IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27321 of 2008 Between: Kommineni Amaraiah, S/o. Late Pedda Buchaiah, R/o. Tunnikipadu Village, Gampalagudem Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Krishna District. Machilipatnam. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuziweed, Krishna District. 3 Tahsildar, Gampalagudam Village, Tiruvuru Taluq, Krishna District. 4 Kommieni Sirisha, W/o. Late Tejendra, R/o. Flat No. 80, Road No.4, Mahadevpuram Colony, Tulasi Nagar, Vijaywada. .....RESPONDENTS 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 declare the order in Rc.No.D4.2207 dt.29-11-2008 passed by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and contrary to principles of natural justice by issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27321 of 2008 ORDER: Instant writ petition is filed challenging order of first respondent dated 29.11.2008 whereby and whereunder first respondent set aside order of second respondent and ordered restoration of Pattadar Pass Book/Title Deed (PPB/TD) issued to fourth respondent. Petitioner is allegedly owner of agricultural lands in R.S.Nos.107/3 (Acs.2.65), 113 (Acs.1.75), 87/1 (Acs.3.06) 28/1 (Acs.3.33) and 259/2 (Acs.5.06) situated at Thunikipadu village of Gampalagudem Mandal in Krishna District. He statedly acquired these lands in a family partition dated 11.7.1986 among his brothers. Petitioner has a son, Thejendra, and a daughter, Radhika, who is residing in United States of America (USA). Fourth respondent is daughter-in-law of petitioner. Petitioner’s son died on 12.8.2004. Petitioner went to USA for employment and after coming back in October 2005 came to know that fourth respondent obtained PPB in respect of lands comprised in R.S.Nos.107/3 and 113 of Thunikipadu village, based on a partition deed dated 16.3.1999 between petitioner and his son, Thejendra. Alleging that fourth respondent forged document, petitioner filed a complaint before the Authorities for rectification of entries. Fourth respondent filed O.S.No.145 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzivid, for permanent injunction. Petitioner then filed application before third respondent for grant of PPB under Andhra Prdesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity), in vain. Then he filed appeal before second respondent being ROR No.19 of 2007. Second respondent allowed appeal on 26.4.2008 on the ground that alleged partition deed dated 16.3.1999 is forged document and cancelled PPB/TD issued in favour of fourth respondent. She then preferred a revision before first respondent, who by impugned order set aside order of Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that Tahsildar, Gampalagudem did not issue any notice to petitioner before issuing PPB in favour of fourth respondent in respect of land in survey Nos.107/3 and 113 and that fourth respondent obtained PPB by producing forged document, which was allegedly executed by petitioner when he was not at all in India. Learned Counsel would urge this Court that first respondent failed to consider these aspects and if fourth respondent wants to agitate her right for issue of PPB, she ought to have filed suit for declaration of her share in the property. Learned Assistant Government Pleader opposed writ petition. Section 4 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity) enables any person acquiring rights in agricultural land by inter alia partition to make an application to Tahsildar for alteration/change of record of rights and issue of PPB. Fourth respondent admittedly approached third respondent for PPB claiming a share in partition dated 16.3.1999 allegedly between petitioner and his deceased son, Thejendra. In such circumstances, Tahsildar is entitled to adjudicate right of a person claiming PPB on prima facie consideration and pass necessary orders under Section 5(3) of the Act, after following procedure contemplated Rules 18 to 20 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (the Rules, for brevity). It is no doubt true that under Section 5(3) of the Act, a notice to interested person is necessary. Even if notice is not issued, when petitioner filed appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act before second respondent, the same was allowed and therefore petitioner cannot have any grievance about non-issue of notice by Tahsildar. Be that as it is, when recording authority–Tahsildar/RDO; is conferred with limited powers under Section 10 of the Act, as held by this Court in I.V.Saibaba Reddy v RDO, Nellore[1]. It is quite illegal and improper for second respondent to compare signatures on alleged partition deed dated 16.3.1999 and come to the conclusion that the same is forged. Considering this aspect, Joint Collector observed as under. The records are perused. The respondent states that the partition is a forged one. But he has not produced any evidence as regards to whether he has filed any criminal case against the Revision Petitioner and whether it was proved that the document is forged one or whether the criminal case filed if any is pending for disposal. He did not deny the orders of the Civil Court issued in I.A.No.11181 of 2007 in O.S.No.155 of 2007. Thus as long as the partition deed is not declared to be void or forged one, it is valid and the possession over the land by the Revision Petitioner is clearly established from the order in I.A.No.1181 of 2007 in O.S.No.155 of 2007. Hence the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzivid, who has no competency to decide whether the partition deed is forged one or not, has unnecessarily set-aside the orders of the Tahsildar and cancelled the Pattadar Pass Book. Hence the Revision Petition is held under Section 9 of the Record of Rights Act and the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzivid is set-aside and the Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds are restored. However the respondent is at liberty to get declared the partition deed is forged one in the competent forum and then approach the Tahsildar for further action. The conclusion of first respondent that RDO has no competence to decide whether partition deed is forged or not, is correct one and the same cannot be faulted. Further, if petitioner is aggrieved by right claimed by fourth respondent and partition deed set up by her is forged, it is always open to petitioner to institute a suit before civil court for claiming better title. Be it noted that under Section 8(2) of the Act, a person aggrieved by entries made in any record of rights can institute a suit for declaration of his right under Chapter-VI of Specific Relief Act, 1963, and entries in record of rights shall be amended in accordance with Court’s declaration. The question whether partition deed is forged or not, is intricate and complicated question of fact, which needs to be tried in a civil court and Tahsildar/RDO are not competent to decide such question. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) December 16, 2008. YS To 1 The Joint Collector, Krishna District. Machilipatnam. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuziweed, Krishna District. 3 Tahsildar, Gampalagudam Village, Tiruvuru Taluq, Krishna District. 4 Two CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 5 Two CD copies. [1] 2006(4) ALD 87 : 2006(4) ALT 226