THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10134 OF 2006 21.072006 Between: Smt.D.Savitramma, W/o.late D.Srinivas … Petitioner AND Mandal Revenue Officer, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10134 OF 2006 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be daughter-in-law of one D.Balaiah, who is allegedly shown in the revenue records as an occupant of the land in survey Nos.360 to 364 and 381 admeasuring Acs.9.04 guntas of Meerkhanpet Village and in survey Nos.147/A, 148/A and 149 of Panjaguda Village of Kandukur Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. She made an application to the first respondent to issue succession and grant mutation in her name in the revenue records. It appears, on the orders of the first respondent, second respondent conducted enquiry and submitted a report, based on which, first respondent issued proceedings on 03.3.2006 granting succession to the petitioner in respect of the subject land and directed Village Administrative Officer, (VAO) to make necessary changes in the revenue records. The petitioner alleges that thereafter the VAO allegedly prepared pattadar passbooks and title deeds. It appears that respondents 3 and 4 influenced the second respondent. Therefore, he conducted a panchanama on 27.3.2006 without issuing notice to the petitioner and recorded that the respondents 3 and 4 in possession of the property. Taking advantage of the same, they entered upon the land on 29.4.2006 and tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, challenging the panchanama dated 27.3.2006, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the panchanama as illegal. This Court while ordering notice before admission suspended the panchanama. Respondents 3 and 4 filed petition for vacating the interim order. In their counter affidavit accompanying the W.V.M.P.No.1025 of 2006, contesting respondents disclosed their case as follows. The petitioner is neither pattadar nor occupant of the land even according to the pahani for the year 2005-2006. Balaiah (father-in-law of the petitioner) is the paternal uncle of the third respondent. He was having huge extent of land in Meerkhanpet and Panjaguda Villages of Kandukur Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. He had nine sons through his two wives. The property was divided among his sons including the petitioner’s husband Srinivas, who sold the land in survey No.364 (Acs.0.20 guntas) in Meerkhanpet Village and the land in survey Nos.147/A (Acs.1.02 guntas), 148/A (Acs.2.22 guntas) and 149 (Acs.0.21 guntas) to the father of the third respondent under two separate sale deeds dated 14.12.1979.Various extents of land in survey Nos.360 (Acs.0.12 guntas), 361 (Acs.0.15 guntas) and 363 (Acs.1.02 guntas) of the property at Meerkhanpet Village was also sold by the petitioner’s husband in favour of the mother of the third respondent. It is also alleged that another son of Balaiah by name D.Prabhakar sold his share of the property to the mother of the third respondent and the names of the parents of third respondent were registered in the revenue records. They dug a bore well and converted the dry land into wetlands. Even thereafter when there was interference by Balaiah, parents of the third respondent filed O.S.No.215 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, for perpetual injunction. The same was decreed on 20.11.1991. The appeal filed by Balaiah in A.S.No.30 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Raga Reddy District was allowed on 12.8.1993, on the ground that the boundaries were not properly mentioned in the suit. The appellate Court allowed observing that sale deeds executed in favour of the parents of the third respondents are genuine. The second appeal filed before this Court being S.A.No.550 of 1993 was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is also averred that the petitioner or her husband were not the owners and were never in possession of the land and, therefore, they have no right over the land. In spite of the same, the petitioner obtained succession in her favour and the first respondent issued succession without notice to the purchasers. Therefore, the respondents 3 and 4 approached the first respondent and requested to conduct panchanama. Accordingly, panchanama was conducted. The respondents 3 and 4 also preferred appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), who suspended the proceedings of the first respondent granting succession by order dated 10.4.2006. The petitioner has suppressed all these facts and obtained interim orders. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General) and learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner has not filed reply affidavit denying the averments in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4. This only shows that there have been suits between the parties, but this information has been withheld from this Court. Secondly, the petitioner placed strong reliance on the proceedings of the first respondent dated 03.3.2006 granting succession in her favour. The same itself has been suspended by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 10.4.2006. Therefore, she cannot rely on the same. Further, when the respondents 3 and 4 approached the first respondent for rectifying the defects, an inspection was ordered as a result of which panchanama was recorded. The same, therefore, cannot be subject of a writ petition. The petitioner claims any right even after alienation of the property by her father-in-law or her husband, she may raise all the issues before the RDO before whom the appeal is pending. This writ petition is filed without disclosing all the facts and for this reason the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) July 21, 2006 YS