IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 7917 of 2000 Between: 1. Mohammed Ghouse, S/o.Mohammed Saheb, R/o.Pallikons Village, Bhattiprolu Mandal, Guntur District. 2. Shaik Mohammed Saheb s/o Late Mohammed Ghouse, 36 years, R/o Pallikona Village, Bhattiprolu Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Guntur. 2 The Sub-Collector, Tenali, Guntur District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhattiprolu Mandal, Guntur District. .....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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandmus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting a permanent patta to the petitioner in respect of Ac.2.10 cents situated in S.No.281-1 of Pallikona Village, Bhattiprolu Mandal, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents herein to grant a permanent Patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of Ac.2.10 cents in S.No.281-1 of Pallikona Village, Bhattiprolu Mandal, Guntur District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.SURESH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the inaction of the respondents in granting a permanent patta to the petitioners in respect of Ac.2-10 cents situated in Sy.No. 281-1 of Pallikona Village, Bhattiprolu Mandal, Guntur District. A consequential direction is sought to the respondents to grant a permanent patta in favour of the petitioners in respect of the said land. The original writ petitioner, the 1st petitioner herein, died during the pendency of the writ petition and his son, Shaik Mohammed Saheb is brought on record as the 2nd petitioner by order of this Court dated 16-9-2008. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition discloses that the 1st petitioner, having worked as a Sepoy for more than 30 years in the Indian Army and being landless, applied for assignment of land in the year 1973. It was his case that after necessary enquiry, a provisional grant was made in his favour in respect of Ac.1-90 cents in Sy.No. 281 in Pallikona Village, Bhattiprolu Mandal, Guntur District under the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Repalle in Rc.No. 4305-73/A3 dated 10-12-1973. Subsequently, an additional extent of Ac.0-20 cents in Sy.No.281-1 of Pallikona Village was also assigned to the 1 st petitioner by the Tahsildar, Repalle on 15-7-1975. The 1st petitioner claimed that he was in possession and enjoyment of the said land, cultivating the land since the date of the assignment in his favour. The complaint put-forth in the writ petition was that though several years had elapsed since the date of the provisional assignment, the respondent authorities had not taken any steps to grant a permanent patta to the 1st petitioner in respect of the land provisionally assigned to him way back in the years 1973 and 1975. He stated that he had earlier ﬁled Writ Petition No. 12978 of 1994 before this Court in this regard and by order dated 19-7-1994, this Court had directed the authorities to dispose of his representation for grant of a permanent patta, within three months. It is alleged that no action was taken pursuant to the said order. The 1st petitioner also gave the details of the civil litigation pertaining to the subject land in support of his averment that he continued to be in possession of the same over the years. He sought for a direction to the respondent- authorities to grant a permanent patta in his favour in respect of the subject land. A counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Bhattiprolu admitting to the facts aforestated but stating that the request of the 1st petitioner for assignment of the subject land was rejected by the Sub-Collector, Tenali vide proceedings bearing Rc.No.944/97/D, dated 30-10-2002. It is further stated that the said proceedings were communicated to the 1st petitioner by way of registered post and his acknowledgment was available, duly evidencing the receipt of the same by the 1st petitioner. A copy of the proceedings dated 30-10-2002 was also filed along with the counter-affidavit. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the said proceedings dated 30-10- 2002 were never communicated to the 1st petitioner. In any event, the proceedings dated 30-10-2002 rejecting the request of the 1st petitioner for grant of a permanent patta over the subject land constituted an independent and separate cause action for the petitioners. The matter involves evaluation of questions of fact, as is evident from the reasons put-forth by the Sub-Collector, Tenali while rejecting the 1 st petitioner’s request for the assignment. Such an enquiry cannot be undertaken by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The 1st petitioner ought to have invoked statutory remedies available to him against the proceedings dated 30-10- 2002, which are more suitable and comprehensive for such a resolution on facts. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, duly recognizing this fact, sought the leave of this Court to permit his client to do so at least at this stage. Keeping in mind the fact that the 1st petitioner is said to have served in the Indian Army for a period of 30 years and that the assignment was made in his favour provisionally as long back as in the years 1973 and 1975, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be suﬃciently served by permitting the 2nd petitioner, the son of the 1st petitioner, to invoke such remedies as are available to him in law for questioning the proceedings dated 30-10-2002, rejecting the request for permanent assignment. The authority before whom such an alternative remedy is invoked would duly keep in mind the fact that the 2nd petitioner contended that the said proceedings dated 30-10- 2002 were never served upon them, while entertaining and dealing with the matter. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J 4th November, 2008. GRR