THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.7532 of 2010 07.4.2010 Between: Karnati Lakshmi Narayana, S/o.Late Lingaiah … Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.7532 of 2010 ORDER: The instant writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring action of respondents in rejecting the request of petitioner not to issue Pattadar Pass Books (PPBs) to respondents 5 to 9 as illegal and arbitrary. He also seeks consequential direction not to issue PPBs to respondents 5 to 9. Petitioner is resident of Amaravathi in Guntur District. He alleges that he purchased the land admeasuring Acs.8.03 in survey Nos.266, 484/1A, 484/1C and 182 of Dharanikota Village in Amaravathi Mandal for a consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- from fifth respondent. Petitioner statedly paid advance amount of Rs.4,40,000/- and obtained possession. As agreed between the parties, balance Rs.10,000/- has to be paid at the time of registration. When fifth respondent did not execute sale deed, petitioner filed O.S.No.392 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, for specific performance of agreement of sale. When the suit was pending, fifth respondent executed sale deed on 08.1.2010 registered as document Nos.20 to 24, in the office of Sub Registrar, Amaravathi. Petitioner alleges that he came to know that respondents 6 to 9 are trying to get PPBs in their favour. Petitioner issued legal notice on 01.2.2010. He got published the notice in Saakshi, Telugu daily, on 05.2.2010. He also made representation to second respondent on 22.2.2010. Second respondent made endorsement to fourth respondent not to issue PPBs till disposal of the suit. In the mean while, it came to the knowledge of petitioner that fourth respondent is proceeding to issue PPBs in favour of respondents 6 to 9 and that they are trying to create third party interest by selling away the land. Mr.P.Punna Rao, the counsel for petitioner, submits that when an application is made for issue of PPBs or alteration of record of rights under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act) read with Rule 18(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (the Rules), fourth respondent is bound to issue notice to petitioner, who is purchaser and is in possession of the property, and that fourth respondent has ignored the procedure and, therefore, he should be restrained from issuing PPBs. There cannot be any dispute with regard to procedure contemplated under Sections 4(1) and 5 of the Act and Rules 18 to 20 and 26 of the Rules. There can also be no dispute that after application is made in Form VI (A), the Tahsildar who is recording authority (see Section 2(10) of the Act) has to issue acknowledgement in Form VI (C) and publish notice in Form VII and also issue notice to the persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment, and conduct enquiry before issuing PPBs or altering entries in record of rights. As held by a Full Bench of this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam v MRO[1], in addition to general notice, the recording authority is required to give a prior notice to the persons who are interested in the land. The counsel suggests that third respondent is bent upon ignoring the procedure and go ahead to issue PPBs to respondents 5 to 9. In law, there is no such presumption that public authorities would not follow the procedure. On the contrary there is a presumption in law that all public acts are done in accordance with law unless contrary is proved. Further, even if the petitioner’s apprehension comes true and an order is issued by fourth respondent in favour of respondents 5 to 9, nothing precludes petitioner to prefer appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act before third respondent and thereafter a revision petition under Section 9 of the Act to the Joint Collector, Guntur. This writ petition appears to have been filed to prohibit Tahsildar, Amaravathi, from enquiring into the application made by respondents 5 to 9. A Mandamus cannot be issued to restrain a public authority to take action in accordance with the statute unless it is shown that such public authority suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction. It is admitted that the Tahsildar is competent recording authority and, therefore, no order can be passed to pre empt him from exercising jurisdiction vested in him. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) April 07, 2010 YS [1] AIR 2008 AP 15 (FB)