THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11514 of 2008 ORDER: The father of the petitioner, by name Dasaratha Rami Reddy; and Mr. Krishna Reddy, are the sons of late Meera Reddy. It is stated that the family did not hold the land and it was only in the year 1963 that Subbamma, wife of Meera Reddy, purchased an extent of Acs.4.28 cents of land in survey Nos.446/2 to 5 of Saidapuram Village and Mandal, Nellore District, from one Gunapati Venkata Krishnaiah, through sale deed, dated 27.11.1963. The 4th respondent is said to have migrated to a different village, and through a deed of settlement, dated 16.01.1993, Subbamma is said to have gifted an extent of Acs.2.29 cents of land in favour of her eldest son, Dasaratha Rami Reddy. It is stated that the 4th respondent figured as a witness to that document. After the death of Dasaratha Rami Reddy, the lands are mutated in the name of the petitioner and pattadar pass books were also issued. On a report, dated 07.06.2007, submitted by the Tahsildar, Saidapuram, the 2nd respondent, suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Joint Collector, Nellore, the 1st respondent. Ultimately through an order, dated --.03.2008, the 1st respondent directed cancellation of the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent was directed to take necessary action. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. The petitioner contends that the entries were made in the revenue records and pattadar pass books were issued to him, after verification of the family partition deed, dated 22.11.1959 and other documents, and there was absolutely no basis for the 1st respondent to initiate suo motu proceedings. He further contends that, if the 4th respondent is of the view that he has got any right, title or interest over the property, he should have filed a suit in a Civil Court and that there was no legal or factual basis for the impugned proceedings. The 4th respondent filed a counter-affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner. It is stated that the land mentioned above was purchased by the income of the joint family, comprising of himself, his brother and mother, and there was no basis for issuance of pattadar pass books to the petitioner. He disputed the alleged partition between himself and his brother. Other contentions are also urged. Heard Sri M.Dilip Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Ch.C.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder, prescribe a detailed procedure, to be followed, in the context of making or altering entries in the revenue records and for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds. Applications for the respective purposes are required to be made in the prescribed forms. Limitation for availing the remedy of appeals etc., is stipulated. An aggrieved party has the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) and revision under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner states that the land has accrued to his father under a deed of settlement, dated 16.01.1993, and family partition has already taken place between the 4th respondent and Dasaratha Rami Reddy in the year 1959 itself. After the death of his father, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for issuance of pattadar pass books, and that request was acceded to, after verifying the records. In case the 4th respondent felt aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioner, he ought to have availed the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer. His counter-affidavit is silent, as to the nature of steps taken by him. In clear words, the 1st respondent has stated in the impugned order that “he has taken up suo motu revision”. The basis for the suo motu revision is said to be a report, dated 07.06.2007, submitted by the 2nd respondent. It is just un- understandable as to how and on what basis the Tahsildar can send a report, as regards the very action taken by his office. It virtually amounts to digging of the proceedings that emanated from his office. Howsoever justified an aggrieved party may be in finding fault with the issuance of pattdar pass books, the authority, which issued the same, cannot be expected to submit a report taking objection for such issuance. Therefore, the very report, dated 07.06.2007, submitted by the 2nd respondent, is untenable in law and is not referable to any provision. The object of conferring suo motu powers on authorities is to enable them to rectify the mistakes committed by the subordinates, leading to improper implementation of provisions of the Act. One of the important circumstances, under which suo motu powers are exercised, is where any landed property owned by Government, had suffered detriment, on account of the orders passed by the subordinate authorities. If the private individual feels aggrieved by the proceedings under the Act, he can certainly avail the remedies that are provided for, under it. The 1st respondent was not at all justified in exercising suo motu powers for a cause, which is purely private in nature, between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 4th respondent, on the other hand. This is nothing, but colourable exercise of powers for an object, not provided for under the Act. On merits also, the view taken by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained in law. Even where the proceedings have landed before him through a revision filed by an aggrieved party, the 1st respondent has to limit his consideration for procedural aspects. He cannot assume the powers of a Civil Court and declare the title of the parties. Section 8 of the Act directs that, in case any civil disputes exist between the parties, they have to resolve the same by filing the suits. The question, as to whether the property purchased by Subbamma was exclusively on her behalf or on behalf of the family comprising of herself and her sons, could have been dealt with only by recording the evidence of the concerned parties and appreciation thereof with reference to their pleadings and relevant provisions of law. The 1st respondent has chosen to pronounce upon such question without there being any material or evidence before him. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to the 4th respondent to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) or revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, or to file a suit for declaration of his title. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:24.04.2009. GJ