THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12988 OF 2010 10.06.2010 Between: Katikala Narasaiah ….Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12988 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioners 1 to 3 are sons of Venkaiah. Petitioners 4 and 5 are sons of Chittaiah. All of them are residents of Laxmapur village of Shamirpet Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. They filed the instant writ petition aggrieved by the order of second respondent, namely, Joint Collector passed under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (ROR Act, for brevity) whereby and whereunder the said appellate authority confirmed the order, dated 12.01.2009 of third respondent, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), who in turn confirmed the order of fourth respondent, namely, Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar issuing Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds (PPBs) in favour of fifth respondent. The case of the petitioners is as follows. Land admeasuring Acs.17.04 guntas in survey No.124 has been in possession of Venkaiah and Chittaiah – petitioners’ predecessors; for over seven decades. Their names are also entered in the revenue records like Pahanis. On an application made by fifth respondent, the Tahsildar issued PPBs in her favour without conducting enquiry under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the ROR Act. The fifth respondent approached belatedly and therefore, it was not competent for Tahsildar to accept the claim of fifth respondent beyond period of limitation. Petitioners, therefore, filed appeal under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act before the RDO. The same was dismissed on 12.01.2009 vide order No.A2/4157/2007. The appellate authority also failed to give reasons as to how the PPBs in favour of fifth respondent can be sustained. Aggrieved by the order of RDO, petitioners filed revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act. Having dismissed the revision by the Joint Collector by impugned order, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. Counsel for petitioners submits that the orders of the original, appellate and revisional authorities are vitiated, in that the original authority failed to issue notice to petitioners whose names were entered in the Pahanis. He would also urge that the procedure contemplated under Sections 4 and 5 of the ROR Act and the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (ROR Rules) was not followed and therefore, the grant of PPBs in favour of fifth respondent is unsustainable. Fifth respondent did not substantiate her claim for grant of PPBs and therefore, the impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary. These contentions are refuted by Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area). A perusal of impugned order reveals factual background as follows. Land admeasuring Acs.102.35 guntas comprised in survey Nos.71, 121, 125, 126, 128 and 129 of Laxmapur village was owned by Nawabs. The name of one Mohd.Khalelullah was recorded as Pattadar. He died in 1944 leaving behind him three sons, namely, Late Sibgatullah, Late Hibbullah and late Hamidullah and three daughters, namely, late Aratul Aziz Begum, late Asma Begum and late Habibatur Rehman. After death of Kahlelullah, the names of legal heirs were entered in the revenue records. After the demise of sons and daughters of original pattadar, legal heirs inherited the property proportionately. They obtained legal heir certificate, photo identity cards and filed application before Tahsildar. He issued notices under Section 5(3) of the ROR Act inviting objections which was published in Deccan Chronicle on 11.08.2007. As no objections were received, the Tahsildar, Shamirpet passed orders granting PPBs in favour of legal heirs in proceedings No.B/1059/07, B/1060/07, B/1061/07, B/1062/07 and B/1063/07. A perusal of the appellate order and revisional order would show that both the authorities verified the records and were satisfied that the Tahsildar followed the procedure contemplated under ROR Act and the ROR Rules. Therefore, the submission that petitioners are not given notice is without any substance. Further, the entries in record of rights in Form I-B are made and/or the entries are altered in the record of rights before issuing amended pattadar pass books only in the event of (a) a person acquiring title by succession; (b) a person acquiring title by partition; (c) a person acquiring title by way of gift; (d) a person acquiring title by way of purchase under valid sale deed and (e) a person acquiring title by reason of assignment made by the Government. In this case, the petitioners admit that they or their predecessors have been in possession of the land. If this allegation is true, nothing prevented the petitioners to seek a decree for declaration of title by virtue of adverse possession. Having not done so, without any valid title, they cannot be treated as proper objectors for grant of PPBs by Tahsildar. If so advised, the petitioners remedy is to file a suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession. They cannot acquire title merely by seeking to set aside the PPBs issued to the legal heirs of original pattadar. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 10.06.2010 Pln