiry. It is the contention of the petitioner that since he has filed a Memo before the 1st respondent stating that he has preferred writ petition questioning the entertaining of the appeal by the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent ought to have postponed the hearing of the appeal, and committed an error in passing the impugned order, and that too on a holiday. I am unable to accept this contention of the petitioner. Mere filing of a memo by the petitioner indicating that he has filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 4030 of 2008 questioning the very entertaining of the appeal by the 1st respondent, cannot be a ground for the 1st respondent not to consider and dispose of the appeal pending before him, and more so when there was no stay granted by the Court, with respect to the appeal proceedings pending before him. Since the 1st respondent, is vested with the power of entertaining appeals against the orders passed by his subordinates, no exception can be taken to the action of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned appeal without considering the request of the petitioner to postpone the disposal of the appeal till the writ petition filed by him before this Court is disposed of. No doubt, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order on a day, which happened to be a holiday, but having regard to the fact that he has passed the said order after looking into the records, no interference is called for therewith. In fact, the 1st respondent while allowing the appeal of the 3rd respondent, even though cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds granted in his favour by the 2nd respondent, the fact remains, he had ordered a de novo enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and the said order, in no way, will prejudice the rights and contentions of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner would always be at liberty to place his contentions and the material available with him in support of his claim for grant of pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the land in question before the Enquiry Officer. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent, he can prefer revision/further appeal before the District Collector, as available to him under the provisions of the Act. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA, J 20th October, 2008 bcj