THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18648 of 2002 DATE: 09.02.2010 Between: Y.Venkatrami Reddy …Petitioner and The Mandal Revenue Officer, Maldakal Mandal and another …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI R.RADHAKRISHNA REDDY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.1 : AGP FOR REVENUE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2 : SRI V.V.NARASIMHA RAO THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18648 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare panchanama, dated 15.07.2002 prepared by respondent No.1 in respect of Acs.2.00 guntas of dry land in Survey No.180/GHA of Amaravai Village, Maldakal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, and consequential action of entering the name of respondent No.2 in the pahanies from 1996 to 2002, as illegal. At the hearing, Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced several contentions concerning the invalidity of the impugned panchanama. However, in view of the events that have subsequently transpired after preparation of the impugned panchanama, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate on the validity or otherwise thereof. The learned counsel placed before this Court proceedings bearing No.R.Dis.B/A/1447/2002, dated 02.11.2005, in which, respondent No.1 after setting out the history of the entire litigation between the petitioner and respondent No.2, mentioned as under: In this case, the appeal time is also completed as such the Claim filed by Sri Y.Venkatrami Reddy, S/o Y.Govind Reddy is found genuine and hence the name of Sri Y.Venkatrami Reddy is ordered to enter in ROR records in Col.Nos.7, 8 & 15 as a Pattadar and Possessor over the land as shown below. Sl. No. Name of the Earlier Pattadar as per ROR Record N a m e of the Pattadar in whose name to be entered in ROR Sy.No. Extent Acs. Gts. 1 2 3 4 5 1. S r i C.Laxmikantha Reddy S/o Shiva Reddy S r i Y.Venkatrami Reddy S/o Y.GovindReddy, R/o Amarvai 180/Gha 2.00 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the above proceedings, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioner. He however, submits that the grievance of the petitioner still survives to the extent of non-entering of his name in the pahani and continuing retention of respondent No.2’s name therein. Evidently, the name of respondent No.2 was entered based on the impugned panchanama. On account of the petitioner succeeding before the Civil Court in O.S.No.94 of 2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal, respondent No.1 himself has ordered for entering the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in column Nos.7, 8 and 15 as pattadar and possessor. In the face of this direction, there is no justification for either respondent No.1 or his subordinate officers to continue the name of respondent No.2 in the revenue records. Respondent No.1 is therefore, directed to implement his own proceedings, dated 02.11.2005 referred to above by deleting the name of respondent No.2 and entering the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th FEBRUARY, 2010. kvni