IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3690 of 2008 Between: 1 R.V.Ramana Kumar S/o.Subbaiah Hindu R/o.Plot No.105,Park Residency Appartments Backside Municipal Park Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 2 R.Subbamma W/o.Subbaiah, Hindu R/o.Plot No.105 Park Residency Appartments Backside Municipal Park Tirupathi,Chittoor Dist 3 R.Krishna Veni W/o.Ramana Kumar, Hindu R/o.Plot No.105 Park Residency Appartments Backside Municipal Park Tirupathi,Chittoor Dist ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Dist Collector Kadapa Dist Kadapa 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Rajampet,Kadapa Dist 3 The Tahsildar Porumamilla Kadapa Dist 4 R.Subbiah S/o.Subbaiah, Hindu R/o.3/309 Near Srinivasa Theatre Pulivendula,Kadapa Dist .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 1st respondent in his Ref.E3/1727/2007 dt.06-08-2007 directing the 3rd respondent though the very initiation of the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in his Ref.B/82/2007 under the provisions of A.P Records of Rights in Land Act 1971 is time barred and not maintainable and without jurisdiction as illegal, unjust arbitrary discriminative and against section 4(1) of A.P Records Rights in Land Act 1971 and consequently set aside the orders of the 1st respondent in Ref.E3/1727 dt.6-08-2007 with further direction to the 3rd respondent to close proceedings in his Ref B/82/2007. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3690 of 2008 ORDER: The 1st petitioner is the son of the 2nd petitioner and husband of the 3rd petitioner. Petitioners seek to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the order in Ref.No.E3/1727/2007, dated 06-08-2007, directing the 3rd respondent to conduct enquiry as per the directions of the 2nd respondent in D.Dis.LRDT/579/2005, dated 16-11-2005, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioners that the 4th respondent herein is the father of the 1st petitioner and husband of the 2nd petitioner. After marriage with the 2nd petitioner in the year 1964, the 4th respondent purchased the lands in the year 1965. Thereafter, in the year 1977, the 4th respondent got second marriage. It is stated that the 4th respondent vide Settlement Deed, dated 19-11-1986, gave certain properties to the 1st petitioner. Thereafter, the 4th respondent made a representation before the 3rd respondent for cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the 1st petitioner. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent, vide Ref.B/77/05, dated 10-04- 2005, sent report to the 2nd respondent for cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the 1st petitioner on the ground that the said lands were purchased by the 4th respondent and without his consent and knowledge, the 1st petitioner obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds in his favour. Accordingly, the 4th respondent entertained the report of the 3rd respondent as an appeal under Section 5 of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”), and issued notices to the 1st petitioner as well as the 4th respondent for causing enquiry. After conducting enquiry, the 2nd respondent found that the said properties were purchased by the 4th respondent and without his knowledge and consent, the 1st petitioner obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds in his favour and accordingly, while cancelling pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the 1st petitioner, remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent for denovo enquiry and also directed the 3rd respondent to give an opportunity to both parties in respect of the lands in question and, thereafter, settle the matter as per law under the Act through order, dated 16-11-2005. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.7291 of 2007 before this Court and this Court disposed of the said writ petition through order, dated 10-04-2007, observing that even though the petitioners were issued pattadar pass books seven years ago and as the claim of the 4th respondent herein that the said properties are self acquired properties and, therefore, it is certainly a matter for enquiry and accordingly, the 2nd respondent thought that a fresh enquiry is required. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, the remedy available to the petitioners is only to approach the 1st respondent by way of filing a revision under Section 9 of the Act. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, liberty was given to the petitioners to prefer a revision. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a revision before the 1st respondent on 17-05-2007 and the 1st respondent through order, dated 06- 08-2007, dismissed the revision directing the 3rd respondent to conduct enquiry, after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties, as per the directions of the 2nd respondent, dated 16-11-2005. Petitioners question the order passed by the 1st respondent on the ground that the very remand order of the 2nd respondent itself is illegal and arbitrary and that the 1st respondent without considering any of the contentions raised in the revision, mechanically dismissed the revision. When the order of the 2nd respondent was questioned before this Court in W.P.No.7291 of 2007, in view of the rival contentions, this court held that it is a fit case where fresh enquiry is required and therefore, the said order of the 2nd respondent was not at all interfered with. But, however, liberty is given to the petitioners to file a revision. Merely because liberty was given to the petitioners to file a revision and as the 1st respondent confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent, it cannot be said that the order of the 2nd respondent itself is illegal and arbitrary, as the said order had already been questioned before this court and this court declined to interfere with the said order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that no enquiry could be conducted in the matter. The dispute is between the father and the son and whether the son obtained title deeds and pattadar pass books without the consent and knowledge of the father is a matter to be enquired by the 3rd respondent. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 22-02-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}