IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13261 of 2004 Between: G.N.Vijayendra Babu S/o G.Narayanaswamy Madanapalle-I Depot) Residing at M.B.T.Road, Punganoor Town, chittoor District AP., ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Madanapalle, Chittoor District., AP., 2 Smt. G.N.Madhura Devi W/o Rajagopal D.No.2/92, Kappala Veeraswamy Street, Oldpet, Palamaneru, Chittoor District. AP., .....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 an appropriate writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Particulalry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings i.e., Appeal No.912/2004 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle as unjust, arbitrary and illegal after calling for the records Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13261 of 2004 ORAL ORDER: According to the petitioner, he was issued a pattedar passbook and title deed in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.0-80 cents in survey No. 249/3 of Balijapalli village, Punganoor mandal, Chittoor district under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) by an order dated 25-04-1995 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Punganoor. The petitioner also claims that his father died on 14-12-1998 and he had inherited the property from his father. It is also stated that there is a civil litigation pending and during the pendency of such civil litigation and without any entitlement to prefer an appeal under Section 5- B of the Act, the second respondent preferred such an incompetent appeal to the first respondent being Appeal No.912 of 2004 and that a notice was issued by the first respondent on 06-06-2004 soliciting the petitioner’s response to the complaint in the second respondent’s appeal preferred to the first respondent. The petitioner contests the right of the second respondent to challenge the issuance of a pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour on merits, particulars of which are not relevant at this point of time. According to the petitioner, an appeal under Section 5-B of the Act is not maintainable and if the second respondent is aggrieved by the issuance of pattedar passbooks, should pursue the remedy only under Section 3 (3) of the Act to the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer himself and not by ay of an appeal to the first respondent. From the narrative in the writ petition, no patent lack of jurisdiction in the first respondent could be culled out. If the first respondent has taken on record any appeal preferred by the second respondent and had issued a notice to the petitioner, the petitioner is always at liberty to respond to the notice and may take a defence that the appeal itself is not maintainable. Such defence of the petitioner will have to be considered by the first respondent before proceeding to dispose of the appeal, on merits. This is the quasi-judicial obligation of the first respondent. In the circumstances, the petitioner does not suffer any prejudice per se by the inistitution of appellate proceedings by the first respondent, at any rate no prejudice that may be taken care of by responding to the notice. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the appeal preferred by the second respondent in accordance with law duly considering the objections that may be raised by the petitioner to the maintainability of the appeal. If the first respondent comes to the conclusion that the appeal by the second respondent is maintainable under Section 5-B of the Act, he may proceed to dispose of the appeal on the merits of the respective claims. If however the first respondent concludes that the appeal itself is not maintainable, the appeal may be rejected on the short ground of ‘maintainability’. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 16-06-2008 Pvks/*