IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8435 of 2001 Between: R.Radha Krishna Reddy, S/o. R.Narayana Reddy, R/o. K.C.Palli Village, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub-Collector, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 The Village Administrative Officer, Moogavadi, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 The Vilalge Administrative Officer, Voolapadu, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. 5 The Village Administrative Officer, K.C.Palli, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. 6 R.Ramakrishna Redyy, S/o. R.Chenga Reddy, R/o. K.C.Palli, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the 1st Respondnet relating to his order made in proceedings D.Dis.E/1227/2000 dt. 7-4-2001 and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed by R.Radha Krishna Reddy assailing the order dated 07.04.2001 passed on an appeal presented by R.Rama Krishna Reddy-respondent No.6 in D.Dis.E/1227/2000 on the file of the Sub Collector, Madanpalle . Back ground facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this writ petition by R.Radha Krishna Reddy are:- The father of the petitioner namely Narayana Reddy was a P.W.D contractor. He also worked as village Munsiff till 1984 and thereafter as a village assistant. He died in the year 1997 while in service leaving his four sons. The petitioner is one of his sons. He acquired Ac.42-00 of agricultural land under registered sale deed during his life time. The petitioner filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer for mutation of his name in the revenue records. The Mandal Revenue Officer proceeded to consider his application and effected necessary alterations in the revenue records in his name. Thereafter, respondent No.6 issued a paper notification through an advocate claiming title over the property. He presented the representation to the District Collector, Chittoor, who in turn forwarded the same to the Sub-Collector, Madanapalle. The representation of respondent No.6 has been taken on file as an appeal under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1971’. The petitioner herein appeared before the Sub Collector and filed counter. He contended before the appellate authority that the revenue authorities are not competent to adjudicate on the issue whether the properties are joint family properties or self-acquired properties. The appellate authority after hearing the counsel for the parties proceeded to remand the matter back to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramasamudram, for further enquiry. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order dated 07.04.2001 which reads as hereunder: “Perused all the contents and documents produced by both the parties. As seen from the contentions of both the parties there is a similarity in the version which goes to say that they are members of Hindu undivided joint family and evidently there is no partition among them till filing this appeal. The main point of dispute is that some lands for which pattadar pass book/title deed was given to R5 belong to exclusively to the father of R5, as per respondents version and those lands also form part and parcel of the Hindu undivided joint family properties, as per the version of the appellant and at this context the decision of Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramasamudram(R1) went in the version of R5 and granted pattadar pass book/title deed to R5. Since both the parties have not denied the existence of joint family it is the parties have not denied the existence of joint family it is to be presumed that the R1 has given a decision in respect of the properties which stood in the name of the father of 5 as such they are not form part of joint family properties. This decision, however, gives effect to the properties held by a copercener who is a member of an undivided Hindu joint family. This is, even as per the contention of R5, in his written arguments, that the Revenue authorities have no power under APROR Act to declare certain properties as joint family properties. This argument also speaks that the revenue authorities have no power to declare certain properties as self acquired properties of a coparcener who is admittedly a member of a Hindu undivided joint family. Keeping in view of this, the Pattadar Pass Book/Title deed issued by R1 to R5 vide Khata No.594 of K.C.Palle village are hereby set aside and both the parties may approach the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramasamudram for Pattadar Pass Book/Title Deed after getting their shares declared through a suit for partition from a competent civil Court.” The said order is assailed in this Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority without adjudicating on the issue of limitation proceeded to hear the appeal on merits and as the appeal is not filed within the limitation and there being no application to condone the delay, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. His contention that the Mandal Revenue Officer effected necessary changes in the revenue record basing on the registered sale deeds, which stand in the name of the father of the petitioner and therefore, the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, cannot be faulted. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy Vs. Joint Collector, Cuddapah and others[1] wherein it has been held that Revenue Divisional Officer has no power akin to power vested in Joint Collector under Section 9 of Act, 1971. Para-5 of the Judgment reads as hereunder:- “Admittedly, neither the so-called petition is in the form of appeal affixed with the required stamp nor was filed in time. No application for condonation of delay was claimed to be filed by respondent No.4 nor respondent No.2 passed any order condoning the delay before entertaining and adjudicating the appeal on merits. Respondent No.2 ought not to have, therefore, entertained the petition of respondent No.4 and treated it as an appeal. If respondent No.4 was aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds, he should have filed a statutory appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, within the time limit, or a civil suit under Section 8(2) of the Act before the competent Civil Court. As he did not take recourse to either of the two remedies, it is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 to entertain the petition filed by respondent No.4, because he has no power akin to the power vested in respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Act.” Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 submits that the representations submitted by the 6th respondent is to be construed as a revision under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 and in which case, the question of limitation does not arise. Indisputably, the Mandal Revenue Officer passed an order updating of record of rights as provided under Section 5 of the Act, 1971. A statutory remedy of appeal has been provided to the aggrieved party under Section 5(B) of Act, 1971. The petitioner did not choose to file an appeal as provided under Section 5(B). He presented a representation to the District Collector complaining the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner. Under Section 9, it is the Collector who may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B. The Sub-Collector is not competent to entertain the revision under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. He being the appellate authority has to necessarily exercise his powers under Section 5B of the Act, 1971. Indisputably, the representation submitted by Respondent No.6 complaining the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner is beyond the appeal time. There being no petition to condone the delay, it cannot be said that the representations filed by the petitioner- respondent No.6 can be construed validly instituted appeal. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 07.04.2001 in D.Dis.E/1227/2000 passed by the Sub-Collector, Madanapalli, Chittoor District is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dated July 6, 2009 KSH [1] 2009(1) ALD 248