IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:1654 of 2002 Between: Smt. Ashrafunnisa Begum W/o. M.A. Jaleel R/o. Khammam Town Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Y. Yadagiri Rao S/o. Rangaiah H.No. 11-10-694/616 Burnapuram Khammam District 2 A. Vijaya Laxmi W/o. Poornachandra Rao H.No. 11-8-172/2 Lenin Nagar Khammam District 3 Smt. D. Seethayamma W/o. Venkateswarlu H.No. 11-8-177/1 Lenin Nagar Khammam 4 Smt. A. Chellamma W/o. Ranganayakulu R/o. Ramchandrapuram Village Gubbakurthy Konicherla Khamma District 5 Smt. Sabiya Yousuf R/o. 8-9-144 Inside Fort Khammam 6 K. Pitchaiah C/o. Sindhu Hotel Near Bus-Stand Khammam 7 Revenue Divisional Officer Khammam Division Khammam 8 Mandal Revenue Officer Khammam Urban Khammam .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 6:MR. CH.SHANMUKHA RAO FOR MR. D.JAYAPRAKASH Counsel for Respondent Nos.7 & 8: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 05.11.2001 of respondent No.7. I have heard Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ch.Shanmukha Rao, learned counsel appearing for Sri D.Jayaprakash, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.7 and 8 and perused the record. In respect of the land admeasuring Acs.4.25 guntas comprised in Survey No.10/A of Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban Mandal, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued by respondent No.8 in favour of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 ﬁled a purported appeal under Section 5-B of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) before respondent No.7, who entertained and allowed the same vide his order, dated 05.11.2001. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal ﬁled by respondent Nos.1 to 6 under Section 5-B of the Act is wholly misconceived, because such an appeal is maintainable only in cases where an order is passed under Section 5-A(4) of the Act validating an invalidated sale. In the instant case, contends the learned counsel, respondent No.8 has not passed any order under Section 5- A(4) of the Act validating any document and that on the other hand, he exercised the power under Section 6-A of the Act by issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds. No doubt, an appeal under Section 5-B of the Act lies only against an order passed under Section 5-A(4) of the Act validating any document. In the instant case, no such validation is done. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that in view of the judgment of this Court i n N.BAL REDDY AND OTHERS v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, HYDERABAD EAST AND OTHERS[1], a person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 6-A of the Act granting pattadar passbook is entitled to ﬁle an appeal. In that view of the matter, respondent No.7 is the appellate authority in both the cases falling under Sections 5 and 5-B of the Act. He had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal albeit such an appeal was entertained by him under Section 5-B of the Act. His power is, therefore, traceable to Section 5(5) of the Act. With regard to the reasons, the impugned order is devoid of proper reasons. The observation of respondent No.7 that the learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner) failed to produce the evidence that she is the real owner, is wholly cryptic and laconic. He did not examine the documents ﬁled by the writ petitioner and the respective claims of the parties. Therefore, the impugned order attracts the vice of a non-speaking order, which cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent No.7 is quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent No.7 to re-consider the case, after giving notices to the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 6 and pass a reasoned order afresh. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni [1] 2004(2) ALT 457