Manne Satyanarayana Murthy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 16674 of 2011 ORDER:

The writ petitioners question the action of the 1st respondent in entertaining an appeal filed by respondents 3 to 19 challenging the grant of mutation in favour of the petitioners in the year 1994-95.

2. The principal contention raised by the petitioners' counsel is that the petitioners are purchasers of the property under registered sale deeds dated 22.04.1993 and mutation was granted in their favour by the 2nd respondent in the year 1994-95 and subsequently pattadar passbooks were also issued. It is his further contention that the 1st respondent cannot entertain an appeal against the mutation granted by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioners in the applications filed under Section 4 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, 'ROR Act').

3.

Even as per the petitioners' claim, admittedly, in the appeal filed before the 1st respondent, respondents 3 to 19 are only alleged purchasers by virtue of registered sale deeds dated 20.02.2008. At best, respondents 3 to 19 could have sought mutation of their names by filing applications under Section 4 of the ROR Act, based on their sale deeds, in which event their cases could have been considered in accordance with law. However, even assuming for argument sake that respondents 3 to 19 had any right, the mutation granted in favour of the petitioners in the year 1994-95 could not have been challenged by way of an appeal in the year 2011, after a long lapse of time, for the reason

that, even if the appeal is otherwise maintainable, the same should have been filed within sixty days from the date of passing mutation orders under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act.

4.

Learned counsel Sri C.M.R. Velu, appearing for respondents 3 to 19, submits that in view of the judgment of this Court in Sannepalli Nageswar Rao and another v. District Collector, Khammam and others[1] holding appeal as not maintainable, however, seeks liberty to respondents 3 to 19 to approach the Civil Court.

5.

Insofar granting of liberty to approach Civil Court, this Court does not need to express its opinion inasmuch as it is always open to an aggrieved party to assert its rights by approaching appropriate Civil Court subject to various factors and it is for the Civil Court to consider the merits of the matter both on facts and law. For the purpose of this writ petition, the challenge being limited to the maintainability of appeal before the 1st respondent under the ROR Act, as has been held in various judgments by this Court that an appeal is not maintainable, the action of the 1st respondent is not sustainable and consequently the notice issued to the petitioner is set aside.

6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed forbearing the 1st respondent from proceeding with in any manner in the appeal filed by the respondents 3 to 19. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. ____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

08th June, 2015 ksm [1] 2002 (4) ALD 497 (DB)