IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 17121 of 1999 Between: Potoju Bharatamma W/o Sudershanam, R/o Veravendi Village, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Agency Divisional Officer (RDO), Paloncha, Khammam Distrtict. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Burgampad, Khammam District. 3 Ganibiona Venkata Ramana, S/o Jogaiah R/o Garoddu Village, Nellipaka Banjar Post, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the orders passed by the Agency Divisional Officer, Paloncha in case No.79/94/BPD dt 29-10-94 are binding on the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burgampad and to direct the Mandal Revenue Officer Burgampad to complete the Proceedings and issue the pattedar pass book and title deed in respect of the land in Sy.No.113 extent of Ac.3-23gts situated in Veravendi Village Burgamad Mandal, Khammam district under the ROR Act, and to pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.KAMESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.K.MAHENDER REDDY&PERI PRABHAKAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 17121 of 1999 Order: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare that the orders passed by the Agency Divisional Officer, Paloncha, Khammam District dated 29.10.1994 are binding on the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burgampad, to direct the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burgampad to complete the proceedings and issue pattadar passbook and title deeds in respect of the land in Survey No.113, for an extent of Ac.3-23 gts., situated in Veravendi village, Burgampad Mandal, Khammam District, under the ROR Act. The petitioner claims to have purchased the aforesaid land from the pattadar, namely Duddukuri Venkatappaiah for Rs.4,500/-, to have paid an advance of Rs.1,000/- in 1967 and the balance on 20.10.1969. The petitioner claims that possession of the land was given to her in the year 1967, that an unregistered sale deed was executed by the vendor with a stipulation to execute the regular sale deed and, as the transfer of land to non-tribals was prohibited from 03.02.1970 and the petitioner’s possession was recorded in the pahanies from 1968-69 onwards, the transfer made prior to the regulation is valid. The petitioner would further state that the Agency Divisional Officer, Paloncha, had suo motu registered a case in Case No.79/94/BPD, under Regulation 1 of 1959, and had issued notices calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why her possession should not be held to be in contravention of the Regulations. She would further submit that an enquiry was conducted and orders were passed by the Agency Divisional Officer on 29.10.1994 holding that the petitioner was in possession of the land since 1968-69 onwards and, since there was no prohibition for transfer of land to non-tribals, when the transaction took place on 20.10.1969, the proceedings were dropped. The petitioner would contend that, on furnishing security of the land, a loan was granted by the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, that land revenue was collected by the Government and that, in the meanwhile, the second respondent had issued a notice dated 27.09.1997 informing the petitioner that an enquiry would be held on 15.10.1997 under the ROR Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the enquiry being adjourned from time to time, the matter was being needlessly dragged on only to enable the passbook to be given in favour of the third respondent. The petitioner would allege that the third respondent is a driver in the office of the second respondent and that he has colluded with the second respondent with a view to grab the land of which he had no manner of right or title. No counter affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents herein. Learned Government Pleader for the Social Welfare would submit that in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, the respondents may have possibly not completed the enquiry. He would submit that it would suffice if this Court were to direct the second respondent to complete the enquiry within a specified time frame. Sri P. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, would adopt the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader. It is necessary to note that this Court, by order in WPMP No.21282 of 1999 in W.P. No. 17121 of 1999 dated 13.08.1999, passed an interim order of status quo. In view of the aforesaid orders, the enquiry has evidently not been completed. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine the merits of the controversy and it would suffice if the second respondent were directed to complete the enquiry, for which a notice has already been issued, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned including the petitioner herein. The petitioner shall be put on notice of the next date of hearing and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before final orders are passed pursuant to the enquiry. It is made clear that, till final orders are passed, the status quo orders passed by this Court with regards petitioner’s possession shall continue to remain in force. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 24.03.2009 Nsr