*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY + W.P.Nos.14795/2005, 13227 to 13230 of 2005, 10206/2005 and 14021/2005 WP NO. 14795/2005: % Date: 2-9-2008 Between: # Letter sent from Plot No.338, Parvant Nagar, Borbanda, Hyderabad. … Petitioner and $ 1. The Collector & District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad, and another. … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: Petition ^ Counsel for respondents: Special Government Pleader < GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: 1.(2000) 4 SCC 625 2. (1996) 10 SCC 533 3. (2004) 7 SCC 459 4. (1995) Supp (2) SCC 549 5. AIR 1963 SC 1561 6. AIR 1951 SC 467 7. AIR 1955 SC 166 8. AIR 1982 AP 315 9. (1999) 3 SCC 422 10. (2003) 3 SCC 321 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.Nos.14795/2005, 13227 to 13230 of 2005, 10206/2005 and 14021/2005 WP NO. 14795/2005: Between: Letter sent from Plot No.338, Parvant Nagar, Borbanda, Hyderabad, (Signature of the Author of the Letter is not able to Decipher). ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector & District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad, 2 The Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....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 Order, Direction, or a writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to call for the records and remarks from the Respondents herein relating to i) Purchasing of the land conditionally assigned to the farmers of Ranga Reddy District by some real estate persons, industrialists, including an M.P. from Hyderabad on the basis of some forged documents for very less amount, resulting revenue loss to the State's exchequer, ii) non-action of the concerned authorities against the illegal land dealings though the documents are available with them; iii) acquiring land of about 60 acres valued about 150 crores by the M.P. valued at 150 crores registered under diﬀerent benami names as mentioned in the news paper cutting; and iv) to intervene and curb the unethical practices of illegal land dealings which results in providing reprieve to the public; and to take action apart the erring oﬃcials; and to take action against the erring oﬃcials and to pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: PETITION Counsel for the Respondents: Special Government Pleader WRIT PETITION NO : 13227 of 2005 Between: 1 Mohd.Syeed Ather, S/o.Mohd.Akbar R/o.22-8-587/4/6, Chatta Bazaar, Hyderabad. 2 Abdul Qayum S/o.Gulam Mahaboob R/o.22-8-587/4/6, Chatta Bazaar, Hyderabad. 3 Mohd. Rafeeq Khaiser S/o.Moulana R/o.22-8-587/4/6, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad. 4 Mohd Muqthadar Khan S/o.Hahim Mohd.Ibrahim Khan R/o.22-8-587/4/6, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy 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 a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the order of the 1st respondent in Proceedings No.D/1229/2003 dt.30.4.2005 and consequently set aside the common order passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No. 37 and 38/1 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampaly Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, if necessary, by declaring that the petitioners have pattadari rights over the said land as purchasers from the holder of Laoni Certiﬁcate that was issued under the Laoni Rules 1950 which were issued under A.P. (T.A.) Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli and direct the respondents to forbear from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the said lands and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.V.Venkataramana Counsel for the Respondents: Special Government Pleader WRIT PETITION NO : 13228 of 2005 Between: 1 Syed Sirajuddin, s/o Syed Habib Ahmed, r/o 1-6-237/1, Jamisthanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Syeda Mohammadi Nikhat, d/o Syed Sirajuddin, Minor rep., by her father and natural guardian Syed Sirajuddin, s/o Syed Habib Ahmed, aged 40 years, r/o 1-6-237/1, Jamisthanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy 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 a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the order of the 1st respondent in Proceedings No.D/1229/2003 dated 30-04-2005 and consequently set aside the common order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.B/1139/1998 dated 15-02-2003 relating to the resumption of land in Sy.Nos.37 and 38/1 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, if necessary, by declaring that the petitioners have pattadari rights over the said land as purchasers from the holder of Laoni Certiﬁcate that was issued under the Loani Rules, 1950 which were issued under A.P.(T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and direct the respondents to forbear from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the said lands and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.V.Venkataramana Counsel for the Respondents: Special Government Pleader WRIT PETITION NO : 13229 of 2005 Between: Humera Tasneem, W/o Mohd. Mukhtadar Khan. R/o Qtr.No.2/4. Circum Complex, Erragadda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy 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 a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the order of the 1st respondent in Proceedings No. D/1229/2003 dated 30-4-2005 and consequently set aside the common order passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No. B/1139/1998 dated 15-2-2003 relating to the resumption of land in Sy.Nos. 37 and 38/1 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, if necessary, by declaring that the petitioners have pattadari rights over the said land as purchasers from the holder of Laoni Certiﬁcate that was issued under the Laoni Rules, 1950 which were issued under A.P. (T.A) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and direct the respondents to forbear from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the said lands and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.Venkataramana Counsel for the Respondents: Special Government Pleader WRIT PETITION NO : 13230 of 2005 Between: 1 J.C.Prabhakar Reddy, S/o.J.C.Nagireddy, R/o.New MLA Quarters, Hyderabad. 2 J.C.Vijaya Reddy, S/o.J.C Diwakar Reddy, R/o.New MLA Quaters, Hyderabad. 3 Aparna C.Reddy, W/o.C.Prasanth, R/o.plot NO.1325, Road No.66, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue officer, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue officer, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy 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 a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the order of the 1st respondent in proceedings No.D/1229/2003 dated 30-04-2005 and consequently set aside the common order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings NO.B/1139/1998 dated 15-02-2003 relating to the resumption of land in Sy.Nos. 37 and 38/1 of Khanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, if necessary, by declaring that the petitioners have pattadari rights over the said land as purchasers from the holder of Laoni certiﬁcate that was issued under the Laoni rules, 1950 which were issued under A.P.(T.A) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and direct the respondents to forbear from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the said lands and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.V.Venkataramana Counsel for the Respondents: Special Government Pleader WRIT PETITION NO : 10206 of 2005 Between: 1 R. Ramulu S/o late Gopiah R/o Kothguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad 2 R. Nagesh S/o late Gopaiah R/o Kothguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND Mandal Revenue Officer, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENT 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 one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the in not restoring the title and ownership of the lands in Survey No. No. 38/2, 39 and 40 in Khanamet Vilalge admeasuring Ac.-9-38 Khanamet Village, Serilingam Pally mandal, Ranga Reddyas illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Sec. 4 Assigned lands (POT) Prohibition of Transfer Act and consequently direct the MRO to deliver the lands covered under the impugned order to the petitioners and pass such order or other orders as deemed ﬁt in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent: Special Government Pleader WRIT PETITION NO : 14021 of 2005 Between: Smt. D. Prasanna Kumari W/o. Late Narasaraju R/o. Masabtank Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector R.R.District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Moinabad Mandal R.R.District. 3 The Village Administrative Officer Aziznagar Moinabad Mandal R.R.District. 4 The Sarpanch Aziznagar Grampanchayat Moinabad Mandal R.R.District. 5 Kumaraiah S/o. Balaiah R/o.Aziznagar Village Moinabad Mandal R.R.District. 6 Yadagiri S/o. Balaiah R/o.Aziznagar Village Moinabad Mandal R.R.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 a writ, order or direction one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in changing the nature of land in Sy.No.177/6 admeasuring Ac.3-25 guntas situated at Aziznagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R. District from patta land to Laoni land and granting patta in favour of Respondents 5 and 6 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of all principles of natural justice and contrary to the judgment made in W.P.NO.26173/2001, dt.23- 7-2002 and consequently direct the respondent to restore the nature of land belonging to the petitioner in Sy.No.177/6 ad-measuring Ac.3-25 guntas situated in Azizngar Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R. District by correcting the revenue records forthwith and order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.M.Subba Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.: Special Government Pleader The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WP Nos.14795, 13227 to 13230, 10206 and 14021 of 2005 COMMON ORDER (per the Honourable Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) WP No.14795/2005 is taken up writ petition on the basis of a letter addressed to the Honourable the Chief Justice on 5-7-2005 along with newspaper cutting, under the caption “Rs.50 thousand crores worth of 15000 acres of assigned land grabbed by real estate persons, industrialists including the Member of Parliament from Hyderabad under benami names on the basis of forged documents, which should be remained with the assignees/landless poor persons in whose favour lands were initially assigned.” The matter initially appeared on 16-8-2005. The Government Pleader who took time ﬁled counter aﬃdavit on behalf of the ﬁrst respondent-Collector, Ranga Reddy District admitting that “there is some truth in the allegation that certain assigned lands were purchased by some real estate persons, industrialists.” In the backdrop of ﬁling the counter aﬃdavit, this court called upon the respondents to furnish detailed information. Pursuant to the directions of this court, the Government Pleader submitted a document, titling “Details of POT (Prohibition of Transfer) Cases in Ranga Reddy District” purporting to contain the details of the various assigned lands in some 34 Mandals of Ranga Reddy District and also furnished the details of the illegal transfers as assessed by the respondents in the District. The documents furnished by the Government Pleader disclose that a few prominent personalities are alleged to have involved in such illegal purchase and an extent of about Ac.8716-39 guntas is the subject matter of alleged illegal transfers. The same is the subject matter of challenge in the other writ petitions. Therefore, this court by order dt. 5-10-2005 directed to list all the matters together for hearing. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 17-3-2008, the cases were categorized into 4 categories, namely, (1) Sec. 4 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act No.9 of 1977); (2) Sec. 3(1) of the Act No.9/1977; (3) Sec. 4(1) of the Act No.9/1977 and (4) A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Four writ petitions ie., WP Nos.13227/2005; 13228/2005; 13229/2005 and 13230 of 2005 arise out of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners in the above writ petitions have obtained a Rule from this court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of Certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution should not be issued quashing the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District in proceedings No.D/1229/2003 dt. 30-4-2005 and consequently setting aside the common order passed by the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Ranga Reddy District in Proceedings No.B/1139/1998 dt. 15-2-2003 resuming the land in S.Nos.37 and 38/1 of Khanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, if necessary, by declaring that the petitioners have pattadari rights over the suit land as purchasers. WP No.10206/2005 is ﬁled by two persons for restoration of the land admeasuring Ac.9-38 cents situate in Khanamet village in their favour under Sec. 4 of the Act 9 of 1977 and for a consequential direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer to deliver the said land to them. WP No.14021/2005 is ﬁled for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that changing the revenue records pertaining to the land in S.No.177/6 ad-measuring Ac.3-25 guntas situate at Aziznagar village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from patta land to laoni land and granting patta in favour of respondents 5 and 6 as arbitrary and illegal and same is in violation of principles of natural justice. Since the point that arises for consideration, namely, “Whether lands which were granted patta under Laoni Rules, 1950 (for short “the Laoni Rules”) can be resumed under the provisions of the Act No.9/1977 treating them as assigned lands”, in all the writ petitions, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order. The facts giving rise to ﬁling of the four writ petitions, namely, WP Nos.13227/2005; 13228/2005; 13229/2005 and 13230 of 2005 briefly stated as under: The petitioners in all the writ petitions purchased diﬀerent extents of land in S.No.37 and 38/1 situate at Khanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal under various registered sale deeds. The Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy on noticing that lands were alienated by assignees to the third parties in S.Nos.37 and 38/1 issued Form No.I under Rule 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 to the petitioners including the original assignees from whom the petitioners purchased the land alleging contravention of provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec.3 of Act No.9 of 1977. On issuing such notices, the petitioners ﬁled their objections stating that Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 and Act No.9/1977 are not applicable to the lands and the subject lands are not assigned lands covered by provisions of Act No. 9 of 1977 and the said Act has no application to the lands purchased by them. The lands which were granted patta under Lavoni Rules without there being any condition of inalienability of the land. There were several transactions since 1965 onwards and the lands were mutated in the name of subsequent purchasers. Further the Tahsildar granted permission under Sec. 47 by validating the registered sale transaction under Section 50-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short “the Telangana Tenancy Act”). On issuance of certiﬁcate to one Raja Ram in the year 1965, the petitioners purchased lands from him. The petitioners’ vendor who acquired valid title was in possession for the past over 35 years and requested to withdraw the notice issued. Earlier proceedings initiated treating them as assigned lands were dropped on submission of explanation on satisfying that the lands were not assigned lands and the Act No.9 of 1977 has no application and the said lands were also mutated in the name of the petitioners as landlords under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971, and rules made thereunder. The Deputy Collector & Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Serilingampalli Mandal after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners held that the lands bearing S.No.37 and 38/1 of Khanamet village are classiﬁed as Khariz Khata and assignments were made during the year 1961 to the villagers as per the Revised Assignment Policy issued in G.O.M.S.No.1406, Revenue dt. 25-7- 1958. The assignees were brought on record as pattedars through Faisal Patti for the year 1962-63. Subsequently the above lands were transferred to the third parties through registered sale deeds and purchasers have taken possession of the lands and mutations were granted by the Recording Authority under the provisions of Record of Rights Act and purchasers were found to be in possession of the land. After referring to the judgment of the High Court of A.P. in WA No.1920/2001 dt.18-12-2001 and judgment of the Apex Court in Government of A.P. V. Gudepu Sailoo[1] (wherein it was held that grantee is not empowered to transfer the occupancy without the sanction previously obtained from the Tahsildar/Collector) the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer while holding that since no permission has been granted by the Collector, alienation made by the assignees in favour of the third parties is contrary to the Revised Assignment Policy issued in G.O.Ms.No.1406 dt. 25-7-1958 and also the Laoni Rules, passed orders to resume the land bearing S.No.37 extent Ac.3-24 guntas and S.No.38/1 extent Ac.9-14 guntas of Khanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and take custody of the same from the possession of purchasers/possessors by evicting them from the lands according to the provisions of the Act No.9 of 1977. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners ﬁled separate appeals before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District and the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer after reiterating the ﬁndings recorded by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, 2 nd respondent, dismissed the appeals holding that it is clear form the primary authority record that lands in question are assigned to the original assignees under the Laoni Rules r/w Revised Assignment Policy issued in G.O.Ms.No.1406 dt. 25-7-1958 and LRs of original assignees admitted the said fact. The lands in question are assigned land come within the meaning of Sec. 2(1) of the Act No. 9 of 1977. Once notice in Form No.I as prescribed under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 has been issued, burden lies on the petitioners to prove that lands in question are purchased by the landless poor persons for valuable sale consideration and for cultivation purpose before the Act No.9/77 came into force, and since they failed to prove the same, mutation of lands in their favour does not confer any right in the lands and holding so dismissed the appeals. Questioning the aforementioned orders, the above writ petitions have been ﬁled contending that grant under Laoni Rules with or without condition of alienability is not covered by the provisions of the Act No.9 of 1977 and grant of patta under Laoni Rules is not an assignment and the Revised Assignment policy issued in G.O.Ms.No.1406 dt. 25-7-1958 and the provisions of the Act No. 9/77 have no application. The Revised Assignment Policy issued in G.O.Ms.No.1406 dt. 25-7-1958 has not repealed the Laoni Rules, which deals with diﬀerent types of grants. Both the primary and appellate authorities failed to notice applicability of the provisions of the Act No. 9/77 to the grant made under Laoni Rules, the same is liable to be set-aside and the appellant authority rendered a perfunctory adjudication of the appeal by reiterating the ﬁndings recorded by the primary authority without substantiating the ﬁnding of its own, therefore the same cannot be sustainable. In W.P.No.10206/2005, the petitioners claiming to be in possession of land by raising horticulture ﬁled the writ petition contending that lands in S.Nos.38/2, 39 and 40 in Khanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ad-measuring Ac.9-38 cents were assigned to Gopaiah and family, who had two wives and six sons. The petitioners are two sons of late Gopaiah. The property devolved on them as legal heirs. Due to disputes among family members, some persons got some deeds executed. Due to non-giving of land to the revenue authorities for road widening, the revenue authorities initiated proceedings under the Act No.9/1977 on the basis of sale transactions took place in violation of the provisions of the Act No. 9/77, which culminated in W.P.Nos.26090 and 24647 of 1999 and 15068 of 2000 on the ﬁle of this court. This Court by judgment dt. 12-12-2003 remitted back the matters to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer while setting aside the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer and the Joint Collector. Pursuant to the orders passed by this court dt. 12-12-2003, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer passed orders on 29-3-2005 resuming the lands in question. The primary authority violated the mandate of the Act No.9 of 1977 in restoring the land to them. The petitioners in WP No.14021/2005 purchased Ac.3-41 cents situate at Aziznagar of Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under an agreement of sale deed dt. 14-6-1965 and took possession of the same. After obtaining necessary permission under Sections 47 and 48 of the Telangana Tenancy Act, original pattedar executed a registered deed dt. 5-7-1965 and since then she became the absolute owner and possessor of the land and has been in possession and enjoyment of the land along with other land. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Moinabad Mandal issued a show cause notice dt. 6-8-1995 in Form No.I dt. Nil calling upon her to show cause why she should not be evicted from the said land as the purchase made by her is contrary to the provisions of Sec. 3(2) of the Act No. 9/77. On her giving reply dt. 7-9-1995 denying that the land in question is not an assigned land, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer having satisﬁed with the explanation dropped the proceedings. But once again he issued a show cause notice dt. 4-11-1998, for which an explanation was submitted on 3-1-1998 reiterating the contentions as taken earlier. When she sought for certiﬁed copies of Khasra pahani and other pahanies by ﬁling a petition dt. 21-12-1998, the same was taken up for hearing on 12-1-1999 and on that day it was adjourned to 21-1- 99. But no copies were furnished. She sent an application dt. 10-10-2001 to drop further proceedings as the land is a patta land and she purchased the same after due permission from the then Tahsildar and the Act No.9 of 1977 has no application at all, followed by application dt. 5-11-2001 by furnishing certiﬁed copies of Khasra Pahani and other Pahanies pertaining to the year 1954-55, whereunder her vendor, Balaiah was shown as ‘Pattedar’ and the land is shown to be a ‘patta land’. In stead of