THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4942 of 2001 September 09, 2010 Between: Kasireddi Rama Rao (died) per L.Rs … Petitioners AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4942 of 2001 ORDER: The writ petition is filed by four persons assailing the proceedings dated 26.2.2001 of the first respondent. Out of four persons, petitioners 1 and 3 died and their legal representatives have been brought on record. The brief fact of the matter is as follows. An extent of land admeasuring Acs.17.74 in S.Nos.256/1 to 4, 5 to 9 and 257/1 and 2 of Relli Village of Kothavalasa Mandal in Vizianagaram District is allegedly in possession of the petitioners for the last four decades where they allegedly raised cashewnut. It is also their case that two decades prior to filing of the writ petition, Special Tahsildar conducted Final Check Operation (FCO) and recorded that the petitioners are pattadars and possessors of the land. The respondents 2 to 5 made a representation to the District Collector’s Grievance Cell through the first respondent some time in 2000 or 2001. They alleged that the lands in S.Nos.256/1 and 2 and 257/2 of Relli Village are encroached by the first petitioner and his family members with the support of the Village Administrative Officer and that they were induced to execute mortgage deeds in their favour. They also alleged that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothavalasa (MRO), granted D-Form pattas in favour of the first petitioner. The representation forwarded through the first respondent was treated as an appeal. After receiving the notices, the petitioners and the contesting respondents as well as MRO appeared before the first respondent. After considering the rival contentions and the official records produced by the MRO, first respondent disposed of the matter by the impugned proceedings in the following manner. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothavalasa has also produced the D.R. files bearing DR Nos.251/79, 252/79 and 733/79. The land measuring Acs.5.00 in S.No.256, Acs.3.01 in S.No.256 and an extent of Acs.3.96 in S.No.257/2 of Relli village were assigned in favour of Sri Vadapalli Narayana, Adapa Apparao and Bhavana Satyam respectively in DR file Nos.251/79, 733/89 and 252/79 dated 28.2.70 by the Tahsildar, S.Kota. The Mandal Revenue Officer did not produce the DR file through which the assignment was made in favour of Sri Vadapalli Krishnamma as it is not readily forthcoming. The petitioners did not produce the mortgage deed through which the lands were said to be mortgaged to the respondents. The period of mortgage has also not been established by the petitioners. The respondents paid Land Revenue for the above lands on 21.4.88 for the Faslies 1396, 1397. In spite of the records produced by the respondents i.e., the FCO fair adangal and Land Revenue Receipts for Faslies 1396, 1397 and 1401, it is proved beyond doubt that the lands in question are Government lands as per the Settlement fair adangal and DC files through which assignment was made in favour of the petitioiners on 28.2.1970 and the respondents are only enjoyers on the land. Action under APAL (POT) Act 1977 is required to be initiated in this case. The Mandal Revenue officer is the authority competent to take action under POT Act. Therefore the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothavalasa is directed to take action under POT Act and restore the lands to the petitioner. Meanwhile the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deed issued to them are hereby ordered to be kept in abeyance till the Mandal Revenue Officer finalise his action under POT Act in exercise of the powers vested under Section 5 of AP ROR Act 1977. In this writ petition, the Counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the MRO did not produce relevant records showing the assignment of land in favour of respondents 4 and 5 and predecessors of the second respondent, first respondent proceeded as if the land was assigned to them and directed the MRO to initiate action under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act). He would therefore urge that the impugned order is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record. The first respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the subject lands have been in occupation of Kasireddi family but, they did not produce any evidence with regard to the period of their occupation. It is further stated that the land in S.Nos.256/1 and 2 and 257/2 are Government Assessed Waste Dry (AWD) lands, which were assigned in favour of respondents 4, 5, and Vadapalli Krishna and Bhavana Satyam, total admeasuring Acs.16.97. The assignees created usufructory mortgage in favour of the petitioner as a result of which they came into possession. During the FCO, petitioners managed to get register the lands in their names. Based on such registration, petitioners also got their names entered in the Village accounts and 10(1) adangals. But as per the settlement survey registers, the land is vested in the Government, and therefore, they were assigned to respondents 2 to 5. While referring the representation made by the contesting respondents and the consequential proceedings, it is stated that the entries in the FCO, fair adangal and record of rights (including pattadar pass book and title deed) are made erroneously and during the enquiry the same was noticed and a direction was issued to MRO to initiate action under the Act. The Counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue made their submissions. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned proceedings of the first respondent directing the MRO to initiate action under the Act suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record. A perusal of the impugned order as well as the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent would show that the land is indeed classified as ‘Anadhina Punja’ or AWD. There is also a finding recorded by the first respondent that the land in S.Nos.256/1 and 2 and 257/2 of Relli Village was assigned to respondents 2 to 5. If that be so, it is for the petitioners to explain as to how they came into possession of the land and as to how they were able to get their names entered in the revenue records as well as pattadar pass books. Though preliminary findings were recorded by the first respondent, no action has been ordered or initiated for evicting the encroachers. Considering the matter in an objective manner with reference to the records available, first respondent only directed the MRO to initiate action under the Act. When a notice is issued by the MRO, it is always open to the petitioners to file objections and place all material available with them. Needless to mention, the MRO is bound to consider their objections with reference to the revenue records, settlement survey registers and the relevant files assigning the land to respondents 2 to 5. This observation would be sufficient redressal for the petitioners at this stage. The impugned proceedings itself records a finding that the petitioners herein are enjoyers of the land. This is not seriously disputed by the second respondent. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, observing that as directed by the first respondent, the MRO, Kothavalasa (now, the Tahsildar), may initiate necessary action under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and issue show cause notice as per the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007. As and when such show cause notice is issued, the petitioners are given liberty to file their objections and place all material available with them. After receiving the objections, the Tahsildar shall consider the matter keeping in view the observations made herein. This exercise may be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, is accordingly disposed of. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) September 09, 2010 YS