THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.19234 of 2007 Dated:- 24th November, 2010 Between:- Gudikati Seetha Ramulu …Petitioner AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, Mahboobnagar district and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.19234 of 2007 ORDER:- The order of the first respondent, i.e., the Revenue Divisional Offier, Gadwal, Mahboobnagar District, in file No.B/125/2006 dated 24.04.2007, is under challenge in this writ petition. The said order was passed in an appeal filed by the sixth respondent against the orders of the second respondent – Tahsildar, Gadwal (the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Gadwal) in file No.C/8195/2005, dated 02.11.2005, wherein, Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds were issued incorporating the name of the fifth respondent – M.Srinivasulu. The challenge is on the ground that the petitioner was not notified before passing the impugned order. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that originally he owned an extent of Acs.10.22 guntas of land situated in Survey No.878 of Gadwal Village and Mandal, out of which, an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas was sold in favour respondents 3 and 4 under registered sale deed dated 26.07.2002. The respondents 3 and 4 in turn sold the said land to the fifth respondent by registered sale deed dated 19.09.2005. Consequently, the mutation was effected and the name of the fifth respondent was entered as pattadar by the authorities, vide proceedings ROR No.C/8198/2005, dated 02.11.2005. He submits that he again re-purchased the said extent of Acs.2.00 guntas of land from the fifth respondent by registered sale deed dated 23.12.2005 and came into possession of the said land. He also got his name mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings of the second respondent in ROR No.C/6182/2006 dated 27.09.2006. He claims that he has constructed a decorticator and a rice mill on the land and operating the same. 3. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that he became the absolute owner and possessor of the said extent of Acs.2.00 guntas of land also by virtue of re-purchase from the fifth respondent and the mutation of his name in the revenue records. 4. It appears that respondents 3 and 4, who originally purchased the said land from the petitioner, sold the same to the sixth respondent by registered sale deed dated 15.10.2004. Notwithstanding the said sale, respondents 3 and 4 again sold the same to the fifth respondent by a registered sale deed dated 19.09.2005. The sixth respondent, who was the earlier purchaser under registered sale deed dated 15.10.2004, challenged the proceedings dated 02.11.2005 of the then Mandal Revenue Officer by which, the fifth respondent was recorded as pattadar by filing an appeal before the first respondent. 5. As mentioned above, in the said appeal, the fifth respondent was impleaded as respondent. It appears that respondents 5 and 6 and their sellers – respondents 3 and 4 filed a compromise petition in the appeal expressing no objection to register the fifth respondent as the pattadar and based on the said petition, the first respondent allowed the appeal and set aside the orders dated 02.11.2005 of the then Mandal Revenue Officer. It is against the said order that this writ petition has been filed. 6. Heard Sri Radhakrishna Reddy for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Assignment for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Ch.Ravi for the sixth respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the facts enumerated above, would contend that the fifth respondent sold the land and executed a registered sale deed dated 22.12.2005 in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, his name was mutated in the revenue records by orders dated 27.09.2006. He would therefore contend that respondents 3 to 6 suppressed the facts and obtained orders in the appeal. He would contend that there was no notice and, therefore, the impugned order of the respondent is unsustainable. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent would submit that the sixth respondent purchased the land by registered sale deed dated 15.10.2004 and thus she was the first purchaser. The petitioner obtained the second sale deed dated 22.12.1005 from the fifth respondent by which time the title had already been passed in favour of the sixth respondent and, therefore, the petitioner has no legal title on the land. He would therefore contend that respondents 3 to 6, who were alone concerned with the title of the sixth respondent, rightly entered into compromise and the order passed by the first respondent based on the said compromise cannot be faulted. 9. I have considered the rival claims and material placed before this Court. The facts that emerge are that, in the first instance, respondents 3 and 4 sold the subject land to the sixth respondent by registered sale deed dated 15.10.2004 and the very same respondents, later sold the same land to the fifth respondent by registered sale deed dated 19.09.2005, who later sold it to the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 22.12.2005. There is no dispute that the name of the fifth respondent was recorded as pattedar on 02.11.2005 and subsequently, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records on 27.09.2006. The sixth respondent, however, did not challenge the proceedings dated 27.09.2006, but challenged the proceedings dated 02.11.2005, whereby, the fifth respondent was recorded as pattedar by filing the appeal before the first respondent. As mentioned above, the said appeal was allowed by orders dated 24.04.2007. By the time the sixth respondent filed the appeal in the year 2006, the petitioner was already recorded as pattedar in the revenue records in the year 2005 itself and the appeal was allowed by orders dated 24.04.2007. Before affecting any mutation, under Section 5(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, it is mandatory on the part of the authorities to issue 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. In the instant case, the name of the petitioner was already entered in the record of rights and, therefore, he is an interested person. The first respondent apparently has not verified this fact while allowing the appeal. Instead, the first respondent acted on the compromise entered into between the parties including respondents 3, 4 and 5, who had already alienated and transferred their right either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of the sixth respondent. The petitioner was not impleaded as party to the appeal nor he was put on any notice before the impugned order is passed. 10. The order passed by the first respondent is therefore unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. Inasmuch as there are rival claims based on the sale deeds said to have been obtained by the petitioner and the sixth respondent as well, the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for de novo consideration of the appeal. The petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 as well, are permitted to file any documents in support of their claim. The first respondent shall issue notices to the petitioners and respondents 3 to 6 and after conducting enquiry, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 24th November, 2010 Bvv