THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12102 of 2001 July 01, 2010 Between: Nagula Laxmaiah and others … Petitioners And The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad And another ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12102 of 2001 ORDER: The three petitioners are residents of Veerlapally Village of Kothur Mandal in Mahabubnagar District. They were assigned land admeasuring Acs.5.00 each comprised in S.No.364 of the said Village. They were issued final patta certificates on 01.11.1969. In 1979, Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, third respondent herein, initiated action and issued show cause notice for cancellation of pattas on the ground that the assignment was irregular and that the petitioners being Government servants are not eligible for assignment. Subsequently by proceedings dated 05.5.1979, Joint Collector cancelled the assignment. Aggrieved by the same, all the petitioners allegedly preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Land Revenue (CLR), first respondent herein. The appeal filed by the first petitioner was allowed on 06.6.1980 and that of second petitioner on 12.4.1982. Third petitioner alleged that his appeal was allowed on 13.5.1999. In this case, it is the grievance of petitioners that even though the CLR allowed appeals the orders are not implemented by entering their names in the record of rights and pahanies. Therefore, they filed instant writ petition seeking a direction to fourth respondent, namely, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Kothur Mandal (now, the Tahsildar) to implement the orders of CLR. The counter affidavit is filed by MRO. It is stated that three petitioners and three others were assigned land admeasuring Acs.5.00 in 1965 and their names were brought on record through Faisal Patti in 1969. As the assignment was made without sub- division, the assignment certificates were sent to Assistant Director (Survey and Land Records) for issue of supplementary sethwar, which was issued on 30.10.1973. At that time, it was found that the first petitioner was actually in possession of Acs.4.08 guntas whereas petitioners 2 and 3 were in possession of Acs.3.22 guntas and Acs.4.08 guntas respectively. Supplementary sethwar was accordingly implemented in the village records from 1965-1966 onwards. In view of this, the allegation that petitioners were assigned Acs.5.00 each is denied. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that against the orders dated 05.5.1979 of the Joint Collector, petitioners 1 and 2 alone preferred appeals before CLR. Third petitioner did not prefer appeal and, therefore, the land was resumed and taken into the custody of Government on 23.9.1997. However the appeals filed by petitioners 1 and 2 were allowed. The draft record of rights as per Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (RoR Act) was published in the Village in 1992. Petitioners 1 and 2 never filed any objections. Therefore petitioners 1 and 2 are issued Pattadar Pass Books (PPBs) to an extent of Acs.4.08 guntas and Acs.3.22 guntas respectively. They are now trying to encroach upon the land, which was initially granted to third petitioner and which was subsequently resumed to the Government. In view of the enquiry conducted at the time of issue of PPBs, there is no necessity to change the records. It is also stated that the land, which was initially assigned to third petitioner and subsequently cancelled has now been occupied by one Dubba Chennaiah and third petitioner is not in possession of the land. This Court heard the counsel for petitioners and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment). Petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit and, therefore, the counter averments that petitioners 1 and 2 alone filed appeals before the CLR and that the land assigned to third petitioner was resumed by the Government, stand admitted and they are not rebutted. Furthermore, the counter averment that as per supplementary sethwar and as per the PPBs, the land which was actually assigned to petitioners 1 and 2 is only Acs.4.08 guntas and Acs.3.22 guntas respectively also stands admitted and the same is not denied. The counsel for petitioner however relies on the memo/ communication bearing CCLA’s Ref.No.B4/2819/97, dated 13.5.1999 in support of contention that when the petitioners’ assignment and possession was restricted to Acs.4.08 guntas and Acs.3.22 guntas, they approached the District Collector, who referred the matter to CLR. By the said communication, CLR advised the District Collector to rectify the supplementary sethwar restoring actual extents of Acs.5.00 each to petitioners. The counter affidavit is silent nor the Assistant Government Pleader is able to deny the communication of CLR. The same reads as under. Upon hearing the appeals filed by two individuals the then Commissioner of Land Revenue, A.P., Hyderabad, set aside the orders of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and upheld the assignment of Ac.3.00 Government land. Further, the Supplementary Sethwars were issued to the assignees for less than the extent actually assigned to them, though they were in possession of total extent of Acs.5.00 each. Basing on the Supplementary Sethwar, the Collector processed the action to resume back the land in excess to the Supplementary Sethwar. Aggrieved by this, the above individuals filed representation before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. After examining the matter the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, has been pleased to advise the Collector, Mahabubnagar to rectify the Supplementary Sethwar and issue the revised supplementary sethwar to the assignees, as they were eligible on the date of original assignment, which has also been upheld by the Commissioner. Insofar as third petitioner is concerned, there is no denial by the petitioners. No reply affidavit is filed. It is well settled that unrebutted averments in the affidavits including counter affidavits are deemed to have been admitted. Therefore this Court does not find any strong reason to disagree with the submission of respondents that the third petitioner did not prefer appeal and, therefore, after cancelling the assignment, the land was taken into Government custody. Insofar as grievance of petitioners 1 and 2 is concerned, the District Collector is under obligation to obey orders of CLR and consider implementing the orders in CLR’s communication No.B4/2819/97, dated 13.5.1999. There shall be a direction to that effect. The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) July 01, 2010 YS