IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13256 of 2009 Between: Namburi Venkata Gopala Panduranga Raju S/o.Seetharama Raju R/o.9-404/2, Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam-43. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Visakhapatnam. 2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 3 State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 4 A.P. State Beverages Corporation Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. 5 The Depot Manager, A.P. State Beverages Corporation Limited IML Depot-I, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam - 530 007. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring as illegal and arbitrary the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent issued in R.C.No.54/2007 E2 dated 28.08.2008 and issue a consequential direction to the Respondents not to proceed with the construction of godown in S.No.180P of Paradesipalem Village, Visakhapatnam District and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.AKA.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.13256 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The writ petition is against the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent-the District Collector, Visakhapatnam dated.28-08-2008 directing the 1st respondent to handover the possession of an extent of Ac.2.63 cents of agricultural land in Sy.No.180 (P) (new Sy.No.190) in Paradesipalem Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal to the 4th respondent pursuant to the order of the Government allocating the said extent of land to the 4th respondent for constructing a new godown at Visakhapatnam for storage of the produce of the 4th respondent. Case of the petitioner:- On 25-04-1941 the Estate Collector of the erstwhile Vijayanagarm Estate inducted the petitioner’s father into possession of an extent of Ac.10.80 cents in Sy.No.108 in Paradesipalem village and granted patta No.37 in that behalf. During his lifetime, the petitioner’s father was in possession of the land and continued to pay the land revenue. According to the petitioner, there are several indicia like cist receipts, land revenue receipts, electricity connections etc., in support of the claim of his father having been in possession of the property in question. The petitioner’s father applied for ryotwari patta under Sec.11-A of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 sometime in 1971 and the said application is stated to be pending consideration before the Settlement Court. The writ affidavit is silent as to what happened to the application for ryotwari patta under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act. After the father’s death the petitioner as a sole legal heir claims to have inherited the entire extent of Ac.10.80 cents of land in Paradesipalem village. In 2006 he applied to the 1st respondent for grant of pattadar passbook and title deed. The 1st respondent earlier rejected the petitioner’s application under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,1971 ( for short “the Act”) for grant of pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of the land in question on merits though without hearing the petitioner. Against the said order of rejection, the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was allowed setting aside the order of rejection passed by the 1st respondent. This court remanded the matter for de novo consideration of the 1st respondent and the matter rests there. The petitioner’s application for pattadar pass- book and title deed under the provisions of the Act is therefore pending consideration before the 1st respondent. Meanwhile the State Government appears to have allocated an extent of Ac.2.63 cents in Sy.No.180 (p) of Paradesipalem village in favour of the 4th respondent for establishment of a godown for the business purposes of the 4th respondent. The singular contention on behalf of the petitioner is that while his claim for grant of a pattadar passbook and title deed is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent has no power, authority or jurisdiction and at any rate could not lawfully have passed an order directing the 1st respondent to handover advance possession of the extent of Ac.2.63 cents of land in Sy.No.180(P) to the 4th respondent. It is contended by Sri A.Venkataramana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the 2nd respondent was a party as well to the earlier proceedings in this court wherein the order of the 1st respondent rejecting his claim under the provisions of the Act was challenged and therefore the 1st respondent could not have issued the impugned direction dt.28-08- 2008. The above contention is stated to be rejected. The petitioner’s application for grant of relief under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act is pending consideration. The State functions and acts in many capacities in several departments. If the State Government is of the opinion that the land of an extent of Ac.2.63 cents in Sy.No.180(P) of Paradesipalem village is State property, the State is entitled to proceed on that assumption including by allocating that land to the 4th respondent which is an instrumentality of the State. If the petitioner wants to interdict his dispossession or wants to establish his title to the property, the petitioner is always at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies either for declaration of title or even for an injunctive relief before the civil court of competent jurisdiction. Whether the 1st respondent would entertain the petitioner’s application for grant of pattadar passbook and title deed even during the pendency of and without grant of Ryotwari Patta in favour of the petitioner or his father under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act is also a matter that is not free from doubt. In the aforesaid circumstances, no relief could be granted in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies as advised, before the civil court of competent jurisdiction. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 6th JULY 2009 Note: Issue CC in two days. (B/O) *TSNR