THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.7601 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard both the counsel. After passing various orders, lastly we have passed the following order on 09-04-2010. “Heard. Admittedly, as per the order of the Tribunal under the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Ananthapur, in O.P.No.81 of 1983 dated 25-08-1987, the petitioner’s claim is half share of Ac.1-85 cents i.e., 92.5 cents in sy.Nos.96-1 and 96-3 bounded on the East : Space left for road, North : Shortrium land, South : Latrine road north to Anjinappa’s plot and West : Raja Govindappa’s land. Thereafter, the Settlement Officer, Nellore, vide proceedings in S.R.No.9/15(1)/88/ATP, dated 25-04-1988 granted ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner under Section 15 (1) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, in respect of his half share land i.e., Ac.0-92 cents situated at Pampampet Village, Anantapur Mandal and District in Sy.Nos.96/1P and 96/3P bounded on the East : Road, North : Shortrium land, South : Latrine road and Anjinappa’s land. But, however, the boundary of West was not shown. The third parties filed W.P.No.15343 of 1987 before this Court questioning the order in O.P.No.81 of 1983, dated 25-08-1987, which was dismissed by order, dated 12-06-1990. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6889 of 2004 before this Court questioning the action of the revenue authorities in not implementing the order in O.P.No.81 of 1983 and also consequential proceedings. The said W.P. was disposed of by order, dated 09-04-2004 directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, to implement the order of the Tribunal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. The third parties again filed W.P.No.1742 of 2005 questioning the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 20-09-2004. The said writ petition was dismissed by order, dated 17-03-2006, observing as follows : ‘In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served by directing the second respondent herein or any other officer deputed to implement the orders of the Tribunal, to serve a copy of the authorization given by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Rules 15(2) and 15 (3) of the Rules before proceeding further under Rules 15 (4) and 15 (5) of the Rules. Subject to this, it is always open to the third respondent to implement the orders of the Special Tribunal.” It is stated that when Form-V was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the same was questioned by the third parties by way of writ petition and it was dismissed as withdrawn. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court directing the District Judge to file a status report, the learned District Judge filed a report, dated 11-08-2009, stating that the revenue authorities have partly demolished the houses of the encroachers and evicted them in an area of Ac.0-86 cents and the balance area to be handed over to the petitioner is only Ac.0-06 cents. But, however, the Revenue Divisional Officer filed a counter stating that an extent of Ac.0-86 cents was identified, which includes demolished area, existing roads and vacant area. The demolished area is Ac.0- 54 cents, vacant area is Ac.0-06 cents and area covered by roads is Ac.0-19 cents. Thus, an extent of Ac.0-79 cents was identified and the same was handed over to the petitioner under a cover of panchanama and Form-VII, out of Ac.0-86 cents. The petitioner states that an area of Ac.0-06 cents does not come within the scheduled area and the extent of Ac.0-19 cents is concerned, admittedly, the said area is covered by the roads and the Government laid the roads and it is used by general public and, therefore, it cannot be said that the area covered by the road is handed over to the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader and the counsel appearing for the other contesting respondents submits that admittedly the total area is Ac.1-85 cents and as per the schedule of the LGC, the petitioner is entitled for half share and the area of the half share is not demarcated and identified and the other half share holder alienated his properties and some extent of the lands are also alienated by the petitioner along with other half share holder and they are in possession of the said properties much prior to the orders of the L.G.C. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to direct the 2nd respondent to file a further status report as exists now regarding the total schedule of the L.G.C. property and the implementation of the order of the Special Court. Pursuant to the said order, an undated report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, is placed before this court after furnishing copies to the petitioner. According to the said report, it is not in dispute that an extent of Ac.2-10 cents originally belongs to Gotlur Chinnappa, S/o.Venkata Narasappa and he sold the said property in favour of one Nagarur Subbaiah and Lingutla Lakshumanna, (father of the petitioner) vide registered Sale Deed document No.1222/1950. The report states that both of them viz., Nagarur Subbaiah and Lingutla Lakshumanna jointly sold the land admeasuring Ac.0-83 ½ cents to various persons. The particulars of which are as follows:- Sl.No. Doc.No. Seller/Vendor Purchaser/Vendee Extent 1 1128/ 1952 1)Nagarur Subbaian, Nuthanapati Lakshmamma, W/o.Narasappa 0.11 2 1197/ 1952 S/o.Sanjeevu Kondaiah Bhanuputi Ramarao S/o.Pullaiah @ Purushotham 0.11 ½ 3 1358/ 1952 2) Lingutla Lakshumanna, S/o.Rangappa Origanti Subrahmanyam, Lakshminarayanappa 0.11 ½ 4 1359/ 1952 Avvaru Kodandaramaiah, S/o.Annappa 0.05 5 1360/ 1952 Avva Gurumurthi, S/o.Siddappa 0.05 ½ 6 580/ 1954 Andhra Venkatappa, S/o.Ramanna 0.14 7 169/ 1955 1)Challa Narasimhulu S/o.Aswarthappa 2)Ganne Narayanamma, W/o.Ganne Yerranna 0.25 TOTAL 0.83 ½ Thus, it is stated that the petitioner’s father and Nagarur Subbaiah, who were joint purchasers and patta holders, have sold an extent of Ac.0-83 ½ cents out of Ac.2-10 cents, but the petitioner’s father has not brought the said fact to the notice of the Special Court in L.G.O.P. as well as before the Settlement Officer, Nellore, but he stated with regard to the sale of the land admeasuring Ac.0-25 cents alone in favour of Challa Narasimhulu and Ganne Narayanamma. Therefore, after excluding Ac.0-25 cents alone, the petitioner claimed half of the remaining land of Ac.2-10 gts. stating that he is entitled towards his share of Ac.0-92 ½ cents, but in reality, after excluding the land sold jointly by them i.e., Ac.0-83 ½, the remaining extent is only Ac.1-26 ½ cents and the petitioner’s half share is Ac.0-63 ¼ cents alone. As recorded above, the Government demolished the area and the petitioner was handed over the land to an extent of Ac.0-54 cents, the vacant area is Ac.0-6 cents and the area covered by roads is Ac.0-19 cents. The petitioner stated that the said Ac.0-06 cents does not come within the area claimed by him as per the schedule of the land in the O.P. filed before the Special Court and insofar as Ac.0-19 cents is concerned, admittedly, the said area is covered by the roads and the Government laid the roads and it is used by general public and, therefore, it cannot be said that the area covered by the road is handed over to the petitioner and what was handed over is only Ac.0-54 cents. The Revenue Divisional Officer has also enclosed documents relating to the sale deeds executed by the petitioner’s father and Subbaiah jointly as well as the order of the Special Court in L.G.O.P.No.81 of 83, dated 25-08- 1987. The copy of the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore, dated 25-04- 1988, is also placed before us. Admittedly, the petitioner has not brought either to the notice of the Special Court or of the Settlement Officer about the lands sold jointly by the petitioner’s father and Subbaiah to an extent of Ac.0- 83 ½ cents covered by various sale deeds. Therefore, the Special Court has proceeded with the matter without taking into consideration the lands already sold by the petitioner’s father and Subbaiah jointly and the Settlement Officer has also proceeded to issue patta certificates in favour of the petitioner without taking into consideration the land sold by the petitioner’s father and other joint owner. The petitioner, without there being any partition among the the father of the petitioner and Subbaiah the other purchaser and division of respective shares of joint owners, filed L.G.O.P. in the year 1983 without impleading the co-owner or his heirs, if any. More so, when there was a contention that the other co-owner Subbaiah is not having any heirs, the petitioner ought to have impleaded the Government as a party respondent. However, having realized the above facts, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could be satisfied in respect of the land, which was already handed over i.e., Ac.0-54 cents alone and seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. Permission is accorded. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 11-06-2010 Prv