IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3879 of 2002 Between: G. Chandrakala … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Medak District at Medak, & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3879 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 19.07.2001 passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner claims to have purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.20 guntas and Ac.1.19 guntas in Sy.Nos.340/38 and 340/39 respectively of Tuniki Bollaram Village, Mulugu Mandal, Medak District vide document No.3362 of 1998 dated 28.10.1998, which was registered with the Sub-Registrar, Gajwel, Medak District. Prior to the purchase of the land by the petitioner, the vendors’ names were mutated in the revenue records. When the document presented by the petitioner for registration was not accepted by the Sub-Registrar, the District Collector vide his letter dated 29.03.1995 informed the Sub-Registrar that the abovementioned extents of land are private patta land as per Khasra pahani of 1954-55 of Tuiki Bollaram Village and they may be admitted for registration. Accordingly, the registration was done. The petitioner made her application in the required form on 05.01.2001 to respondent No.2 on the basis of the registered sale deed. As no action was taken thereon, the petitioner ﬁled WP.No.6176 of 2001 in this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 04.08.2001 with the direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law by taking into consideration letter dated 29.03.1995 of respondent No.1. Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order. In his order, respondent No.2 referred to a purported letter dated 06.07.1998 of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Siddipet (for short, ‘the RDO’), wherein the RDO is stated to have reported to the District Collector, Medak, that as per sethwar, the total extent of Sy.No.340 is Ac.474.23 guntas, that in 1954-55 Khasra Pahani extract, the entire land is shown as the Government land, but however, some of the parts were shown as patta land, that on the basis of the RDO’s report, the District Collector, Medak directed not to eﬀect mutations in the revenue records from the year 1996. Respondent No.2, however, also referred to proceedings dated 06.07.2001 of the District Collector, Medak, wherein he directed him to pass further orders taking into consideration of the report dated 06.07.1998 of the RDO, Siddipet. Purporting to rely upon the abovementioned reports and communications of the RDO and the District Collector, respondent No.2 rejected the application of the petitioner for mutation. Under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, if any person acquires right by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta etc., he shall intimate in writing to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer. On receipt of such an application, he shall hold an enquiry, after giving notice to all the persons interested in the land and pass an order on the application for mutation. Thus, respondent No.2 is entrusted with the quasi- judicial function. If the petitioner is able to show that she acquired the right to the property for which she claims correction of entries in the record of rights, respondent No.2 is bound to allow such application. In the instant case, the petitioner purchased the property under a registered sale deed and even according to respondent No.2, the Khasra Pahai of 1954-55 shows some land in the said survey number as private land. Unless respondent No.2 comes to the deﬁnite conclusion on the basis of the material available before him that the property in respect of which the petitioner is seeking correction in the record of rights belongs to the Government, he cannot reject the application for mutation. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of the documents of title ﬁled by her in accordance with the provisions of the Act and without being inﬂuenced by any administrative instructions or reports of the higher authorities including the District Collector and the RDO. He shall complete this exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.09.2008 ES