IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 9690 of 2005 Between: Smt. N. Sakuntala Syama Kumari W/o.Satyanarayana Raju R/o.D.No.1-104/2,MVP Colony Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Visakhapatnam 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Chinnagadili Visakhapatnam. 3 D. Murali S/o. Satyanarayana C/o.K.Venkateswara Rao R/o. Plot.No.84,Rajsree Apts,Srinagar Colony Hyderabad. 4 P. Murali S/o. Satyanarayana Raju C/o.I.S.N. Raju R/o. 1st Floor,HIG-V ,North Layout, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam. 5 P. Sharmila W/o.P.M.M.Raju C/o.I.S.N. Raju R/o. 1st Floor,HIG-V ,North Layout, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam. 6 P.Sudhakar S/o.Venkateswara Rao C/o.K.Venkateswara Rao R/o. Plot.No.84,Rajsree Apts,Srinagar Colony Hyderabad. 7 Chalasani Nagendra Babu S/o.Veerabhadra Rao R/o. D.No.50-52-2/1,T.P.T. Colony, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam. 8 Chalasani Suresh S/o.Nagendra Babu R/o. D.No.50-52-2/1,T.P.T. Colony, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam. 9 Chalasani Venkatagiri S/o.Nagendra Babu R/o. D.No.50-52-2/1,T.P.T. Colony, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam. 10 K.Jagan Mohan Kumar S/o. Uma Maheswara Rao R/o. D.No.50-52-2/1,T.P.T. Colony, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam. 11 K. Sri Divya D/o. Uma Maheswara Rao R/o. D.No.50-52-2/1,T.P.T. Colony, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam. 12 K.Venkateswara Rao S/o.K. Venkateswar Rao R/o.Plot.No.84, Rajsree Apts Srinagar colony Hyderabad. 13 Paladugula Raja S/o. Ramanadham C/o. K. Venkateshwar Rao R/o.Plot.No.84, Rajasree Apts Srinagar colony Hyderabad. 14 Akkaraboina Aditya S/o.Late A. A.Narsinga Rao C/o. N. Balarama Murthy,S/o.Late Kanakaraju R/o.Plot.No.163, D.No.4-58-2E,Andhra Bank Employees Colony, Lawsons Bay Colony, Visakhapatnam. .....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 declare the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.139/90/HA, dt.28-4-1990 and the consequential patta issued in favour of late Gokaraju Suryanarayana Raju, in Rc.No.246/90, dt.10-8-1990 as illegal, arbitrary by issuing writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus consequently set a side the same in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 and 2.: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the respondents 3 to 13: Mr. D.V. Sitharam Murthy The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 9690 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.139/90/HA dated 28.4.1990 and the consequential patta issued in favour of late Gokaraju Suryanarayana Raju in R.S. No. 246/90 dated 10.8.1990 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside the same. According to the petitioner, she had purchased an extent of Ac.5.00 of land in S.No. 335/3 corresponding to Old S.Nos.374 and 375 of Madhurawada village from its owner Smt. Akkaraboina Appayamma, who was the sole and absolute owner of the said property, under a possessory agreement of sale dated 30.12.1987. Subsequently, Appayamma died on 14.10.89 before executing a regular sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, she was constrained to file a suit in O.S. No.320 of 2004 on the file of IX Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam against legal representatives of Appayamma, namely, 1) A. Ramarao – son and 2) N. Apayamma – daughter of the deceased vendor Smt. A. Appayamma, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 30.12.1987 by executing a regular sale deed in her favour. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 9.2.2005. Subsequently, the petitioner filed E.P. No. 5 of 2005 in O.S. No. 320 of 2004 seeking execution of decree of specific performance dated 9.2.2005. The petitioner also deposited the necessary stamp duty and penalty of Rs.1,31,934/- before the execution Court. A sale deed was duly drafted by the execution Court and the same was sent for registration to the Sub- Registrar, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam. However, the Sub-Registrar has sent back the sale deed without registration vide letter dated 24.3.2005 informing the execution Court that the M.R.O. Visakhapatnam in his Lr.No.961/91/A dated 11.4.2002 reported that the land in S.No.335/3 is a Government land; so, the sale deed was returned to the execution Court. Pursuant to the said letter of the Sub-Registrar dated 24.3.2005, the execution Court dismissed E.P. No. 5 of 2005 by an order dated 29.3.2005 observing, “Sub-Registrar sent letter stating that the decree schedule property is a Government property and not possible to register the document. So, the E.P. was dismissed as it is not possible to register the document”. According to the petitioner, the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 in S.No.335/3 of Madhurawada village is a private patta ryotwari land and not at all belongs to the Government and the said land was being enjoyed by her vendor Smt. A. Appayamma for more than four decades. The documents which were filed in the material papers clearly establish the possession and enjoyment of her predecessor Appayamma for more than four decades. So, the 1st and 2nd respondents, by any stretch of imagination, cannot say that the land in S.No. 335/3 is a Government land. Therefore, the letter addressed by 2nd respondent dated 11.4.2002 to the Sub-Registrar is void, unenforceable and without any jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P. No. 9053 of 2005 before this Court challenging the letter dated 11.4.2002 and the consequential proceedings of the Sub-Registrar dated 24.3.2005. Further, the petitioner enquired with the M.R.O. as to on what basis the registration was directed to be stopped and she was informed that the patta in favour of Smt. Appayamma for an extent of Ac.5.00 in S.No.335/3 of Madhurawada village was cancelled for violation of the patta conditions, vide proceedings in Rc.No.139/90/HA dated 28.4.1990 of the 2nd respondent. She was further informed that the said land of Ac.5.00 in S.No.335/3 was allotted to an alleged political sufferer, namely, Sri Gokaraju Suryanarayana Raju, (who died on 28.9.1989) by way of D- Form Patta vide proceedings dated 10.8.1990 of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner states that the very proceedings in favour of late G. Suryanarayana Raju, which were culminated into issuance of patta dated 10.8.1990 by 2nd respondent, are nothing but fraud and abuse of power by the revenue authorities in collusion with the vested interested persons. According to the petitioner, Smt. A.Appayamma was the absolute owner of the property and her possession over the land is recorded under the Revenue Records for more than four decades and she was in possession and enjoyment of the land in her own right. The pretence of D-Form patgta in favour of Smt. A. Appayamma and its cancellation for violation of conditions of D-Form patta vide proceedings dated 12.4.1990 by the 2nd respondent is far and invented by the revenue authorities at the instance of vested interested persons so as to allot the said land to them. Further, respondents 3 to 13, are claiming to be the purchasers of the land by tracing their title under the patta dated 10.8.1990 issued in favour of late G. Suryanarayana Raju. According to the petitioner, the very patta dated 10.8.1990 was issued against a dead person and, therefore, deriving title by respondents 1 to 3 from a dead person does not arise and any sale deeds in favour of respondents 3 to 13 are void and unenforceable under the law. However, respondents 3 to 13 are also pursuing the revenue authorities with respect to the very same land and, therefore, they are also added as respondents 3 to 13 in this writ petition. No counter is filed. However, it may be necessary to notice that the patta granted in favour of vendor of respondents 3 to 13 i.e. G. Suryanarayana Raju, dated 10.8.1990 was, in fact, issued against a dead person and when the said patta was cancelled, they filed W.P.No. 9927 of 2002 and the writ petition was also dismissed. When the writ petition was dismissed, respondents 3 to 13 herein filed W.A. 524 of 2006. The said writ appeal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 2.11.2006 leaving liberty to the appellants-respondents 3 to 13 herein to file review against the order under challenge in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the respondents 3 to 13 have filed review petition in W.P. 9927 of 2002 and now it is brought to the notice of this Court that the said review petition has been dismissed. Under those circumstances, the claim of respondents 3 to 13 is set at naught. However, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, she has purchased the land from one Smt. A. Appayamma and the said Appayamma was the real pattadar of the land and the question of cancellation of patta purported to have been granted in favour of Appayamma does not arise. According to the petitioner, it is not an assigned land, no patta was granted in favour of Appayamma at any point of time and it is purely a private land. Even the assignment made in favour of Sri G.Suryanarayanaraju and the consequential relief sought for by respondents 3 to 13 was already dealt with and attained finality. Under those circumstances, the impugned proceedings dated 28.4.1990 are set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents 1 and 2 to proceed with the matter as per law after putting the petitioner on notice. Insofar as the consequential relief sought for i.e. declaring the patta in favour of G.Suryanarayanaraju as arbitrary and illegal, in view of the dismissal of W.P. 9927 of 2002, W.A. 524 of 2006 and also the review petition in W.P. 9927 of 2002, it does not stand for consideration. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 28.4.1990 are set aside leaving liberty to the respondents 1 and 2to conduct fresh enquiry, if any, necessary in this regard, according to law. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 23-6-2009. MVB.