HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 1687 OF 2011. DATED 2nd February, 2011. BETWEEN Maramreddy Sekhar Reddy …Petitioner and The Joint Collector, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 1687 OF 2011. ORDER: Questioning the validity and legality of the order dated 12.02.2011 passed by the first respondent-revisional authority, confirming the order of the second respondent dated 20.10.2010 vide which the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favor of the petitioner were cancelled, this writ petition is filed. In the manner in which this writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to record the facts in great detail. It would suffice to state that: pursuant to the oral partition which allegedly took place between the petitioner and his father--fourth respondent herein, in the year 2004, in respect of the joint family properties, the dry land to an extent of Ac.22.16 cents comprised in Syt.Nos. 411/B, 413/A, 414, 415, 416/A, 421/1 and 428/A of Gunapadu village, Chittamuru Mandal SPSR Nellore District, fell to the share of the petitioner. It is stated that the recording authority--Mandal Revenue Officer, under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, after recording the factum of partition and accepting the allotment of the subject land, issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the subject land to the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is stated, the fourth respondent, gifted an extent of Ac.6.92 cents out of the land fell to the share of the petitioner to his daughter vide registered settlement deed dated 24.02.2009. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No. 67 of 2009 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Nellore for declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the fourth respondent and his sister (daughter of the fourth respondent) from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the subject land. It is stated that the said suit and C.M.A.No. 1029 of 2010 filed against the order dated 31.08.2010 vacating the interim injunction granted at the time of filing the suit, are pending consideration. Thereafter, pursuant to the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 14993 of 2009, dated 27.7.2009, the fourth respondent filed an appeal before the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer against the issuance of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the subject land to the petitioner. The appellate authority vide its order dated 20.10.2010 cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner. Questioning the said cancellation order, the petitioner filed revision before the first respondent, who by order impugned in the writ petition, confirmed the order of the appellate authority-second respondent. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case file carefully. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional authority has not considered the revision filed by the petitioner in proper perspective; that the order impugned in this writ petition is a non speaking order; that the revisional authority ought not to have set aside the order passed by the recording authority granting pattadar pass books to the petitioner in the absence of an appeal being filed by the aggrieved party within the prescribed period and that the appeal filed by the fourth respondent was barred by limitation. From a perusal of the order passed by the lower appellate authority-Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 20.10.2010, it is clear that the recording authority-Mandal Revenue Officer, without issuing adequate prior notice as contemplated under the law, and without calling for objections from the affected parties thereto, completed the whole exercise of issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed to the petitioner in one single day. The observation of the appellate authority in this regard, reads as under: “ The perusal of records would go to show that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chittamur never bothered to enquire whether Sri Maramreddy Muni Sundarami Reddy was alive or not on the date of issuing of pattadar pass book and title deed books in favour of M.Sekhar Reddy on 3.12.2004 and also the fact whether the appellant has got any other legal heir in order to issue notices to them. Further, the then Mandal Revenue Officer failed to cause notice as contemplated under law before issuing pattadar pass book and title deed book in favour of Sri Maramreddy Sekhar Reddy calling for objections. No objections were called for though the then Mandal Revenue Officer has got knowledge that Sri Maramreddy Munisundara Ramireddy has also got a daughter, wife and mother living. The hastiness with which entire proceedings were completed in one single day’. Without notice to objectors shows the malafides involved in it. The issuance of order in No.10(A) (mulproof) as per register 6(11)548/1414 in favour of Sri Maramreddy Sekhar Reddy show that Sri Maramreddy Munisundara Ramireddy was no more on the issuance of the same, is not only false but also illegal and highly objectionable. The other finding of the then Mandal Revenue Officer that the family of Maramreddy Munisundara Ramireddy orally got divided is without any recorded proof. There is no basis for arriving at the finding. Further, it clearly shows entries in 10(1) accounts for fasli 1414 are not convincing and the entries show only hastiness with which they were prepared in order to help the respondent. The Commissioner Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad in his Rc.ROR/a/444/89, dated 31.5.1989 has issued clarification regard the cases of father and son are alive in point-II as detailed below. **** **** **** **** **** **** All the above findings would go to show that pattadar pass book and title deed books were issued to the respondent based on puthy account prepared hastily during the life time of the persons in whose names the registry exists, even without notice, exposes the malafides involved in the issuance and therefore the title deed book, and pattadar pass book and entries in ROR/548/6-11/1414 dated 3.12.2004 issued in favour of the respondent Sri M. Sekhar Reddy, son of M. Munisundarama reddy in respect of the land mentioned above are hereby cancelled. It is needless to say that the pattadar pass book and title deed book already issued to Maramreddy Munisundarami reddy are restored. The Tahsildar, Chittamur is requested to implement the changes in relevant registers and submit compliance report to the office in this regard.” The revisional authority, upon considering the entire record and the submission of the parties to the revison, confirmed the order of the appellate authority. Thus it is manifest from the concurrent findings of the appellate and revisional authorities that the pattadar pass book and title deed were issued to the petitioner based on pouthy statement of the petitioner and the account prepared hastily during the life time of the persons in whose names the registry exists even without notice exposes malafide intention in the issuance of pattadar pass book. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chittamur without verifying the facts of the case and without conducting enquiry as contemplated in Rule 6 of the AP Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass books Rules, 1989, had issued pattadar pass book and title deeds in favour of the petitioner. It is well settled that Revisional power is wider enough and is meant to be exercised to set right glaring illegalities or orders passed in violation of the provisions of the Act or misuse or abuse of power by the lower authorities or to prevent miscarriage of justice and the Joint Collector could exercise revisional jurisdiction which enabled him to call for and examine any record of rights prepared or maintained under Section 3 or any order passed or proceedings taken by any recording authority or an appellate authority to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such record, or order or proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken or order made therein and had powers to pass orders amending, modifying, annulling, reversing or remitting the matter for reconsideration. Further it is well settled that any order passed non est in the eye of law can be questioned at any time before any Court or Tribunal. In view of the above, both the Courts below have rightly restored the pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of Maramreddy Munisundara Ramireddy, father of the petitioner and hence, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not merit consideration. I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 2nd February, 2011. Msnro