IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 19637 of 2008 Between: Kanakala Ramudu S/o.narasanna R/o.Seela village Kajuluru Mandal East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer,Kakinada, East Godavari District at Kakinada 2 The Tahasildhar, Kajuluru Mandal East Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing pattadar passbooks to the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.206/1/3 to an extent of Ac.0.13 cts of Seela village, Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District in accordance with ROR Act is highly, arbitrary, bad and illegal, and against the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.19637 of 2008 Order: This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner claiming that his father was granted patta in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0.13 guntas in Survey No.206/1/3 of Seela Village, Kajuuluru Mandal, East Godavari District in the year 1979 vide proceedings, dated 15.08.1979, and since then, their family has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land by using the same for agricultural purpose. The petitioner states that after the death of his father in the year 1988, being his legal heir, he made representations to the ﬁrst and second respondents on 30.06.2008 and 10.07.2008 respectively to issue pattadar passbooks in his favour. But, so far they did not conduct any enquiry nor passed any orders thereon. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, and at their request, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. When the matter came up for consideration on 10.09.2008, at the request of the learned Government Pleader, it was adjourned to today to enable him to get instructions. Today, after obtaining instructions, the learned Government Pleader produced a copy of the fax message received from the second respondent, namely, the Tahsildar (FAC), Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District, which reads as under. “I submit that an extent of Ac.0.13 cents in R.S.No.206/1 was granted ‘D’ Form patta in the name of Kanakala Narasanna S/o Surryya by the then Erstwhile Tahsildar, Kakinada vide Ref.No.D5/7739/78, dt.15.08.1979. Later the assignee died. The land is classiﬁed as ‘dry’. The petitioner (legal heir) has never cultivated the same since long back. One Sri Kona Yedukondalu another adjacent assignee occupied the land and cultivated the same since long back. Hence notice was issued to Kanakala Ramudu under Act 9/77. Both have not ﬁled any explanation or representation. Therefore the then Tahsildar, Kajuluru resumed the land to the Government and placed in Assignment Committee on 18.01.2008 and the Committee selected new beneﬁciary Smt.Dommeti Satyavathi W/o Venkatasubbarao was selected Ac.0.13 cents in R.S.No.206/1/3 was granted on patta & pattadar pass book has been issued to her.” A perusal of the fax message, extracted hereinabove, shows that even though a notice was issued to the petitioner by the then Tahsildar, Kajuluru Mandal for resumption of the land in question on the ground that he is not cultivating the same since long back and the said land was occupied by the adjacent assignee, he has not submitted any explanation or representation to the said notice. Therefore, the land in question was resumed and the Assignment Committee by proceedings, dated 18.01.2008, selected another beneﬁciary, namely, Smt.Dommeti Satyavathi, and issued pattadar passbooks in her favour, and hence, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner at this stage. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings, dated 18.01.2008, if he so chooses. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 24.09.2008 VGB