THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16783 of 2002 June 16, 2010 Between: Byreddi Balaiah @ Bal Reddy, S/o.Budda Ramaiah … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Nalgonda And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16783 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is the brother of fourth respondent. He filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 18.6.2001 passed by the first respondent under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (RoR Act) whereby and whereunder the said authority allowed the revision petition filed by fourth respondent and set aside the order passed by the third respondent which was confirmed by the second respondent. The petitioner alleges that the property admeasuring Acs.3.29 guntas in survey No.322 of Narammagudem, H/o.Thummadam Village of Nidamanoor Mandal in Nalgonda District, was originally owned by petitioner’s father, Budda Ramaiah, that after death of father petitioner succeeded to the property, that having come to know that in revenue records the name of his sister, fourth respondent, was shown as owner and pattadar, petitioner filed application for rectification of the entries and that the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) allowed the application on 21.11.1994. It is further case of petitioner that aggrieved by the order of MRO, fourth respondent filed appeal before the second respondent, which was dismissed on 18.12.1995 and thereupon the revision filed by fourth respondent was allowed by the first respondent by impugned order dated 18.6.2001. Respondents 1 to 3 have not filed any counter affidavit. Though notice is served, fourth respondent also did not choose to file any counter affidavit. Before noticing and considering the issues raised by the counsel for petitioner, it is necessary and proper to appreciate the impugned order of the first respondent. Fourth respondent stated that the subject land was bequeathed to her by cousin brother of Budda Ramaiah in 1967. In Nazim-e- Jamabandi, she was granted mutation and her name continued in the revenue records. In 1986, she sold away Acs.1.20 guntas in favour of Byreddi Biksha Reddy and Acs.0.11 guntas to Byreddi Padmamma. The writ petitioner has no right to claim the property nor he was inherited the property from their father as alleged. At the time of considering the application made by the petitioner, MRO did not issue notice to petitioner and no enquiry was conducted. Against the order of MRO dated 21.11.1994, fourth respondent preferred appeal unsuccessfully before the second respondent. In the revision petition, she contended that the entries in the revenue records made by Nizam- e-Jamabandi long ago cannot be rectified under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Record of Rights Regulation 1358 Fasli (RoR Regulation). First respondent called for the remarks of the second respondent. Second respondent based on Choufasla for 1959-60 reported that Byreddi Budda Ramaiah owned ancestral properties in survey Nos.322, 323, 324, 327, 328 and 329 admeasuring Acs.16.23 guntas (Khata No.393) and that Byreddi Ramaiah, S/o.Kotaiah owned lands in survey Nos.323, 324, 327, 328 and 329 admeasuring Acs.12.34 guntas (Khata No.394). After death of Byreddi Budda Ramaiah in 1960, succession was granted to Byreddi Balaiah and Gopaiah. Succession was not granted in respect of land comprised in survey No.322 to anybody. Byreddi Ramaiah bequeathed his property to fourth respondent. First respondent called for the records and after verifying the records, came to the conclusion that it is not competent for MRO to rectify the entries made in 1967, that the MRO cannot alter mutation approved in Nazim-e-Jamabandi after lapse of 25 years and that under Section 158 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (Land Revenue Act), the orders of MRO can be rectified only by a superior authority. The counsel for petitioner submits that the RoR Regulation having been repealed by RoR Act, it is competent for MRO to rectify the mistakes in the revenue records. He would also urge that MRO issued general notice and then passed orders rectifying the mistakes and, therefore, the impugned order is erroneous. These contentions are refuted by the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area). This Court has been taken through order dated 21.11.1994 passed by the MRO. A perusal of the same would show that a general notice was issued and enquiry was conducted in the Village. There was no personal notice to fourth respondent. In such an event, exercise of power by the MRO while altering/amending mutation or changing the entries in the revenue records, is unsustainable without such prior notice. I n Chinnam Pandurangam v Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District[1], a Full Bench of this Court considered this question. While holding that issue of notice to the persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment in addition to issuing general notice, is mandatory, the Full Bench observed as under. … … … proviso to Section 5(1) and Section 5(3) (of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971) represent statutory embodiment of the most important facet of the rules of natural justice i.e., audi alterem partem. These provisions contemplate issue of notice to the persons likely to be affected by the action/decision of the Mandal Revenue Officer to carry out or not to carry out amendment in the Record of Rights. Proviso to Section 5(1) lays down that if the Mandal Revenue Officer decides not to make an amendment in the Record of Rights, then he shall pass appropriate order only after giving an opportunity of making representation to the person, who gives intimation regarding acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4. Section 5(3) provides for issue of written notice to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment. Similarly, a notice is required to be issued to any other person whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. A copy of the amendment and the notice is also required to be published in the prescribed manner. The publication of notice in the prescribed manner is in addition to the notice, which is required to be given in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and also to any other person whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. To put it differently, the publication of a copy of the amendment and the notice is only supplemental and not the alternative mode of giving notice to the persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other person to whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. If the Legislature thought that publication of a general notice in Form-VIII will be sufficient compliance of the rules of natural justice, then there was no occasion to incorporate a specific requirement of issuing written notice to the persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and also to other person whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. In our considered view, the requirement of issuing written notice to the persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and also to any other person whom the recording authority thinks to be interested in or affected by the amendment clearly negates the argument that publication of notice in Form-VIII is sufficient. In view of the binding decision of the Full Bench, in the absence of notice by the MRO, any order restoring the title in favour of petitioner is unsustainable. Furthermore, the MRO refers to Section 10(1) of RoR Act, which has no application. It is needless to point out that except making entries in the record of rights and amendment of those entries, as the situation might warrant, the Revenue authorities cannot declare or restore title in those who claim to be title holders. All such things have to be decided by the Civil Court alone. As rightly observed by the first respondent, the MRO appears to have exercised jurisdiction under RoR Regulation. Such power does not inhere in MRO and any entry made in Nazim-e-Jamabandi can only be rectified by a superior authority under Land Revenue Act. In B.Sitaram Reddy v Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar[2], this Court considered the issue of jurisdiction of District Revenue Officer under Regulation 15(2) of RoR Regulation to rectify the entries in the revenue records. While holding that it is not competent for District Revenue Officer to revise the revenue entries under Regulation 15(2) of RoR Regulation, the following observations are made. The Collector (Joint Collector) is revisional authority, who is competent to call for and examine the record of any recording authority, MRO or RDO under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained, to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceeding made in respect thereof and modify or annul or reverse or remit for reconsideration. Having regard to the punctuation (comma) used after the words "......the record of any recording authority," and the punctuation used after the words and figures "...... under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B," it is reasonable to infer that the Collector is the Revisional Authority against any order of any recording authority in respect of any record of rights. Such power is not necessarily restricted to orders passed by MRO and RDO under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B of RoR Act. Indeed, a reference to Rule 13(2) of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (the Rules, for brevity) would show that the power is conferred on MRO, RDO, Deputy Collector, DRO or any Officer designated by the Collector to revise the entries in confirmed record of rights subject to certain conditions. Having regard to this, if Section 9 of the Act is interpreted in a restricted manner, there would not be any revision against an order passed under Rule 13(2) of the Rules by DRO, Deputy Collector or any Officer designated by Collector and such revision would be maintainable only against orders of MRO or RDO in the event of these officers passing orders under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B of RoR Act. Therefore, such restricted interpretation is not permissible. … … In this case, the DRO has passed orders under Regulation 15(2) of RoR Regulations directing to record the names of Golla Sanjanna and Golla Laxmadu in columns 13 and 14 of Khasra Pahani. The same was done without any jurisdiction under a repealed provision and, therefore, nothing prevents the Joint Collector to exercise his power under Section 9 of RoR Act. In that view of the matter, the first respondent committed an error in rejecting the revision of the petitioners on an erroneous assumption. The petitioner admits that revenue entries in favour of fourth respondent were duly granting mutation in 1967. The MRO passed orders on the application on 21.11.1994 after lapse of 27 years. This certainly would amount to improper exercise of power especially when Section 10(1) of RoR Act on which reliance is placed by the MRO, is not even remotely connected to the power of MRO to rectify the entries. Furthermore, having regard to the dispute between the petitioner and his sister – fourth respondent; first respondent disposed of the revision petition advising the parties to approach the Civil Court for resolving the title dispute. Be it noted, under Section 8(2) of RoR Act, declaratory decree of Civil Court would supersede the entries in record of rights and it would be mandatory for the authorities under RoR Act to amend the record of rights in accordance with Court decree. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, without any order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) June 16, 2010 YS [1] 2007 (6) ALD 348 (FB) [2] 2006 (5) ALD 261