HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WAMP No.2144 OF 2007 & WRIT APPEAL No:1067 OF 2007 Dated: 07.02.2008 Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Joint Collector, Rangareddy District at Hyderabad and others. ..Appellants And Sara Ravinder ..Respondent HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WAMP No.2144 OF 2007 & WRIT APPEAL No:1067 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by an order, dated 10.7.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.26717 of 2001. The respondent herein is the writ petitioner. He filed the above writ petition seeking to declare the order, dated 24.7.2000 passed by the 1st appellant-1st respondent directing the 3rd appellant-respondent to initiate necessary action to record the land in old Sy.No.78 and new Sy.No.101 as Government land in the Pahanies immediately while dismissing the petition filed by the writ petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the appellants to correct the unauthorized entry made in the revenue records from the year 1963-64 onwards in respect of the nature of the said land as Kharij Khata instead of Patta and further direct them to record the nature of the land as Patta and also to record the name of Sara Chandraiah as Pattadar in all the revenue records from the year 1963- 64 records. The case of the writ petitioner, in brief, reads as hereunder: One Sara Chandraiah, who is the father of the writ petitioner, is a pattadar and was in possession of certain extent of lands including the land admeasuring Ac.2.34 guntas in Sy.No.101 situated in Nizampet village of Qutubullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District and after his demise in the year 1979, his children including the writ petitioner have been in possession of the same. While so, in the year 1998, it came to his knowledge that his father’s name was shown as Pattadar and possessor in the revenue records up to 1960-61 only and thereafter, the land in question was described as Kharij Khata in the records. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition for correction of entries before the 1st appellant-1st respondent on 3.7.1998, who in turn forwarded the same to the 3rd appellant-3rd respondent for enquiry and on verification, he reported that the land in question has been recorded as patta in the name of Sara Chandraiah from 1950-60 to 1962-63 and thereafter, from 1963-64 to 1995-96, the land was recorded as Kharij Katha Sarkari and that there was no sanction of Ain Kammi/Ain Izafa proposals by the Nazaam-E-Jamabandi and it is not known how the ex- patwari of Nizampet village was recorded as Kharij Khata without approval of the Nazim-E-Jamabandi. Thereafter, the 2nd appellant-respondent-RDO reported that as per Sethwar, the name of Sara Chandraiaha was shown as Khatadar of Sy.No.101 Nizampet village and the classification of the land has been rounded off and re-written as Sivai Jamabandi and therefore, the mistake has occurred while recording the land in question as Kharij Khata. The 1st appellant-1st respondent also obtained report from the 4th respondent, who stated that as per the Sethwar for the year 1956, the land has been recorded as dry land with classification as Sivai Jamabhandi and the name of Sara Chandraiah was shown as Pattadar with total extent of Ac.2.36 guntas. On the basis of the said material, the 1st respondent passed the order dated 24.7.2000 refusing the request of the writ petitioner for correction of entries on the ground that the extent of land in Sy.Nos.101, 238 and 345 corresponding to old Sy.No.78/1 to 3 is not tallying with the extent shown in the note submitted by the 4th respondent-Assistant Director, Survey and Land records and that as per the copy of Asal Sethwar for the year 1956, the extent of the land in Sy.No.101 is shown as Ac.2.36 guntas whereas as per the note submitted by the 4th respondent, it is Ac.3.11 guntas. Therefore, the 1st appellant has directed the 3rd appellant- Mandal Revenue Officer to verify the bandobast records in respect of old survey No:78 of Nizamapet village and initiate necessary action. The learned single Judge having observed that when once the report made by the competent authority discloses that the father of the petitioner was originally a pattadar to an extent of Ac.2.36 guntas, the authority should have restricted the claim to that extent and should have given a finding that the remaining extent of land is only Kharij Khata and simply because the extent of land sought by the petitioner does not tally with the extent in the note submitted by the 4th appellant, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his claim, allowed the writ petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is preferred by the appellants-State. Heard the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Along with the writ appeal, W.A.M.P.2144 of 2007 is also filed by the State seeking to suspend the order of the learned single Judge. Today, the said W.A M.P. is posted for hearing. Since the relief sought for in the W.A.M.P and the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, will touch the very merits of the main writ appeal, We feel it a fit case wherein it is just and proper to dispose of the main writ appeal. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the 1st appellant-1st respondent also obtained report from the 4th respondent, who stated that as per the Sethwar for the year 1956, the land has been recorded as dry land with classification as Sivai Jamabhandi and the name of Sara Chandraiah was shown as Pattadar with total extent of Ac.2.36 guntas. On the basis of the said material, the 1st respondent passed the order dated 24.7.2000 refusing the request of the writ petitioner for correction of entries on the ground that the extent of land in Sy.Nos.101, 238 and 345 corresponding to old Sy.No.78/1 to 3 is not tallying with the extent shown in the note submitted by the 4th respondent-Assistant Director, Survey and Land records and that as per the copy of Asal Sethwar for the year 1956, the extent of the land in Sy.No.101 is shown as Ac.2.36 guntas whereas as per the note submitted by the 4th respondent, it is Ac.3.11 guntas. It is further contended by the learned counsel that having admitting the name of the father of the writ petitioner as pattadar in the revenue records, the appellants ought not to have rejected the application of the writ petitioner for correction of the entries in the revenue records in the name of the father of the writ petitioner as a pattadar without any basis and that too, solely on a baseless ground that the extent of land in Sy.Nos.101, 238 and 345 corresponding to old Sy.No.78/1 to 3 is not tallying with the extent shown in the note submitted by the 4th respondent-Assistant Director, Survey and Land records. At this juncture, it is relevant to go through the order, dated 24.7.2000, which reads as under: “As per the extract of Asal Sethwar for the year 1956 furnished by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, R.R. District, the land has been recorded as dry with classification as Sival jamabandi and Sara Chandraiah as Pattadar with total extent of Ac.2.36 guntas and assessment of Rs.3/-. A note has also been obtained from the Assistant Director, S & LR, R.R District wherein he has reported that the revision survey took place in the year 1956 AD and in the Khata of Sivai Jamabandi, the old survey No:78/1 to 4, the entries are as follows: Sl.No: Old Sy. No. Old extent Ac-gts New sy no. New extent Ac-gts Remarks 1 78 2.20 101 3.11 Belongs to patta land 2 78 1.00 238 3.10 -do- 3 78 3.00 345 3.05 -do- 4 78 230 0.10 Belongs to Poramboke land 156 250 0.08 0.14 -do- -do- The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, in his note has further submitted that the S.No.78 is poramboke and Sivai Jamabandi is correct and as per pahani patrak for the year 1953 AD, it is evident that S.No:78/1 to 4 are included in the patta account register. As per the copy of pahani for the year 1996-97, the following entries have been recorded in respect of the new Survey numbers corresponding to old S.Nos.78/1 to 3: Sl.no. Sy. No Extent Ac-gts Name of the pattadar Name of the possessor 1 101 2.36 Khariz khata (sarkari) --- 2 238 1.10 Bhoosangi Sanjeeva Rao Kola Laxmamma 3 345 3.22 Gorrela Lakshmamma Gorrela Lakxmamma Gorrela Kistaiah Gorrela Kistaiah Gorrela Pentamma Pentamma At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the order, dated 24.7.2000 makes it clear that as per the extract of Asal Sethwar for the year 1956 furnished by the Assistant Director, S & LR Ranga Reddy District, the land has been recorded as dry with classification as Sivai Jamabandi and Sara Chandraiah as pattadar with total extent of Ac.2.36 guntas. Having the above data on hand as furnished by the Assistant Director, it is peculiar to note that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected simply on the ground that the extent of the land in S.No:101, 238 and 345 corresponding to old S.No:78/1 to 3 is not tallying with the extent shown in the note. At this stage, it is contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent that Pahani is the record of rights and the record of rights do not in any matter alter the pre existing rights of the parties and that even as per the extract of Asal Sethwar for the year 1956 furnished by the Assistant Director, S & LR Ranga Reddy District, the land has been recorded as dry with classification as Sivai Jamabandi and Sara Chandraiah as pattadar with total extent of Ac.2.36 guntas and that therefore, the subsequent alterations cannot prevail over the existing rights of Sara Chandraiah and in support of his contention, he relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in State of A.P. Vs. Prameela Modi ([1]) wherein it is held that, “Every record of right prepared and maintained under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved and until it is otherwise amended in accordance with the Provisions of the Act.” Even as per the averments made in the counter in the writ petition filed by the appellants, it is crystal clear that as per the note prepared by the Assistant Director, the land in S.No:101 corresponding to old survey No:78 is described as Ac.3.11 guntas, which was classified as patta land whereas as per the pahani for the year 1996-97, the land in S.No:101 is described as 2.36 guntas which was classified as Khariz Khata. But, no explanation is forthcoming with regard to the said variation in the extent as well as the classification of the land. A perusal of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 16.7.1998, goes to show that as per verification of pahanies for the year 1959-60 to 1995-96 of Nizampet village, it revealed that the land in S.No:101 admeasuring Ac.2.36 guntas stands in the name of Sara Chandraiah from 1950-60 to 1962-63 and thereafter, from 1964-65 to 1995- 96, the land was recorded Kharij khatha Sarkari. It is also crystal clear from the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer that the F.P. for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 of Nizampet village have been verified and found that there was no sanction of Ain Kammi Ain Izafa proposals by the Nizam-e- Zamabandi and it is not known as to how the Ex patwari of Nizampet village was recorded as kharij khata without approval of Nizam-e-jamabandhi. From the above report, it is crystal clear that initially, the land in S.No:101 admeasuring Ac.2-36 guntas was shown as patta land and the name of Sara Chandraiah who is the father of the writ petitioner was shown as pattadar. But, it is very peculiar to note that subsequently, the said land was recorded as Kharij khata without any approval or sanction from the concerned the then authorities or without any notice to the possessor of the said land even as per the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer who has clearly stated in his report dated 28.11.1998 that on his local enquiry, it was found that the land is enjoyed by Sara Chandraiah as patta dar. In this regard, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent that the Division Bench of this Court in the decision cited supra after having considered a number of decisions and having dealt with the meaning of “Pattadar”, held that the pattadar means a person who possesses a title to the land and the pattadar is one whose title to the land has been recognized and that so far as the agricultural lands are concerned, the pattadar is the one in whom the title vests and the patta of agricultural land itself is a evidence of title. There is no dispute as to the principles laid down by this Court as to the expression of pattadar and vesting of title as a pattadar. From a perusal of the material on record, it is obvious that the appellants have failed to show any basis for alternation of entries in the records subsequently. But, now coming to the facts of the case on hand, in view of the failure to explain as to the variation in the extent as well as the classification of the land in the note prepared by the Assistant Director on one hand and the subsequent pahanis on the other and in view of the findings in the order impugned, which are ambiguous, We have no hesitation to hold that the note prepared by the Assistant Director, which clearly makes it clear that the name of Sara Chandraiah has been shown as pattadar, cannot be deviated. At this stage, it is further contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent herein that the entries in the revenue record were based on the sethwar and the said entries were not questioned and thereby, they have become final and the said entries showing the father of the respondent as pattadar were issued long back conferring title to him and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is sustainable and it does not require any interference by this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the entries in the sethwar, which remained unquestioned as is evident from the report of the Assistant Director and in view of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer, the appellants-Department cannot contend now at the present that it is a kharij khata (sarkari). Apart from that, the very silence on the part of the appellants, as to the issuance of pahanies in question without showing any concrete basis as to the alteration of entry as Kharij Khata without any prior sanction or approval from the concerned the then authorities, leads to draw an adverse inference against their action. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to observe that the note prepared by the Assistant Director as narrated in the counter filed in the writ petition by the appellants, holds good. That too, the failure to explain the occurrence of variation in the extent as well as the classification of the land, leads to draw an adverse inference on the order impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, We feel that the learned single Judge is justified in accepting the claim of the writ petitioner. We see no merits in this writ appeal as well as the W.A.M.P. and consequently, they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ appeal as well as the W.A.M.P. are dismissed. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________ Justice G. Rohini Date: 7th February, 2008 Nn/Gurc. HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WAMP No.2144 OF 2007 & WRIT APPEAL No:1067 OF 2007 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 7.2.2008 [1] 2005 (3) ALT 379 (DB)