THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.31073 OF 1998 DATED: 18-01-2008 Between : Smt. Chakala Obulamma … Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.31073 OF 1998 ORDER: The petitioner herein was granted a pattadar pass book in respect of Ac.1-50 cents of land situated in Sy.No.48/1 of Julakalva Village, Ananthapur District vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 1.11.1996. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 3 and 4 herein filed an Appeal before the 1st respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, which was allowed by order dated 10.5.1998, thereby setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent and remanding the matter for fresh enquiry in accordance with law. The said order of the 1st respondent dated 10.5.1998 is under challenge in this writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. It is pleaded by the petitioner that she made an application to the 2nd respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of pattadar pass book in respect of the land in question situated in Sy.No.48/1 along with certain other lands. The said application was got enquired by the concerned authorities and thereafter basing on the entries made in the revenue records, the 2nd respondent issued pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour vide proceedings dated 1.11.1996. On the other hand, the claim of the respondents 3 and 4 is that the land in Sy.No.48/1 admeasuring Ac.6.83 cents was originally registered in the name of one Chakala Chinnaiah and during his life time he executed a gift deed in respect of Ac.1.50 cents of land in favour of his grandson by name Chakala Suryanarayana from whom the father of the respondents 3 and 4 purchased Ac.1-50 cents under a Registered Sale Deed dated 21.2.1994. Alleging that the writ petitioner had no title over the said land and the pattadar pass book and title deed granted in her favour were irregular and illegal, they filed an appeal before the 1st respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer. After hearing both the parties, the 1st respondent having found that before issuing the pass book and title deed in favour of the writ petitioner, the 2nd respondent failed to issue notice to all the interested persons as required under Rule 9 (1) (c) of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘the Rules’), allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer for de novo enquiry. The order of the 1st respondent dated 10.5.1998 is assailed in this writ petition contending that the said order which was passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that since Section 5-B of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, ‘ROR Act’) provides for an appeal only against an order of regularisation of the alienations or other transfers of land made under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A, the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order of the 2nd respondent granting pattadar pass book and title deed. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order dated 10.5.1998 is without jurisdiction and liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that since no such objection was raised before the 1st respondent, it is not open to the petitioner now to contend that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Though no counter-affidavit is filed, the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and warrants no interference. It is not disputed by both the parties that civil suits relating to their rival claims in respect of the property in question are pending before the Court of the District Munsif, Ananthapur. It is also clear from the order impugned that before granting the pass book and title deed in favour of the writ petitioner, there was no notice to the respondents 3 and 4 and the procedure prescribed under the Rules was not followed. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent was justified in setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent and remanding the matter for fresh enquiry. So far as the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal itself is not maintainable before the 1st respondent under Section 5-B of the ROR Act against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 1.11.1996 is concerned, it is relevant to note that as per Section 4 of the ROR Act any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right to the Mandal Revenue Officer within 90 days. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 provides that on receipt of such intimation, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall determine as to whether the record of rights may be amended in consequence therefor and if so in what manner and shall carry out amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the ROR Act, mandates that the recording authority before carrying out any amendment in the record of right shall issue a notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested or affected by the proposed amendment, to show-cause as to why the amendment should not be carried out. The recording authority shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry pass such order as he deems fit. Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of ROR Act provides for an Appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer against every order of the recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such amendment. Under Section 5-A of the ROR Act as inserted by the A.P. Amendment Act I of 1989, a special power has been conferred on the Mandal Revenue Officer to validate the transfers of lands made otherwise than by registered documents subject to compliance with the conditions specified thereunder and after making such enquiry ass prescribed under the Rules. Under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of the ROR Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer is competent to issue a certificate to the alienee or the transferee declaring that the alienations or transfers in his favour is valid from the date of issue of certificate and such certificate shall be evidence of such alienation or transfer as against the alienor or transferor or any person claiming interest under him. Against such an order passed under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A by the Mandal Revenue Officer, an Appeal is provided to the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5-B of the ROR Act. On a plain reading of Section 5 and Section 5-A read with Section 5-B of the ROR Act, it is clear that they provide for two different situations. Whereas Section 5 deals with amendment and updating of record of rights on receipt of an intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right by any person as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land, Section 5-A deals with regularization of alienations or transfers made or affected other than by a registered document. Since admittedly the order of the 2nd respondent dated 1.11.1996 is not an order passed in exercise of the powers under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, it is true that no appeal can be maintained under Section 5-B of the ROR Act. However, it is to be noted that the ROR Act, 1971 underwent an important amendment under the A.P. Amendment Act 11 of 1980 by inserting Section 6-A, which provides for grant of a passbook and title deed. As per Section 6-A the owner/pattadar shall apply for the issue of a pass book and title deed and on receipt of such application, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall cause an enquiry to be made and shall issue a title deed and pass book in accordance with the record of rights. The proviso to Section 6-A(2) made it clear that no such title deed and pass book shall be issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer unless the record of rights have been brought upto date. On a combined reading of Sections 5 and 6-A of the ROR Act, there can be no doubt that granting of pattadar pass book and title deed is nothing but implementation of the entries in the Record of Rights as effected under Section 5 of the ROR Act. In the circumstances, any order made under Section 6-A of the ROR Act relating to issuance of pass book and title deed is undoubtedly amenable to the appellate jurisdiction conferred on the Revenue Divisional Officer under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the ROR Act. Hence, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any express provision for a remedy of appeal against the order under Section 6-A of the ROR Act, the 1st respondent ought not to have entertained the appeal against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 1.11.1996. As expressed above, though the appeal under Section 5-B of the ROR Act is not maintainable, the order of the 1st respondent dated 1.11.1996 is appelable under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act. It is relevant to note that both under Section 5 (5) and Section 5- B of the ROR Act, the appellate powers are conferred on the Revenue Divisional Officer. Since the impugned order can be traced to the power conferred on the 1st respondent under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order is without jurisdiction is untenable. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 18.01.2008. Gbs/Kgr