HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT W.P.Nos.21654 of 2009 & 13722 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The subject matter of these two writ petitions is an extent of Ac.1-00 covered by Sy.No.275 of Khanapuram Revenue Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. The 1st petitioner is common in both the writ petitions. The 2nd petitioner in W.P.No.21654 of 2009 is the son is of 1st petitioner. The prayers in the writ petitions are as follows: W.P.No.21654 of 2009: …..issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st & 2nd respondents in not considering the representations dated 08.05.2009 and 29.06.2009 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently seeking a direction to consider the representations dated 08.05.2009 and 29.06.2009 submitted by the petitioners as per G.O Ms No.166 Revenue (Assignment POT) department dated 16.02.2008 and pass such other order ………. W.P.No.13722 of 2010: ….to issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned order dated 20.05.2010 bearing R.C.No.H6/105/2010 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently seeking a direction to set aside the same and pass such other order…… The prayer in W.P.No.13722 of 2010 decides the dispute between the parties. The common averments in both the writ petitions are: The petitioner is pattadar of land admeasuring Ac.5-13 gts in Sy.No.275 of Khanapuram Revenue Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District (for short ‘the petition land’). The property is claimed to be the ancestral property of petitioner. The petitioner admits acquisition of petition land for construction of quarters for the employees of NSP. It is his case that the Government could use only half acre from out of the total extent acquired from the third parties and the remaining land is not utilized for any purpose and, therefore, the land remained vacant. Since the acquired land is not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired, the petitioner requested for re- conveyance and, no doubt, the request was rejected. Over years, a few authorized and unauthorized constructions have come into existence in Sy.No.275 of Khanapuram Revenue Village. The petitioner presumes that after encroachment by third parties etc., his family members are left with one acre of land in their occupation and are in possession. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Khammam Urban Mandal, called upon the petitioner and his family members to vacate from the petition land. On 20.10.2008, the Mandal Revenue Officer visited the petition land and informed the petitioner that the land is allotted to third parties. A representation, it is stated, was filed on 20.10.2008 for appropriate action against the Mandal Revenue Officer. The petitioner applied for regularization of occupation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Assignment POT) Department dated 16.02.2008. As there has been inaction in passing orders on the request of petitioner for regularization, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21654 of 2009. While matters stood thus, the District Collector, Khammam issued notice dated 06.03.2010 to the petitioner calling for explanation on the proposed rectification/ restoration of revenue entries in pahanies and other relevant records. The petitioner filed explanations on 15.03.2010 as well as on 23.03.2010. Briefly stated, the explanation of petitioner is that there is no case made out for correction of revenue records of land covered by Sy.No.275 to an extent of one acre. In spite of acquisition and passing of award, the petitioner is in possession and accordingly the name of petitioner is reflected in revenue records. The petitioner belongs to scheduled caste and, therefore, requested for assignment of one acre of land in his possession. The District Collector has no authority to rectify the entries in the revenue records and it is only the Civil Court which has to decide the legality or otherwise of entries. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1317 F (for short ‘the Act’) should be within reasonable period and in the case on hand, the exercise of jurisdiction suffers from latches. The revenue authorities are aware of the continuous entries in favour of petitioner’s family to an extent of one acre and, accordingly, there is no case either in fact or law for effecting changes in Sy.No.275. Through the additional counter-affidavit, the petitioner brought to the notice of the District Collector the allotment in favour of third parties and a few proceedings and claimed equal treatment. The District Collector after examining the revenue record from 1969-70 till 2008-09 directed rectification of entry in an extent of one acre in Sy.No.275 in favour of Government (sarkari). Hence, the writ petition. This Court directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the records which have bearing on the controversy between the parties. The revenue records from 1969-70 etc., have been placed for consideration of this Court. To briefly advert to the grievance of petitioner, it is suffice to note that on the strength of unauthorized and illegal entries, which were carried out in the year 2003-04, the name of petitioner is continued in the subsequent years as well. To understand the illegality in the unauthorized entries, the developments in the case are chronologically stated. Award No.1 dated 04.03.1969 was passed in respect of Ac.5-13 gts in Sy.No.275 of Khanapuram Revenue Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. The compensation was paid to the owners as follows: Sl. No. Name of the person Extent Compen- Sation Interest Total 1. Reddiboina Lingamma w/o Tirupathaiah 1-13 ½ 592-95 6-15 599-10 2. A.V.Nageswara Rao, s/o Narayana 0-27 ½ 303-45 3-15 306-60 3. Gudla Satyanarayana 0-17 ½ 197-65 2-05 199-70 4. Gudla Narsaiah 0-17 ½ 197-65 2-05 199-70 5. Gudla Bhadraiah 0-17 ½ 197-65 2-05 199-70 6. K.Srinivasa Rao 0-13 144-78 1-50 146-28 7. Sarvaneni Koteswara Rao 0-13 144-79 1-50 146-29 8. Koppula Sarvesham, s/o Hanumanthu 0-13 ½ 569-95 6-15 599-10 Total 5-13 2371-87 24-50 2396-47 The extent of Ac.5-13 gts vested in Government free from encumbrance. The Government, from the material available on record, could not immediately utilize the entire extent either for construction of quarters or for any purpose connected therewith immediately. A few bits and parcels of acquired land were vacant and the petitioner filed W.P.No.4693 of 1994 for re-conveyance of vacant land in his favour. The writ petition was dismissed in limini. After the land was acquired and compensation paid, the revenue records were changed converting the entire extent in survey number as land belonging to sarkari khariz khata (NSP quarters). From the original record, it noted that the earliest entries in favour of Government are reflected in the pahani for the year 1970-71. The following statement is extracted to appreciate the description of the entire extent in the immediate past: Year Sy.No. Extent Nature of Land Name of the pattadar (Col.No.12) Name of the enjoyer (Col.No.13) Extent 2000- 01 275 5-13 Sarkari Khariz khata NSP quarters 5-13 2001- 02 275 5-13 Sarkari Khariz khata NSP quarters 5-13 2002- 03 275 5-13 Sarkari Khariz khata NSP quarters 5-13 2003- 04 275 275 1-00 4-13 Patta Sarkari Kooppula Narasaiah Khariz khata Koppula Narasaiah NSP quarters 1-00 4-13 2004- 05 275 275 1-00 4-13 Patta Sarkari Kooppula Narasaiah Khariz khata Koppula Narasaiah NSP quarters 1-00 4-13 2005- 06 275 275 1-00 4-13 Patta Sarkari Kooppula Narasaiah Khariz khata Koppula Narasaiah NSP quarters 1-00 4-13 2006- 07 275 275 1-00 4-13 Patta Sarkari Kooppula Narasaiah Khariz khata Koppula Narasaiah NSP quarters 1-00 4-13 2007- 08 275 275 1-00 4-13 Patta Sarkari Kooppula Narasaiah Khariz khata K.Prasad V.Rambabu S.Vishwanath D.K.Tiwari N.Purushotham M.Venkateswarlu S.P.Tiwari NSP quarters 0-07 833 s.y 0-07 0-07 0-07 0-07 4-13 2008- 09 275 275 1-00 4-13 Patta Sarkari Kooppula Narasaiah Khariz khata K.Prasad V.Rambabu S.Vishwanath D.K.Tiwari N.Purushotham M.Venkateswarlu S.P.Tiwari NSP quarters 0-07 833 s.y 0-07 0-07 0-07 0-07 4-13 From the above statement, it is clear the name of petitioner is entered in revenue records in the year 2003-04 for an extent of one acre. The entry is neither authorized nor can be traced to any proceeding alleged to have been issued by the persons competent in this behalf under any of the applicable laws. The same error is continued till 2008-09. The petitioner filed W.P.No.21654 of 2009 for consideration of their cases in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Assignment POT) Department dated 16.02.2008. At that stage of the matter, the District Collector has got the entire issue of entry to the extent of one acre in Sy.No.275 of Khanapuram Revenue Village got examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam submitted a detailed report in Rc.No.B/11/2003 dated 22.09.2009. The petitioner was issued notice proposing to restore the entries in revenue records as they stated in the year 2002-03. As stated above, the petitioner offered faint resistance for restoration of the entries for 2002-03. Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the basis for correction is the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam. The petitioners are not given a copy of report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and on account of non-supply of copy, the petitioners have prejudicially suffered in the enquiry held before the District Collector and the order is liable to be set aside as illegal and untenable. The learned Government Pleader submits that exercise of jurisdiction by the District Collector is under Section 166-B of the Act. The District Collector has adhered to the requirement of Section 166-B and has called upon the petitioner to offer his explanation. In the nature of controversy between the parties, it is contended that the petitioner firstly erases the effect of acquisition through Award No.1 dated 04.03.1969 through a valid document and further must show notwithstanding dismissal of W.P.No.4693 of 1994 how the name of petitioner could be entered in the revenue records. He contends that firstly the mere entry and more particularly an unauthorized entry is alone sought to be rectified under Section 166-B of the Act and from the totality of circumstances, the findings impugned are tenable. I have perused the material available on record and taken note of the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parities. The petitioner prays for Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 20.05.2010 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner has to prove, notwithstanding the admitted facts of acquisition of property, passing of award and entering name of Government in revenue records that the petitioner continues to retain right and title to the property in an extent of one acre. The name of petitioner is entered in the year 2003-04 by reference to a patta. Had it been a case where the petitioner is in a position to place either before the District Collector or at least this Court the patta by reference to which the name of petitioner is included in the revenue record, different considerations arise for decision. From the original record, it is clear though source of change is stated as patta, there is no reference to the date of patta, year and nature of grant of patta in favour of petitioner. There is yet another mistake in this unauthorized entry of revenue record i.e., for the year 2002-03, the total extent in Sy.No.275 is shown as sarkari khariz khata (NSP quarters). From out of the total extent of Ac.5-13 gts, an extent of Ac.1-00 is sub-divided and without assigning any number, rectification from Government to patta is made. The above narration to indicate that the entry in the year 2003-04 is completely unauthorized and illegal, apparently evidence must have been at the instance of petitioner. These unauthorized entries are not only causing illegalities in the maintenance of revenue record but also leading to multifarious litigations and the District Collector has put the petitioner on notice, afforded reasonable opportunity and on being thoroughly satisfied that the continuation of petitioner’s name to the extent of one ace in Sy.No.275 is unwarranted, directed restoration of the entry as maintained in 2002-03. Firstly, the material on which the petitioner assails the order impugned does not inspire confidence and I have no hesitation to hold that an attempt to create interest is made through these illegal entries. The same have been rightly rectified by the respondent through order dated 20.05.2010. I see no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. W.P.No.13722 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed. W.P.No.21654 of 2009 is filed complaining inaction in disposing of representations dated 08.09.2009 and 29.06.2009 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Assignment POT) Department dated 16.02.2008, as illegal and arbitrary. The consideration of petitioners claim vis-à-vis the order dated 20.05.2010 has indicated that the petitioners on the strength of fudged and unauthorized entries have been canvassing for regularization of their claim. Through the order dated 20.05.2010, the effect of these entries is erased and the entries as held in 2002-03 are directed to be maintained and the same is given effect to. Once these unauthorized entries are erased from revenue record, there will not be any material in support of petitioners’ claim for possession and enjoyment or for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No166 dated 16.02.2008. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is clearly stated as to the manner of enjoyment of entire extent of Ac.5-13 gts in Sy.No.275 Khanapuram Revenue Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. The details of enjoyment are as follows: 1. Land given to Dulip Kumar Tiwari Ac.0-34 ½ gts & others of VAMBAY Colony 2. New RTO Office, Khammam Ac.0-20 gts 3. Church Ac.0-17 gts 4. Land proposed for NEDCAP office Ac.0-04 gts 5. NSP Quarters Ac.0-05 gts 6. Land proposed for ACB Office Ac.0-04 gts 7. Land proposed for mining office Ac.0-05 ½ gts 8. Land proposed for District Sainik Welfare Office Ac.0-03 gts 9. NSP Houses Ac.2-06 gts 10. Private Houses Ac.0-14 gts 11. Roads Ac.0-20 gts --------------- Total Ac.5-13 gts --------------- From the above it is clear that there is hardly any land for consideration of petitioners’ claim for regularization either in law or on fact. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. ___________ S.V.BHATT,J 22nd September, 2014 Lrkm