IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 2178 of 2009 Between: 1 Kota Chenchireddygari Adinarayana Reddy, S/o. Late Rami Reddy, R/o. Arkatavemula Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Kjadapla District. 2 Kota Chenchiredigari Sreeramula Reddy, S/o. Late Rami Reddy, R/o. Arkatavemula Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Kjadapla District. 3 Kota Chenchiredigari Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Late Rami Reddy, R/o. Arkatavemula Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Kjadapla District. 4 Kota Chenchireddygari Chendra Obula Reddy, S/o. Late Rami Reddy, R/o. Arkatavemula Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Kjadapla District. 5 G.J. Adinarayanamma, W/o. G.J. Venkata Reddy, R/o. NGO Colony, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District. 6 Paluru Lashmidevi, W/o. Muralidhar Reddy, R/o. Nunepalli Vilalge, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Joint Collector Kadapa Kadapa District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugum, Kadapa District. 3 The Tahasildar, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District. 4 Kataru Pedda Thimmareddy, S/o Chinna Maddileti Reddy, R/o. D.No.6250, Bhagathsing Colony, Proddatur Town, Kadapa District. 5 Kataru Chinna Thimma Reddy, S/o. Chinna Maddileti Reddy, R/o. Nakkaladinne Vilalge, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District. 6 Kataru Maddulety Reddy, S/o. Chinna Maddileti Reddy, R/o. Nakkaladinne Village, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa 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 Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent in REf.(A)/1418/2001, dated 6-9-2001 and the confirmation order of the 1st respondent in R.Dis(e2) 1452/2006, dated 5-12-2007 and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the provisions of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VENKATA RAMANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 2178 of 2009 21-08-2009 Oral Order: The order of the 1st respondent dated 05-12-2007 exercising power under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the 1971 Act’) confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated 06-09- 2001 (passed in purported exercise of powers under Section 5 (5) of the 1971 Act), setting aside and canceling the pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of Kota Chennamma wife of Rami Reddy in respect of land of an extent of Ac.04-52 cents in survey no. 499 of Arakatavemula village, Rajupalem Mandal, Kadapa District, is assailed in this writ petition. It would appear that the schedule patta land is recorded in the name of Smt. Kataru Rama Subbamma wife of late Chow Reddy and her daughter – Naga Lakshumma alias Madduletamma. They acquired title to the land through a registered gift deed, for their maintenance from Kataru Chow Reddy and Kataru Ghana Madduleti Reddy, the husband and brother-in-law of Kataru Rama Subbamma. However, K. Chennamma, the mother of the writ petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds for the schedule lands in her name. She filed O.S.No. 689 of 2000 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Prodattur for a permanent injunction against the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein. That suit was dismissed for default. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 thereafter represented to the 2nd respondent claiming to be the original heirs of Kataru Rama Subbamma and Nagalakshumma and sought cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of Kota Chennamma. By the order dated 06-09-2001, the 2nd respondent cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of Kota Chennamma by recording that despite notice and opportunity, Kota Chennamma failed to establish any legal basis for grant of pattadar passbook and title deed in her favour and contrary to the interests of respondents Nos. 4 to 6. Thereafter Kota Chennamma filed O.S.No. 533 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddutur for declaration of title and other reliefs. The suit was dismissed on merits on 28-02-2006. Thereagainst the petitioners claim to have filed A.S.No. 15 of 2006 on the file of the learned II- Additional District Judge, Kadapa which is stated to be pending. Be that as it may. The petitioners filed a revision before the 1st respondent under Section 9 of the 1971 Act against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 06-09-2001 (allowing the appeal of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6). The 1st respondent by the order dated 05-12-2007 concurred with the 2nd respondent and held that the title to the property appears to be in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein; that the petitioners failed to produce even a scintilla of proof to claim title; and therefore the pattadar passbook and title deed in their favour or in favour of their mother— Chennamma have been rightly cancelled. The singular ground urged by Sri M. Venkataramana Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that the appeal preferred by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 before the 2nd respondent is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 5 (5) of the 1971 Act i.e., sixty (60) days from the date of communication of the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. This contention does not commend acceptance by this Court. It is not established in this writ petition that the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer recording the name of Kota Chennamma in the revenue records or the order under which the pattadar passbook and title deed were granted in favour of Kota Chennamma were ever communicated to the respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are entitled to prefer an appeal and within the period of sixty (60) days to the 2nd respondent from the date of communication of an order made by the Mandal Revenue Officer, under Section 5 (5) of the 1971 Act. In the absence of any such communication, an aggrieved person may prefer an appeal within a reasonable time from the date of knowledge of an offending order. Be that as it may. From the order of the 2nd and 1st respondents it appears that neither K. Chennamma nor the petitioners presented any material before the appellate and revisional authorities in support of their claim of title to the schedule property. The basis of the petitioners’ claim appears to be the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer granting pattadar passbook and title deed. On what basis or material the order was passed is not apparent. From the material on record this Court is satisfied that it would not be just or equitable to invalidate only the order of the 2nd respondent dated 06-09-2001 as confirmed by the order of the 1st respondent dated 05-12-2007, as a consequence of which the pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of Kota Chennamma is set at naught. Doing so would perpetuate the illegality of reviving an order of the Mandal Revenue Officer granting pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of Chennamma for which there appears no basis or any material. The principle is well settled that the Mandamus ought not to be issued to perpetuate an illegality or injustice vide, Gade Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh1. In the circumstances and particularly in the context of the judgment in O.S.No. 533 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur dated 28-02-2006 which declares that the petitioners have failed to establish their title to the schedule property (though subject to appeal), it would inequitable and result in a conflict of decisions if the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer granting pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of K. Chennamma is permitted to be operational. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of preserving the liberty to the petitioners and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to pursue appropriate remedies either before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction or the appellate Court before which an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 533 of 2002 of the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur is stated to be pending or before the revenue authorities on the basis of the outcome of the litigation in O.S.No. 533 of 2002. The initial recording of title, grant of pattadar passbook or title deed in favour of K. Chennamma nor the cancellation of those proceedings by the orders of the 2nd and 1st respondent shall preclude the remedies of any of the non-official parties to these proceedings to pursue appropriate remedies for declaration of title or recoding of revenue entries in respect of the schedule property. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 21-08-2009 Pvks 1 AIR 1966 SC 828