IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12139 of 2005 Between: 1 Padigapati Narayana Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged about 53 Agriculturist, R/o. Badadipalli Village, Rekalakunta Post, B. Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District. 2 Padigapati Venkata Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged about 45 Agriculturist, R/o. Badadipalli Village, Rekalakunta Post, B. Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Kadapa District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, B. Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District. 3 P. Nadipi Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, Hindu, R/o. Bagadipalli Village, Rekalakunta Post, B. Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.3: SRI SUDERSHAN REDDY DUDDUGUNTA The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Sudershan Reddy Duddugunta, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 23-04-2005 of respondent No.1. The said order was passed by respondent No.1 by treating the report filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Brahmmamgari Matam, Kadapa-respondent No.2 as appeal and directed respondent No.2 to conduct a de novo enquiry into the issue of pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners and take necessary action under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). He also directed respondent No.2 to specifically enquire about the earlier settlement between respondent No.3 and the petitioners made in the year 1977 and that if the enquiry by respondent No.2 reveals that there is a need for revision of passbooks/title deeds, he may submit a specific report. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed this order on the ground that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to unsettle the issue relating to issue of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners, which attained finality. He submitted that in pursuance of the family partition taken place in the year 1987, the petitioners were given pattadar passbooks and title deeds in the year 1988 with regard to the lands in question and the same was never questioned by any one including respondent No.3. He also submitted that respondent No.1 is entitled to entertain an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, if the same is filed by any aggrieved party within 60 days, and that since no such appeal was filed by respondent No.3, respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to treat the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer as an appeal and pass the impugned order. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, at the hearing, fairly stated that respondent No.1 being the appellate authority has no revisional powers which are vested only in the District Collector under Section 9 of the Act and hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Having carefully considered the above mentioned submissions and the impugned order, I am of the view that respondent No.1 committed a patent error in treating report dated 09-10-2003 of respondent No.2 as appeal and giving the directions contained in the impugned order as referred to above. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, if a person is aggrieved by an order of the Recording Authority making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer, within a period of 60 days from the date of the communication of the order. It is not in dispute that issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds was preceded by recording of the names of the petitioners in the revenue records. It is not the case of respondent No.3 that he questioned the decision of the Recording Authority in entering the names of the petitioners in the revenue records. Unless the aggrieved party files an appeal before respondent No.1, he has no jurisdiction to interfere in the issue of entries in the revenue records. Hence, the action of respondent No.1 in entertaining the purported report of respondent No.2 and passing the impugned order is beyond his jurisdiction and the same cannot be sustained. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 25th June, 2008 vrn