IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 27548 of 2008 Between: Lekkala Mallikarjuna, S/o. Chinna Masthan Naidu, R/o. Saguturu Village, Ozili Mandal, Sri Potti Sreeramulu, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Sub Collector, Gudur, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District. 2 The Tahsildhar, Ozili, Sri Potti Sreeramulu, Nellore District. 3 Guntamadugu Subbaraju, S/o. Venkata Raju, R/o. Gurramkonda Village, Ozili Mandal, Sri Potti Sreeramulu, Nellore 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 to issue a writ or direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandmus declaring the order of the 1st respondent dated 6-11-2008 in D.Dis(E) 2194/2008 directing 2nd respondent to delete thenames of the petitioner and his brother and incorporate the name of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of constitution of India and provisions of A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and also the Judgments of this Hon'ble Court and in violation of Principles of Natural justice and consequently to set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VENKATA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 27548 of 2008 01-05-2009 Oral Order: This writ petition was filed on 17-12-2008. On 18-12- 2008 when the writ petition came up for admission hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue took notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and waived further notice from the Court and sought a week’s time for obtaining instructions. In the circumstances notice was issued to the 3rd respondent. Thereafter on two further occasions time was sought on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for filing a counter affidavit. No counter affidavit has yet been filed. The 3rd respondent is served and is represented by learned counsel. The writ petition assails the order of the 1st respondent dated 06-11-2008. By this order the 1st respondent states that the order is not passed in an appeal filed under Section 5 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 nor is entertained against the validity of the Pattadar Passbooks issued or the entries made in such passbooks in favour of Venkata Subbamma, the petitioner’s mother. The order purports to be an enquiry by the 1st respondent initiated on the basis of a report of the Tahasildar, Ozili. Curiously, the 1st respondent brushes aside objections on behalf of the petitioner’s mother as to the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent proceeded to suo motu examine the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing pattadar passbooks to Subbamma. The impugned order records that from the entries in the pattadar passbook, the disputed lands are added in the original passbook without following the procedure and that there are no entries in the IB Register supporting the passbook entries; the 1st respondent also records that the entries regarding Subbamma’s claim are apparently included by fraudulent method without following the due process of law. Therefore, the entries relating to the disputed land in the following survey numbes are hereby ordered to be deleted from the PPB No. 247399 of Lekkala Venkatasubbamma w/o. China Masthan Naidu. Mandal Village Survey No. Extent Classification Ozili Saguturu 38/1 1.72 Dry 40/1 7.27 Dry 42/1 2.31 Dry 43/1 1.62 Dry 43/2 1.60 Dry 43/3 1.28 Dry 43/4 0.68 Dry 43/5 0.44 Dry 43/6 0.38 Dry 43/7 0.15 Dry 43/8 0.13 Dry 43/9 0.62 Dry 43/10 0.55 Dry 43/11 1.22 Dry 19.97 The impugned order concludes with the following: Regarding Form X claim filed by the respondents, it is alleged that the unregistered document also bogus and fabricated. Hence the validity of the unregistered document itself is doubtful and as such this need not be taken cognizance of the same. Since the matter is pending in civil Court, the Tahasildar, Ozili may take appropriate action to issue PPB based on the outcome of the civil suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for the Revenue and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent as well are ad idem that the 1st respondent has no authority, power or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent bearing reference D.Dis. (E) 2194/2008 dated 06-11-2008 is seen to be patently without jurisdiction and is consequently quashed. As the 1st respondent has despite noticing the absence of jurisdiction and despite an objection on behalf of Subbamma as to jurisdiction, has proceeded to exercise a jurisdiction that he himself did not believe existed, this Court considers it appropriate to allow the writ petition with costs of Rs.5,000-00 (Rupees Five thousand only) payable by the 1st respondent to the petitioner. The State Government would perhaps consider initiating appropriate proceedings to identify the officer who passed such an incompetent order notwithstanding having been informed of jurisdictional infirmity and take appropriate and due steps for recovery of the amount of these costs from the delinquent officer so as to avoid mulcting the public exchequer with these costs. The writ petition is allowed as above with costs. Copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for appropriate administrative action. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 01-05-2009 Pvks