IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.9123 of 2002 Between: Smt. Mokka Thotamma. … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Vizianagaram and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None. Counsel for the respondents: Smt.M.Bhaskara Lakshmi for R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 16-4-2002 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No.3. At the hearing there is no representation for the petitioner both in the forenoon and again in the afternoon. Heard Smt.M.Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned counsel for respondent No.3, and perused the record. The dispute pertains to an extent of Ac.1.48 cents of dry land in survey No.287/6 of Kancheru village. The petitioner, who claimed to have been assigned the said extent under a D-Form patta, approached respondent No.2 for grant of pattadar passbook and title deed. Respondent No.2 forwarded her representation to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Bhogapuram. After receiving the report from the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, respondent No.2 by his order dated 18- 4-2001 cancelled the pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of respondent No.3 and directed the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer to issue pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner. Assailing the said order, respondent No.3 ﬁled a revision before respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The said revision having been allowed, the petitioner ﬁled the present Writ Petition. I have carefully perused the order by respondent No.1. While allowing the revision, respondent No.1 placed reliance on the fact that the petitioner’s claim for issuance of pattadar pass book was based on the Xerox copy of D- Form patta. He observed that the said Xerox copy contains DR No.85, which was corresponding to the year 1975; that in the year 1975 the Vizianagaram District was not bifurcated from Visakhapatnam District; and that Bhogapuram Taluk was not in existence in that year. He also held that if number ‘85’ is taken as ‘85’, the same would not have been meant to be the year 1985 because the patta was said to have been issued in October, 1984 and that during the year 1984 all the FCO records were introduced and there was no possibility to incorporate the same in Settlement Fair Adangal. Respondent No.1 also went into the revenue records sent by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer and found that respondent No.3 was found to be in possession of the property in question from Fasli 1407 to 1409 and that the petitioner constructed a hut two months prior to the MRO’s report. Respondent No.1 set aside the order of respondent No.2 on the basis of examination of record, including the Xerox copy of D- Form patta. The petitioner failed to point out any jurisdictional error in the order passed by respondent No.1. As the issue involved in the Writ Petition falls in the realm of disputed questions of fact, this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the order passed by respondent No.1 even if a diﬀerent conclusion may emerge on such analysis. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ------------------------- ----------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 14-10-2008 MNR