THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2537 of 2010 (Dated : 02-08-2010) Between: M/s.Keerthana Granites Chinna Nagaram Gram Panchayat Rep. By its Proprietor V.Saravananan ….Petitioner A n d State of A.P through District Collector, Warangal District and others ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2537 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by M/s.Keerthana Granites represented by its Proprietor V.Saravanan seeking a mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 3.2.2010 in Rc.No.A/1045/2009 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, Warangal District-2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 2. The writ petitioner is a Proprietary concern. Mr. V.Saravanan is the Proprietor of the writ petitioner. He owns and possesses lands bearing Sy.Nos.200/A/1 admeasuring Ac.4.00, Survey No.201/A/1 admeasuring Ac.1.20, Sy.No.202/A admeasuring Ac.1.20 and Sy.No.203/B/1 admeasuring Ac.1.00, totally admeasuring Ac.8.00 equivalent to 3.24 hectares, situated at Chinna Nagaram Gramp Panchyat, Nellikuduru Mandal, Warangal District having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 7.8.2007 from Bairu Balaiah for a sum of Rs.6,40,000/-. He made an application on 14.8.2007 to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology for grant of quarrying lease for black granite over an extent of 1.330 hectares in Sy.No.200/A, 201/A – 0.574 hectares, 202/A-0.21 hectares and 203/B-0.33 hectares situated at Chinna Nagaram Gram Panchayat, Nellikuduru Mandal, Khammam District. Joint Survey was conducted and after obtaining report and also after considering the objections made by the third respondent herein- Mohan Granites, by proceedings dated 30.7.2009 quarry lease has been granted by the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad, in favour of the petitioner for a period of 20 years. Questioning the same, the petitioner unsuccessfully filed revision. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S.No.21 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Jude, Mahabubabad seeking the relief of mandatory injunction against the petitioner and others. While the civil suits are pending, the 2nd respondent issued memo dated 3.2.2010, vide Rc.No.A/1045/2009 directing the petitioner and others to submit sale deeds, pattedar pass books, grant of lease permission. The said memo is assailed in this writ petition. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 09.2.2010. The 3d respondent entered appearance and filed counter. He also moved W.V.M.P.No.1371 of 2010 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 9.2.2010 passed in W.P.M.P.No.3380 of 2010. The petitioner also filed reply affidavit. 4. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 5. Heard counsel appearing for the parties 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent, as on date, does not have any dispute which is required to be adjudicated since he has sold the land to M/s. Padmasri Granites, vide registered sale deed dated 4.6.2010, in which case, there cannot be any objection for the 3rd respondent for granting the relief sought for by the writ petitioner. A further submission has been made that under the guise of the memo, the Revenue Divisional Officer is usurping jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties with regard to title, which he is not empowered and therefore, the memo issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the memo impugned in the writ petition came to be issued consequent on the representation submitted by the petitioner making certain allegations against the 3rd respondent and therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer is justified in issuing the memo directing the parties to produce the documents stated therein. 8. I have gone through the memo dated 3.2.2010 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The memo contains three references. The 1st reference relates to the representation submitted by M/s.Mohan Granites-3rd respondent, 2nd reference relates to representation dated 29.9.2008 submitted by the writ petitioner. The third reference relates to the representation dated 29.9.2008 submitted by M/s.Bairi chennaiah and Bairi Balaiah. Copy of the representation dated 299.2008 submitted by the petitioner to the Director of Mines and Geology while marking a copy to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, is also filed along with the reply affidavit. The text of the representation reads as hereunder:- “ Please see the reference cited enclosed hereunder and it is to submit that one Sri Y.Srinivasa Rao is manipulated the revenue records and made compliance against my application who is not connected to my Patta Lands and only making troubles with malafide intention with dire consequences. In this context, the Mandal Revenue Officer has given a clear picture categorically and reported that as per revenue records 1-B registered. The photo of M.Shashi Bhushan Rao is found to have been removed and the photo of Y.Srinivasa Rao is pasted under the Khasra No.58 of Chinna Nagaram village. With the above information it is clearly evident that Sri Y.Srinivas Rao is unnecessarily interfereing in my Patta Lands and causing for litigations. Therefore, I request the Director of Mines & Geology, A.P., Hyderabad to kindly look into the matter personally and dispose of my application for the grant of lease required registered documents and pattadar Pass Books etc., from concerned authorities. For kind of Your action, I ever grateful to you sir, Thanking you. Yours faithfully, Sd/-XXXX (V.SARAVANAN) M/s.Keertana Granites” 9. The text of the letter indicates that Y.Srinivas Rao’s photo has been clandestinely used as that of Mr.Shashibushan Rao. The 3rd respondent-Mohan Granites is represented by Y.Srinivas Rao. The Revenue Divisional Officer being the Controlling Officer of Tahisldar, Mahabubabad Mandal, issued the memo impugned in the writ petition directing the parties to produce the registered sale deed copies etc. When a serious allegation has been made in respect of tampering of photo and pattadar passbook, it is an obligation on the part of the revenue Divisional Officer to verify the same. Such is the situation; issuance of memo by the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot be said in excess of his jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Interim order granted on 09.02.2010 stands vacated. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.02-08-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2537 of 2010 (Dated : 02-08-2010)