THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4975 of 2003 March 04, 2011 Between: Royyala Kamuramma, W/o.Rayamallu ... Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District And another ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4975 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner’s father, Rajaram, was the owner of the land admeasuring Acs.2.00 in S.No.298 situated at Vennampalli village of Kalva Srirampur Mandal in Karimnagar District, having purchased the same from Endapalli Janardhan Reddy. It appears, when there was objection to her title, she filed O.S.No.271 of 1993 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Sultanabad, for declaration of title and injunction against her father, her brothers and the vendor, Janardhan Reddy. The suit was decreed. Based on the decree, she obtained pattadar pass book and title deed (PPB/TD) in 1996, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the RoR Act) and the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (the RoR Rules). The second respondent is the petitioner’s husband. It appears that there were misunderstandings between the wife and husband. The husband filed an application on 03.7.2002 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli (the RDO)–the first respondent; for cancellation of PPB issued to the petitioner. He alleged that the petitioner has no concern with the land. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Srirampur, (the MRO) conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the effect that it is the second respondent who is in possession of the property. With regard to marital status of the petitioner, the MRO concluded that the petitioner married one Tadaboiya Komuraiah. After considering the report of the MRO, the first respondent cancelled the PPB and directed the MRO to take necessary action for correcting the entries in the Record of Rights (RoR). The proceedings of the MRO dated 03.2.2003 cancelling the PPB/TD are challenged in this writ petition. Though notice was served, none appears for the second respondent. The first respondent filed counter affidavit stating as follows. Endapalli Janardhan Reddy was owner of the land in S.No.298 of Vannepalli village. The petitioner obtained decree in O.S.No.271 of 1993 for an extent of Acs.2.00. Based on the decree, her name was mutated in the RoR. She was issued PPB/TD No.175190 under the RoR Act. In response to the petition submitted by the second respondent, the MRO submitted a report stating that the petitioner fraudulently obtained PPB even though she is not in possession of the land. He recommended for cancellation of the PPB. During the enquiry, it came to light that the petitioner married second respondent and later she deserted him and the children, she again married Tadaboina Komuraiah. She was never in possession of the land and, therefore, the issue of PPB/TD was in contravention of Rule 26(6) of the RoR Rules, which mandates issue of PPB only to those persons who are in actual possession of the land. Therefore the PPB was cancelled. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area). The issue is whether it is competent for the RDO to cancel the PPB issued to the petitioner pursuant to the declaratory decree granted by the competent Civil Court. The RoR Act is the law to consolidate and amend the entries in RoR and PPBs/TDs in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 3 of the RoR Act mandates preparation of a RoR in respect of every village by the recording authority. It has to be done, “as soon as as may be after the commencement of the Act in any area”. If any person is aggrieved by the entry in the RoR, he may either seek remedies provided under the RoR Act like appeal and revision, or file a suit and establish his title to the property. In such an event, the declaratory decree passed by the Civil Court shall override the entries in the RoR. The same is the case when the RoR is amended in accordance with Section 5 of the RoR Act or when an application is made by any person as referred to in Section 4 of the RoR Act. Even in the case of amendment or RoR if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession by any entry in any RoR, he may institute a suit. Conversely if an amendment of the RoR is sought based on a decree of the Civil Court, the recording authority and the other parties are bound by such decree. This is so stipulated in Rule 27(4) of the RoR Rules, which reads as under. 27.(4) Whenever a court decree about acquisition of title by purchase of land through deeds on plain paper or by oral purchase is received form court or presented to the Mandal Revenue Officer for implementing and incorporating changes in the Record of rights and Pattedar pass Book, the Mandal Revenue officer shall incorporate changes in the Record of Rights and Pattedar Pass Book, based on court decree only after collection of stamp duty and registration fee on the sale price of the land or market value of the land whichever is higher. If the person seeking execution of court decree claims that he had already paid proper and adequate stamp duty in the court and produces certificate issued by the court to this effect and other evidence to the satisfaction of Mandal Revenue Officer, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall demand and collect only registration fee and incorporate changes in the record of Rights and Pattedar pass Books, If the decree is received or produced by or before a Registration officer or other Officers, these officers shall immediately send these decrees to the concerned Mandal Revenue Office for necessary action. (emphasis supplied) This legal position cannot be denied. I n V.Goutham Rao v Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial[1] explaining the purport and scope of Sections 8(1) and (2) of the RoR Act, this Court observed as follows. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act, there is a bar against filing of any suit against the Government or any Officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to any entry made in any record of rights or to have any such entry omitted or amended. However, under Sub-section (2) thereof, it specifically contemplates that any person aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by any entry in the record of rights, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act. Further it also states that the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. Therefore, ultimately it is the finding of the Civil Court which governs the field and which has to be given effect to by the authorities and make entries accordingly. It is not too late in the day to take judicial notice of proceedings being initiated under the provisions of the Act where either a civil proceedings is already pending or where a serious dispute of title is involved. Having regard to the fact that the authorities constituted under the aforesaid statute would not venture to go into such serious questions nor can decide thereupon, yet the parties are taking recourse to such proceedings. Ultimately after exhausting the remedies under the Act, the parties are approaching the Civil Court whereby there is any amount of duplication in the entire process apart from the time consumed thereunder. In the circumstances, wherever there is a serious dispute of title or claims of any rival title, it would not only be proper for the authorities to refrain from proceeding with the enquiries as such under the provisions of the Act but also pragmatic for the parties to approach the Civil Court for establishing their right, title and interest of whatsoever nature. Applying the above principles, the impugned order of the RDO cannot be sustained. When the PPB is issued to the petitioner based on the declaratory decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.271 of 1993, merely because the petitioner married for second time and is not staying in the village, the PPB/TD cannot be cancelled. In such a case, it is incumbent on the Revenue authority to advise the parties to get proper declaration from the Civil Court. The order of the RDO suffers from incurable defect and is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of certiorari shall issue to quash the impugned order of the first respondent. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) March , 2011 YS [1] 2003(1) ALD 681