The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has set aside a Single Judge’s order, holding that an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act) is maintainable when the challenge is not limited solely to the issuance of pattadar passbooks but also extends to amendments made in the Record of Rights.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta, allowed the Writ Appeal filed by Y. Neelakantha, restoring the underlying Writ Petition for a fresh decision.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose regarding agricultural land in Ontimiddi Village, Kalyanadurgam Mandal, Anantapur District. The names of the writ petitioners (G. Hampaiah and others) were recorded in the Record of Rights under Section 5 of the Act, and pattadar passbooks were issued to them.
The present appellant (Respondent No. 6 in the writ petition) filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) challenging the Tahsildar’s orders. The appeal explicitly sought to set aside the order “issuing the pattadar pass book and title deed and also mutation in revenue record.”
The RDO allowed the appeal on April 22, 2022, directing the Tahsildar to delete the names of the writ petitioners and conduct a de novo enquiry. The writ petitioners subsequently filed a revision before the Joint Collector, which was dismissed on July 7, 2022, on the grounds that the land was classified as “Dotted Land,” falling under the jurisdiction of the District Collector Level Committee.
Challenging both the RDO’s and the Joint Collector’s orders, the writ petitioners filed W.P. No. 32310 of 2022. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders on the primary ground that an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act was not maintainable against the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, relying on the Division Bench judgment in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur (2015).
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that the appeal before the RDO was maintainable under Section 5(5) of the Act because the challenge was not restricted to the passbooks issued under Section 6-A. It was contended that the appellant had specifically challenged the “mutation in revenue records” made under Section 5. The counsel submitted that the Ratnamma judgment was not applicable as it pertained to cases where only the issuance of passbooks was challenged without disputing the underlying Record of Rights entries.
Conversely, the counsel for the writ petitioners supported the Single Judge’s order, maintaining that Ratnamma clearly established that appeals against Section 6-A orders (issuance of passbooks) do not lie under Section 5(5).
The Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the State, conceded that since the challenge included the entries in the revenue records, the appeal was maintainable before the RDO.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench examined the unamended Section 5(5) of the Act, which provides that an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer against “every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment.”
The Court distinguished the present case from the precedent in Ratnamma. The Bench observed that in Ratnamma, the legal objection was that “there was no challenge to the entry in the record of rights” and the “only challenge was against issuance of pattadar passbook under Section 6A.”
In contrast, the Court noted that in the instant case, the memo of appeal filed before the RDO contained two specific prayers:
- To set aside the order of the Tahsildar issuing the pattadar passbook and title deed.
- To set aside the “mutation in the revenue records.”
The Court observed:
“In the present case, as is evident… the appeal was filed also challenging the amendment made in the Record of Rights. It was not merely against issuance of pattadar passbook or title deeds. If the only challenge was to the issuance of pattadar passbook or title deed, then certainly the appeal would not have been maintainable.”
The Bench concluded that because there was a specific challenge to the amendment in the Record of Rights under Section 5(1), the appeal properly lay under Section 5(5).
Decision
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the appellant before the Revenue Divisional Officer was maintainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge dated July 22, 2025.
The Court ordered:
“The writ appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 22.07.2025 is set aside with the consequence that the W.P.No.32310 of 2020 [sic] filed against the orders impugned in the writ petition, stands restored to its original number for fresh decision.”
The matter was directed to be listed before the appropriate Bench for a decision on merits, with the Division Bench clarifying that they had not expressed any opinion on the rival claims to the subject property.
