IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25552 of 2005 Between: Shaik Majeeduddin S/o.Shaik Fareeduddin R/o.H.No.23-1-988, Moghalpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, Warangal District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Cherial Mandal, Warangal District. 3 Smt.Waheedunissa Begum W/o.Shaik Fareeduddin R/o.23-1-988, Moghalpura,Hyderabad. 4 Mohd Mazhar Shareef S/o.Late Mohd Hyder Shareef R/o.4-1-65, Gundlagadda, Jangaon, Warangal District. 5 Israth Jahan D/o.late Shaik Ameenuddin R/o.10-96, Cherial Village and Mandal, Warangal District. 6 Shaik Azeezuddin D/o.late Shaik Ameenuddin R/o.8-5-53, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. 7 Shaik Khamaruddin D/o.late Shaik Ameenuddin R/o.10-96, Cherial Village and Mandal, Warangal District. 8 Rahat Jahan D/o.late Shaik Ameenuddin R/o.10-96, Cherial Village and Mandal, Warangal District. 9 Yusuf Jasni D/o.late Shaik Ameenuddin R/o.10-96, Cherial Village and Mandal, Warangal District. 10 Shaik Moizuddin D/o.late Shaik Ameenuddin R/o.10-96, Cherial Village and Mandal, Warangal District. 11 Razia Sulthana D/o. Late Shaik ameenuddin, W/o.Ghulam Mohiuddin R/o.8-5-53, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. 12 Nusrath Jahan D/o.Late Shaik Ameenuddin R/o.10-96, Cherial Village and Mandal, Warangal District. 13 Saleem Athar D/o.Late Shaik Ameenuddin R/o.10-96, Cherial Village and Mandal, Warangal District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MRSYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 05-11-2005 passed by respondent No.1 in his proceedings bearing R.C.No.E/14/2005. There is a serous dispute with regard to lands admeasuring Acs.10.07 guntas and Acs.2.20 guntas in Survey No.984 of Cherial Village. While the petitioner claimed his right through registered sale deeds bearing Nos. 1163/83 and 1164/83 dated 22.11.1983 executed by one Shaik Fareeuddin, the purported general power of attorney of Shaik Chand, who admittedly was the original owner of the property, respondents 3 to 13, who represent one or the other branches from among the successors of Shaik Chand disputed the claim of the petitioner regarding the title to the said property. The legal heirs of Shaik Ameenuddin i.e., respondents 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 ﬁled O.S. No.90 of 1985 on the ﬁle of the Subordinate Judge, Jangaon seeking partition of the properties and persuaded the said Court to grant certain interim orders, pending the suit. It is not in dispute that the said civil suit was dismissed, as not pressed, on 15-07-1998 on the purported settlement among the competing claimants to the property. The petitioner approached the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Cherial-respondent No.2 to correct the entries in the revenue record and issue fresh pattadar passbook and title deeds in his favour after cancelling the same, which stood in favour of the contesting respondents. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Cherial reported to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Jangaon-respondent No.1, by his letter dated 03-03-2005, that the pattadar passbooks were issued under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) in the year 1994-95 as per the entries in the revenue record; that as the issue was pending in O.S.No.90 of 1985, he requested respondent No.1 to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the contesting respondents. On the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.9628 of 2005, respondent No.1 considered the application of the petitioner. In his order, he observed as under:- “In the instant case, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Cherial has not followed due procedure as required under the R.O.R.Act/Rules before issue of pattadar passbooks to the respondents and has simply eﬀected succession over the land in Sy.No.984 only to the legal heirs of Shaik Ameenuddin who is the son of the original pattadars Shaik Chand. In other way extinguishing the rights and interests of the other share holders/legal heirs of the original pattadars Shaik Chand. Also it is crystal clear that no principles of law of succession as required under the Muslim Personal Law have been followed which is observed as a grave irregularity. It is also evident from the foregoing supra, that the land in Sy.No.984 to the extent of Acs.12.27 guntas is in dispute between the petitioners and respondents out of the total extent of Acs.15.15 guntas covered in the survey number. Since the respondents well knowingly the facts about partition of the disputed land held by Shaik Ameenuddin and suit pending in the court of law and themselves withdrawn the case as not pressing the suit, they have got pattadars passbooks which appears to be obtained irregularly. During the course of enquiry of the case on 02-07-2005, the respondents also deposed in the cross examination that as per Muslim Law the land will be successioned to the son @50% and remaining 50% to the daughters. Further there is no provision to settle such disputed lands by the Revenue authorities under the provisions of R.O.R Act unless all the interested persons give in writing with the declaration and submit applications as Form 6 for succession of property under the law in the existence. Hence, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Cherial is directed to cancel the pattadars pass books issued to the respondents 3 to 11 and the case is remanded back to the M.R.O Cherial for “de novo enquiry”. Having thus remanded the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Cherial for conducting de novo enquiry, with the direction to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued to the contesting respondents, respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for a decree for issuance of pattadar passbooks. In coming to this conclusion, respondent No.1 relied on certain observations made by the Subordinate Judge, Jangaon in his order dated 23-07-1986 in I.A.Nos.64 and 278 of 1985 in O.S.No.90 of 1985 ﬁled by respondents 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13. I ﬁnd a serious contradiction in the order of respondent No.1 because on the one hand he remanded the matter to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer for a de novo enquiry and on the other hand, he relegated the petitioner to Civil Court for issuance of pattadar passbooks. Under Section 4 of the Act, any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant, of the land may approach the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer within the time stipulated therein and may intimate the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer about the acquisition of his right within the time stipulated therein. On receipt of such an intimation, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer shall determine under Section 5 of the Act as to whether and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence thereof and shall carry out the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. Section 5(2) of the Act contemplates that when the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer has reason to believe that an acquisition of any right of a description to which Section 4 applies has taken place and of which an intimation has not been made to him under that Section and where he considers that an amendment has to be eﬀected in the record of rights, he shall carry out the said amendment in the record of rights. Under sub-section (3) of Section 5, he shall issue a notice 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 to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or aﬀected thereby to show cause within the period speciﬁed therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out and he shall after considering every objection made in that behalf and after making such an enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems ﬁt. Under sub-section (5), an aggrieved person is entitled to ﬁle an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer or such other authority as may be prescribed and the decision of the appellate authority shall be ﬁnal subject to the revisional powers of the Collector under Section 9 of the Act. Section 6-A of the Act envisages that every owner, pattadar, mortgagee or tenant of any land shall apply for the issue of a passbook to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer on payment of the prescribed fee. On making such application, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer shall cause an enquiry to be made in such manner as may be prescribed and shall issue a title deed and passbook in accordance with the record of rights with such particulars and in such form as may be prescribed. Under sub-section (3) of Section 6-A, the entries in the pass book may be corrected either suo motu or on an application made to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer in the manner prescribed. The scheme of the above mentioned statutory provisions contained in the Act clearly shows that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer is the jurisdictional authority to entertain any claim for correction of entries in the revenue record. He is also empowered to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds and also correct entries made therein in accordance with the entries in the revenue record. When the petitioner informed the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Cherial with a request to him to issue pattadar passbook and title deeds, it is obligatory on the part of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer to ﬁrst examine whether the petitioner acquired any right, which warrants correction of entries in the record of rights. After holding the enquiry by giving all the interested persons an opportunity of hearing and considering the objections ﬁled by them, if he comes to the conclusion that the applicant established his right for correcting the entries in the record of rights in his favour, he shall then pass an order to that eﬀect and communicate the same to all the parties. It is only thereafter that the person in whose favour the entries are made is entitled to seek correction of entries in the pattadar passbook and title deeds and for issuance of fresh passbooks and title deeds. In the instant case, respondent No.1 rightly remanded the case to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Cherial for a de novo enquiry. But respondent No.1 committed a patent error in relegating the petitioner to the Civil Court for the purpose of purported implementation of patta and issue of pattadar passbooks. As noted above, it is only the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer who is competent to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds after passing appropriate order under Section 5 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the order of respondent No.1 to the extent the petitioner is directed to approach the Civil Court is quashed. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Cherial-respondent No.2 is directed to hold enquiry under Section 5 of the Act on the claim of the petitioner, consider the objections, if any, ﬁled by respondents 3 to 13 and pass an appropriate order. Depending upon the result of the enquiry held by him and the nature of the order passed by him, the claim of the parties for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds shall be considered under Section 6-A of the Act. He shall complete this exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of . C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 28th August, 2008 vrn