Writ Appeal No. 437 of 2017. Case: Sangeetha Jain and Ors. Vs Prl. Secy., Revenue Dept., Hyd. and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Writ Appeal No. 437 of 2017 |
| Judges | Ramesh Ranganathan, ACJ and Dr. Shameem Akther, J. |
| Issue | Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 3(3), 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 5(5), 5A, 5B, 6A, 6A(2), 6A(3), 9 |
| Judgement Date | April 10, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
Ramesh Ranganathan, Actg. C.J.
-
This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1067 of 2017 dated 16.2.2017. The appellants herein are the petitioners in W.P. No. 1067 of 2017 wherein the relief sought for was to declare that the appeal preferred by the daughter of the 4th respondent, under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'), was not maintainable in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ratnamma vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur District 2015 (5) ALT 228; and passing interim orders was illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam. vs. The Mandal Revenue Officer AIR 2008 AP 15.
-
In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge noted the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the 4th respondent had filed I.A. Nos. 583 and 601 of 2006 in O.S. Nos. 63 and 64 of 2004 filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale, and the said IAs were dismissed; and the 2nd respondent could not have passed the interim order directing deletion of the names of the appellants-writ petitioners without issuing notice to the appellants-writ petitioners which was in violation of Section 5(2) of the Act.
-
The learned Single Judge noted the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the appeal preferred by the daughter of the 4th respondent, was against the orders of mutation passed by the 3rd respondent in favour of the appellants-writ petitioners; as such, the appeal was maintainable under Section 5(5) of the Act; and the judgment relied upon by the appellants-writ petitioners related only to an appeal filed against the grant of pattadar passbooks, and not against mutation orders; though the interim order was granted in the year 2006, the writ petition was filed in the year 2017; and the appellants-writ petitioners could raise all their objections before the appellate authority.
-
The learned Single Judge noted the submission, urged on behalf of the 4th respondent, that the appellants-writ petitioners had earlier filed W.P. No. 8471 of 2015 questioning the very same order; they had withdrawn the same and had filed the present writ petition; the appellants-writ petitioners could raise all their pleas before the appellate authority; and when the interim order is in operation for the last several years, it is not open to the appellants-writ petitioners, at this juncture, to challenge the very same order which was challenged earlier in W.P. No. 8471 of 2015.
-
Having noted that the mutation order, passed on 4.1.2006 in favour of the petitioners, was suspended by the appellate authority by his order dated 30.10.2006, and all through the interim order was in operation, the learned Single Judge extracted the relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench in Ratnamma and then observed that, in the present case, the appeal was preferred against the mutation order dated 4.1.2006; the result portion of the appeal filed by the 4th respondent showed that it was only filed against the mutation order passed by the 3rd respondent, and not against the cancellation of the pattadar passbooks; as such the appeal was not maintainable; in so far as the judgment of the Full Bench was concerned, it was regarding issuance of notice to the appellants-writ petitioners whose names were recorded in the revenue records; and, since the appeal was pending, the appellants-writ petitioners could raise their objections before the appellate authority.
-
The learned Single Judge further observed that it was unfortunate that, though the appeal was filed in the year 2006, no notice was given to the affected party. As no relief could be granted in the writ petition, the writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the appellants-writ petitioners to...
To continue reading
Request your trial