THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13120 of 2010 June 11, 2010 Between: Anna Ramalakshmamma, W/o.Venkata Subbaiah … Petitioner And Chatrajupalli Mohan Rao, S/o.Kasaiah And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13120 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner assails the order/proceedings dated 24.12.2009 of the second respondent whereby and whereunder revision petition filed by the first respondent was disposed of and the order/proceedings dated 13.12.2004 of third respondent cancelling the Pattadar Pass Book (PPB)/ Title Deed of first respondent in respect of Acs.2.08 in survey No.9/3 of Narasimhapuram Village of Markapur Mandal in Prakasam District, was cancelled. Petitioner alleges that her father, Kamisetty Venkatachalam, was owner of land in survey No.9/3 of Narasimhapuram Village. After death of father, her brother, Venkata Narayana, executed gift deed being document No.853/92, dated 29.4.1992. Petitioner approached the Mandal Revenue Officer (now, the Tahsildar), Markapur, for PPB. In the mean while, first respondent obtained PPB from the Tahsildar. Petitioner preferred appeal before third respondent, who cancelled PPB obtained by first respondent by proceedings dated 13.12.2004. First respondent claimed the land under registered sale deed dated 23.10.1999 vide document No.1401/99, to an extent of Acs.2.08, which was executed by petitioner’s brother, Venkata Narayana. Petitioner contends that when the land is situated in Markapur Mandal jurisdiction, Sub- Registrar, Podili, has no jurisdiction to register the property. Be that as it is, after the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) cancelled his PPB, first respondent preferred revision petition and the Joint Collector set aside the RDO’s order virtually sustaining the PPB obtained by first respondent. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area). As rightly pointed out by the Assistant Government Pleader, the land in survey No.9/3 of Narasimhapuram Village admeasuring Acs.2.08 ceased to be agricultural land. First respondent got prepared the lay-out and sold away the land as house plots. Therefore, the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act), has no application and the second respondent was correct in reversing the order of RDO. Dealing with this aspect, second respondent observed as under. III. However, the report of the Tahsildar, Markapur referred to in the preceding para that the petitioner has laid house site plots throws a fundamental question whether the Act applies to the land, since it is being used for non- agricultural purpose. To examine this aspect, the Tahsildar has not furnished the year in which the house site plots were laid. However, from the Xerox copies of the certified copy of the Adangal for F.1403 i.e., 2 years after the “SWADHEENA KHARARU” disclose that it was beedu and for Fs.1410 and 1412 i.e., also disclose the usage of the land was beedu, which proves that the land was not put for non-agricultural purpose till the F.1412. Finding: It is, therefore, held that the application of the A.P. Rights in Land and PPBs Act, 1971 to this land ceases from the date on which the land was converted into house sites. IV. Directives: In the light of the above findings: (i) The impugned order of the RDO, Markapur is set aside, as the same has not taken into account the points in Para III above. (ii) The PPB & TD issued in favour of the R1, vide 1 B khata No.179 and relevant entries in the RoR are also struck down for the reasons mentioned in para III above, apart from the fact the Tahsildar issued the PPBs & TDs, citing the impugned order of the RDO, though the said order did not in fact direct for issue of PPB & RD to R1. (iii) The Tahsildar, Markapur shall cancel the entries in the RoR with respect to this land, since present usage of the land is for house sites, a non-agricultural purpose and summon the production of the PPB & TD issued to the R1, as the Act, 1971 has no application, (iv) Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur should act as per the A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for NON- Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 immediately. The land as defined under Section 2(4) of the Act means, ‘land’ which is used for the purpose of agriculture, but does not include land exclusively for non-agricultural purposes. Whatever be the dispute between the contesting parties, as found by the revisional authority, the land was divided into house plots and was converted into non-agricultural purpose. Therefore, the Joint Collector cannot be said to have committed any error in holding that the Act has no application. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed in limine. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) June 11, 2010 YS