IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12019 of 2000 Between: S.R.Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy, S/o S.R.Raghava Reddy, R/o Pedda Chiyyappadu Village, Chapadu Mandal, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, Cuddapah District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 3 S.R.Penchala Narasimha Reddy, S/o Raghava Reddy, D.No.7/275, Proddatur Town and Mandal, Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR.P.VEERA REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 08-05-2000 passed by respondent No.1, whereby she directed respondent No.2 to include certain lands in the name of respondent No.3 in his passbook. Heard Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3, and perused the record. The petitioner and respondent No.3 are brothers. According to the petitioner on 01-11-1974 partition took place among their family members. Thereafter, certain properties were acquired by them independently. The sister of the petitioner and respondent No.3 filed O.S.No.68 of 1991 on the file of the Sub Court, Proddatur for partition and the same was decreed on 21-12-1998. While A.S.No.30 of 1999 filed against the said judgment and decree is pending before II- Additional District Court, Kadapa, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order, a reading of which shows that on a representation made by Smt S.R.Parvathamma, wife of respondent No.3, respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2 to include various lands in the passbooks of respondent No.3 on the basis of purported partition deed dated 01-11-1974 entered among the four sons of late S.R.Raghava Reddy, the father of the petitioner and respondent No.3. The petitioner stated that against the said order, a revision was filed before the Joint Collector, Kadapa under a mistaken impression. At the hearing, Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order passed by respondent No.1 is without notice to the petitioner and without jurisdiction. He submitted that in passing the said order, the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) has not been followed. No counter-affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents. Under Section 2 (10) of the Act, recording authority is defined as an Officer of the Revenue Department as may be notified by the Collector or the Commissioner to be the recording authority for the purposes of the Act. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 is notified as the recording authority. Therefore, he is charged with the duty of updating the entries in the record under Section 3 of the Act and correct the entries in the record of rights under Section 5 of the Act, in the event an application is made under Section 4 of the Act by any person, who acquired by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of the land. Against any order passed by the recording authority, either making an amendment or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned under Section 5(5) of the Act. On the basis of the entries made in the record of rights, the owner, pattadar, mortgagee or tenant of any land is entitled to obtain a pattadar passbook and under Section 6-A (3) of the Act, the entries in the title deed and passbook may be corrected either suo motu or on an application made to the Mandal Revenue Officer in the manner prescribed. In the instant case, respondent No.3 has not approached the Mandal Revenue Officer for any correction in the entries in the title deed and passbook, but curiously his wife approached respondent No.1, who is the appellate authority and not the recording authority, for correction of entries in the passbook. Respondent No.1 has readily obliged the wife of respondent No.3 and gave the directions. From the scheme of the Act, as evident from the above discussed provisions, I have no doubt in my mind that the order passed by respondent No.1 is wholly without jurisdiction. It is only the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned, who is the recording authority that has jurisdiction to entertain any request for correction of entries in the revenue record and issuance of corrected title deed and passbook. Moreover respondent No.3 has not made any request for making entries in his passbook and it is not known how respondent No.1 could act on the request made by the wife of respondent No.3. In this view of the matter, the impugned order, which is passed not only in violation of principles of natural justice as no notice was given to the petitioner but also without jurisdiction, is quashed leaving respondent No.3 free to approach the recording authority for correction of entries in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 17th July, 2008 vrn