IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8313 of 2000 Between: T.A.Tulasi Ramaiah S/o.T.G.Anjaneyulu, R/o.2-25,Kota Street, Sathyavedu, Chittoor District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8313 of 2000 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in issuing ryotwari pattadar pass book and title deed to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Rules made there under in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.3.82 cents in Survey No.320/2B of Kotta Mari Kuppam Village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District based on D-Form patta issued in D.K.T.2/4/95 dated 09.07.1985 by the first respondent as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) and perused the record. The petitioner, in his affidavit, claims that in recognition of his written acknowledgment of the property mentioned above, respondent No.1 issued D.K.T. patta bearing No.2/4/95 dated 09.07.1985 in his favour. His grievance is that though he made an application, as far back as 05.12.1996 to respondent No.1, for issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour, no action has been taken by the said respondent. He further stated that he approached respondent No.2, who declined to give instructions to respondent No.1 in this regard. Hence, he filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sathyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner is no way connected with the land in question, that the petitioner’s name does not find a place any where in the revenue record, that the enquiry conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer revealed that one T.A. Sambasivaiah, the brother of the petitioner, is cultivating the land, that no proceeding with D.K.T. patta bearing No.2/4/95 dated 09.07.1985, as claimed by the petitioner, was issued and that in the enquiry, it was found that the record revealed that the land admeasuring Acs.4.05 cents in Survey No.320/2 was originally assigned in favour of Sri R.Govindaswamy Modaliar vide proceedings No.DKT/574/4/77 dated 24.10.1977 and that in the year 1985, the said Survey number was divided into 320/2A and 320/2B admeasuring Acs.3.93 cents and Ac.0.12 cents respectively and that at the time of excavation of Telugu Ganga Project canal, the land in Survey No.320/2B admeasuring Ac.0.12 cents was left for the said purpose. It is further stated that Sri T.A.Sambasivaiah, the brother of the petitioner, was found to have purchased the land admeasuring Acs.3.93 cents in Survey No.320/2A from the original assignee. The Mandal Revenue Officer issued notice in ROC.B/143(25)/95 dated 12.05.1995 to the purchaser as well as the original assignee, that as they were not residing in the village, the notice was served through substitute service and that no reply was received from either of them. The Mandal Revenue Officer cancelled the assignment vide proceedings Dis.No.B/143/25/95 dated 10.07.1995 and directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector to resume the land to the Government. It is further stated that after the resumption of the land, the same was reassigned in favour of six {6} persons mentioned in paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit. No reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner contraverting the above mentioned allegations. In view of the categorical stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner was never assigned the land and that the land purchased by his brother was resumed to the Government, the petitioner has no enforceable legal right for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 10th July 2008 RRB