THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7206 OF 2008 March 12, 2010 Between: Sk.Gafoor Khan, S/o.Mastan Saheb ... Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7206 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is resident of Chirala. He filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring action of respondents in issuing a house site patta in survey No.337/1 to sixth respondent as illegal and unconstitutional. Be it noted that sixth respondent is none other than sister-in-law of petitioner. She is wife of Sk.Siddaiah, who is petitioner’s younger brother. Be it also further noted that patta given to sixth respondent on 25.11.2002 admeasuring Acs.0.04 cents was unsuccessfully challenged by petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole (RDO), the Joint Collector, Prakasam, and the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA). As a last resort, the writ petition is filed in effect assailing the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer (now, the Tahsildar), Chirala, as confirmed by hierarchy of authorities. The following factual background, which is culled out from the order dated 19.7.2007 passed by the CCLA, is not seriously in dispute. Petitioner is allegedly an Ex-serviceman. He was assigned house site admeasuring Acs.0.03½ cents situated at Devangapuri village (now, Ramakrishnapuram) comprising in survey No.337/1. The patta was given by the Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 21.8.1976. It appears that as petitioner was doing job, he left the Village and the site was in possession of his younger brother, Sk.Siddaiah. Some time later, petitioner came back to the Vilalge. His request to vacate the site was turned down by Siddaiah. Therefore, he filed the suit being O.S.No.187 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, for declaration and possession against his brother, Siddaiah. After contest, the suit was decreed on 25.11.1999 declaring petitioner as owner of Acs.0.03½ cents and directing Sk.Siddaiah to deliver possession within two months thereafter. Aggrieved by the same, the husband of sixth respondent herein filed A.S.No.3 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala. By judgment dated 14.2.2002, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal. It appears that when the appeal was pending, Sk.Siddaiah claimed to have obtained a house site patta issued by the Tahsildar, which was held to be irregular by the appellate Court. Be that as it is, about 10 months thereafter, the Tahsildar issued house site patta in respect of Acs.0.04 cents in survey No.337/1 of Ramakrishnapuram Village vide proceedings No.H5/DK/114, dated 25.11.2002. This was assailed by petitioner before appellate authority, revisional authority and second revisional authority, as noticed supra. Before all the authorities including CCLA, sixth respondent contended that the two plots in question are in the same survey number situated adjacent to each other. He also contended that in O.S.No.117 of 2002 filed by Sk.Siddaiah for injunction, learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, appointed Advocate Commissioner to measure property and on measuring the same, total extent of Acs.0.07½ cents comprising Acs.0.03½ assigned to petitioner and Acs.0.04 cents assigned sixth respondent was found. It was also contended that there was no litigation in respect of Acs.0.04 cents assigned to sixth respondent. Considering these arguments and after perusing the records, CCLA made the following observations. In this case, Sri Shaik Gafoor Khan obtained a house site patta in Sy.No.337/1 measuring an extent of 0.3½ cents in plot No.10-A and 11-A1 and Smt.Shaik Mahaboob Bee, W/o.Siddaiah obtained house site patta in Sy.No.337/1 measuring an extent of Ac.0.04 cents in plot No.10-B and 11- A2 of Ramakrishnapuram village. At this juncture the status of appellant whether he is an ex-serviceman or not and obtained patta by misrepresenting cannot be adjudged. The Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Joint Collector followed the procedure while disposing the appeal / revision filed before them. The Mandal Revenue Officer after conduct of enquiry and as per possession granted patta to the 1st respondent for 0.04 cents. The appellant was granted patta earlier for an extent of Ac.0.03½ cents. More over the plot numbers are different, which was clearly established from the lower court record and as well as from the Court commissioner report. The counsel for petitioner who also filed reply affidavit, the counsel for sixth respondent and the Assistant Government Pleader made submissions with reference to the pleadings. A perusal of the pleadings and appreciation of the submissions made by respective counsel would show that house site allotted to petitioner in 1976 and house site allotted to sixth respondent in 2002 are altogether different. But as pointed out by the counsel for petitioner, there is some difficulty in localizing the land admeasuring Acs.0.04 cents assigned to sixth respondent. This Court has perused the boundaries of the property, which he claimed in O.S.No.187 of 1995. Be it noted that the said suit was in relation to Acs.0.03½ cents in survey No.337/1 of Ramakrishnapuram Village with thatched house bounded on East: Main road, South: Dr.Salmon’s house, West: Sarkar galli, and North: Velkuri Padma Rao. The same boundaries are reflected in the schedule attached to E.P.No.26 of 2002 and as per the Court delivery challan, sixth respondent also removed all the movables from the said house, the petitioner herein got possession of Acs.0.03½ cents in survey No.337/1 with boundaries noticed herein above. The patta granted to sixth respondent shows an extent of Acs.0.04 cents (plot Nos.10B and 11A2). This plot is bounded on East: Bazar (street), South: Plot No.10B, West: Plot Nos,10A, 11F, and North: Plot No.9. These boundaries are not disputed by the counsel for petitioner or counsel for sixth respondent. Therefore, there cannot be any difficulty to find a lasting solution to solve the lis between the parties. The Tahsildar may send Mandal Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor to fix the plot assigned to petitioner, which is also subject matter in O.S.No.187 of 1995, taking guidance from the schedule attached to the decree in the said suit. While doing the same, they shall also fix the boundaries to the house site admeasuring Acs.0.04 cents assigned to sixth respondent. The said exercise shall be done in the presence of the parties. This would meet the ends of justice. In the result, subject to the above observations and directions, the order passed by the CCLA is confirmed and fifth respondent is directed to complete the exercise hereinabove within a period of four weeks from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ March 12, 2010 (V.V.S. RAO, J) YS