IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.22110 of 1999 Between: M.Hanumantha Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND Commissioner, Appeals, Government of Andhra Pradesh, O/o.Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P.Hyderabad and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.22110 of 1999 O R D E R: Heard both the counsel. It is the case of the petitioner that he made an application before the District Revenue Officer stating that Sy.Nos.51, 52 and 54 of Kachiwanisingaram village are the patta lands and they belong to his late father M.Venkatnarsimha Reddy and another person by name Rahimuddin. The extent of the land in Sy.No.51 is Ac.17.18 gts. Sy.No.52 is Ac.13.21 gts. and Sy.No.54 is Ac.14.02 gts respectively as per the Wasoolbaqui for the year 1344 fasli entries. It is stated that as per the Sethwar entries, less area was shown as Ac.10.00, Ac.8.01 gts and Ac.9.25 gts respectively in respect of the said survey numbers though his family members were in possession of the said land since 100 years. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner before the District Revenue Officer dated 26.12.1987 for making clerical corrections was ordered vide order dated 26.03.1998 in Proceedings No.G7/3738/97 holding that after revision of survey, the reduced areas were recorded and as per the verification report submitted by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, though the corrections were ordered to be made in Kachavanisingaram village, but as per the orders of Madadgar (settlement, boundary dispute case), the corrections were not attended. It is stated that the District Revenue Officer has personally verified the records and perused the village map and noticed that the corrections were made after 15 years from the commencement of the revision records, but the supplementary Sethwar was not issued. The Assistant Director reported that there is no supplementary Sethwar available. The District Revenue Officer personally inspected the spot and verified the village boundaries of Kachvanisingaram and Narepally. At the boundary of the forest block of Narepally original survey stones of said Sy.Nos.51, 52 and 54 of Kachavanisingaram were physically found on ground, which tallied with the corrected map and measurements and there is no overlapping noticed on the spot. Thus, it is established on the basis of entries in Wasool Baqui that as it is a clerical error which comes under Sec.87 of A.P.(T.A) L.R.Act 1317 fasli and accordingly, ordered to rectify the error as arrived in the corrected map after survey. The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records is requested to issue supplementary Sethwar afresh correcting the area of the said survey numbers on the basis of the corrections already made in other records. Aggrieved by the same, the Sarpanch of Kachvanisingaram Gramp Panchayat filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeal & Land Administration, Hyderabad and the appellate authority by the impugned order dated 16.08.1999 having heard the rival contentions held that as per the survey, the boundaries of the said Sy.Nos.51,52 and 54 are physically tallied with the corrected map and teepan measurements, and no oral arguments have been noticed on the spot, and therefore, the corrections of clerical error was ordered under Sec.87 of A.P.(T.A) L.R.Act 1317 fasli. But the Commissioner on the ground that no vide publicity was made in the village, remanded the matter to the Collector directing to review the orders and decide the issue afresh. During pendency of the writ petition, though a detailed counter has been filed reiterating the averments made in the appellate authority, an additional counter has been filed stating that the lands in Sy.No.51 of an extent of Ac.17.58 gts, Sy.No.52 of an extent of Ac.13.31 gts, and Sy.No.54 of an extent of Ac.14.02 gts situated in the said Kachivanisingaram village are classified as patta lands as per the revenue records. The said land was recorded in the name of the forest pattadars. If that be so, I am of the opinion that no purpose would be served if the matter is remanded only for the purpose of giving wide publicity in the villages. It is for the concerned survey and settlement authorities as well as revenue authorities to reject the contentions of the petitioner if it is the Government land and not patta land. According to the revenue and survey authorities and the additional counter, there is no dispute with regard to the entitlement of said land that being the patta land of the petitioners. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as claimed in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 29.07.2010 Dsr