THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.27040 OF 2007 BETWEEN: 1. Chebolu Srinivas and others. …. PETITIONERS And 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioners: Sri S. Niranjan Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5: G.P. for Assignment Counsel for respondent No.6: Smt. V. Preethi Reddy. The Court made the following order: ORDER: The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of one Chebolu Narayana Rao, who was an assignee of an extent of Ac.10.00 of land situated in Sy.No.347 of Madhuravada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, as a political sufferer, have filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in treating and declaring the said property as Government land and thus interfering with their rights over the said property without notice and following due process of law, as illegal and consequently to restrain the respondents from interfering with their rights in any manner over the said property. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that their predecessor Chebolu Narayana Rao was a freedom fighter. He suffered conviction and underwent imprisonment in jail at Girgam, Bombay for his participation in Civil Disobedience Movement in 1930. His services were recognized and enlisted him as political sufferer/freedom fighter. In pursuance of the policy of the Government recognizing the services of political sufferers, Chebolu Narayana Rao made an application on 25.07.1961 for allotment of an extent of Ac.10.00 of land. Pursuant to the said application, the concerned revenue inspector conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the then Tahsildar, recommending his case for allotment of land in Sy.No.128/2 (correspondent new Sy.No.347). The said recommendations were accepted and orders were issued allotting the said land in favour of Chebolu Narayana Rao under patta No.801 and put him in possession. The said assignee cultivated the land until his demise in the year 1964 and thereupon it was devolved upon his legal heirs. Thus the petitioners claim that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land through their predecessor. The petitioners rely on the revenue records, namely, 10(1) Adangal and Pahanies. 3. The further case of the petitioners is that one Chirala Narayana Rao impersonating as Chebolu Narayana Rao fraudulently obtained pattadar passbooks in his name and attempted to knock away the said property. An enquiry into the said episode was conducted by the Special Grade Deputy Collector, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, wherein it was found that the said person was an imposter and that Chebolu Narayana Rao alone was the allottee of the said land. Therefore, the pattadar passbook issued in favour of the said imposter was also cancelled. The petitioners thereupon approached the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural-the 5th respondent, seeking pattadar passbooks in their favour. The petitioners further state that even while they are in possession of the subject land in their capacity as the legal representatives of the original assignee, the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural – the 5th respondent herein and the officials of 6th respondent, namely, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA), visited the land on 11.12.2007 intending to take possession of the subject land purportedly under the instructions of the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam. On the protest of the petitioners, the said respondents could not take over the possession. The respondents are still persistent in their efforts to take possession by unilaterally treating the subject land as Government land even without notice and following due process of law. The petitioners therefore filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, the 2nd respondent herein filed counter affidavit inter alia admitting that Chebolu Narayana Rao filed an application for assignment under political sufferers quota and that the said application was scrutinized by the village officers and that assignment proposals were provisionally prepared during the year 1961 for granting assignment to him. It is however stated that D-Form patta, which was prepared in the year 1970, was not signed by the then Tahsildar and it was not delivered to the applicant as he expired in 1964. It is stated that old Sy.No.128/2 was carved out in various newly formed survey numbers including Sy.No.347 and accordingly D- Form patta was prepared in the year 1970 mentioning the said new survey number, but the same could not be signed and delivered, perhaps due to non-approach of the said political sufferer. It is further stated that as per the revenue records, the name of the petitioners’ father was reflected in the revenue records in 10(1) adangal and in the adangals for the years/faslis 1389, 1393, 1394, 1395, 1398, 1399, 1407 and 1410 as pattadar. In the counter it is further stated that one Chirala Narayana Rao fraudulently obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds under the guise of C. Narayana Rao, claiming as a political sufferer. The fraud committed by him was detected and the said documents were cancelled by orders dated 27.11.2007. The land was then handed over to VUDA, Visakhapatnam on 11.12.2007 to ensure protection. It is therefore stated that the subject land continued to remain as Government land. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 6th respondent, which in material particulars is similar to the counter filed by the 2nd respondent. 6. The petitioners filed reply affidavits to the said counter affidavits stating that the material on record confirm the fact that patta was in fact granted in favour of Chebolu Narayana Rao and the same was acted upon recognizing him as pattadar and possessor of the subject land. It is denied that D-Form patta was not signed by the then Tahsildar and not delivered to the assignee. The petitioners further asserted that the assignee was put in possession, and the land has been under cultivation. They have also denied that possession was handed over to the 6th respondent. They further asserted that the original records relating to 10(1) adangals if summoned would establish the true and correct facts. 7. Heard Sri S.R. Ashok instructed by Sri S. Niranjan Reddy and V.R.Reddy Kovuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Assignment for respondents 1 to 5 and Smt. V. Preethi Reddy learned counsel for respondent No.6. 8. Learned Senior Counsel while reiterating the facts pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the reply affidavits, would submit that Chebolu Narayana Rao was eligible for assignment of Government land as a political sufferer/freedom fighter. The application filed by Chebolu Narayana Rao was processed and his case was recommended by the concerned village officers, namely, the Revenue Inspector and the Village Karanam and that on such recommendation, the Special Tahsildar, who was the assigning authority at the relevant point of time, accepted the recommendation and passed orders granting assignment and the said order is borne out by record; that the assignee was put in possession and after his demise, the petitioners, who are his legal heirs have been in possession; that the order assigning the land has not been withdrawn or cancelled and the same has become final, thereby creating vested rights in favour of the petitioners; that as a consequence of assignment vesting the land in the assignee, the land ceased to be Government land and therefore it is not permissible for the respondents to treat it as Government land and thereby infringe the rights of the petitioners over the subject land or otherwise interfere with their rights in any manner without following due process of law. 9. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Assignment even while admitting that Chebolu Narayana Rao was a political sufferer and his application seeking assignment was processed by the field staff of the then Tahsildar’s office and that the assignment proposals were also provisionally made in the year 1961, would submit that D-Form patta was prepared only in the year 1970 by which time the assignee died and it was not signed by the then Tahsildar and not delivered to the applicant Chebolu Naryana Rao. He would therefore submit that in as much as the patta was not communicated to the assignee no vested right had accrued in his favour. He would therefore contend that notwithstanding the order granting assignment, the subject land remained the same as Government land. He would further contend that the possession of the subject land was handed over to the 6th respondent on 11.12.2007. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6 would contend that no patta was granted to Chebolu Narayana Rao and therefore, the petitioners do not derive any right through him, who himself had no right over the subject land. It was further contended that the petitioners in any event have remained passive for several years, and therefore, they cannot claim any rights at a belated stage. 11. I have considered the rival contentions and examined the original record produced before the Court. 12. It is an admitted fact that Chebolu Narayana Rao was a political sufferer and he made an application dated 25.07.1961 to the then Tahsildar of Assignment of lands, Visakhapatnam seeking assignment. A perusal of the record shows that his application was verified in terms of Board Standing Orders (BSO) No.15, para 6 and Form-A Memorandum by the Village Karanam and the Village Munsif. The application was also notified in the village by publication on 08.09.1961. No objections were received opposing the assignment in favour of Chebolu Narayana Rao. The application was also verified by the Special Revenue Inspection (Assignment) Visakhapatnam who submitted a report to the effect that he was eligible and there was no objection to assign the land. The application was placed along with the recommendations before the Special Tahsildar who was the assigning authority and the said Special Tahsildar passed orders on 14.10.1961 granting assignment to the applicant. 13. These facts are not only admitted but also borne out by record. 14. In this context, in order to examine whether assignment has actually been granted, it is necessary to examine the order of the Special Tahsildar dated 14.10.1961. As stated above the Special Revenue Inspector submitted his report dated 27.09.1961. The village Karanam and Munsiff also enquired into the eligibility of the applicant and submitted a report dated 23.09.1961. Based on the said reports, Assignment Check Memo was prepared in file D.R.No.1289, which contains 10 columns, the relevant part of which is as follows : “1 to 7 xxx xxx xxx 8. Recommendation. Ac.10-00 in S.No.128/2 of Madhuravada village may be Assigned as recommended by the VOs and Spl. R.I, subject to payment of SD fees of Rs.3/- and stone value Rs.5/-. Sd/- Head Clerk (To be filled in by the Tahsildar) 9. Recommendation of the Tahsildar (If he is not the assigning authority) Sd/- Signature of the Tahsildar. (To be filled in by the Assigning Authority) 10. Orders of the Assigning Authority. Assigned Sd/- Signature Special Tahsildar 14.10.1961.” 15. A perusal of Column 10 shows that order was passed duly signed by the Assigning Authority, the Special Tahsildar, granting assignment in favour of Chebolu Narayana Rao. Further, the Special Grade Deputy Collector, Steel Plant (Land Acquisition) Visakhapatnam conducted an enquiry into the episode of one Chirala Narayana Rao, who was trying to knock away the assigned land as an imposter of Chebolu Narayana Rao. In his enquiry report Rc.No.66/2007/RI, dated 26.06.2007 the said Special Grade Deputy Collector has adverted to the fact that Chebolu Narayana Rao was a political sufferer and that he had applied for assignment of Government land in Sy.No.128/2 of Madhurawada village for an extent of Ac.10.00 cents under D.R.No.1289 and as per the records maintained in the Collectorate and the M.R.O.’s office, the then Tahsildar (Assignments) had passed orders during 1961 for assignment. He also observed that the said Chirala Narayana Rao might have indulged in impersonation and created fake patta and manipulated to incorporate his name in the revenue records in the guise of Chebolu Narayana Rao, who was the original political sufferer and who was not actually given D-Form patta. 16. The aforesaid record clinchingly prove that the patta had in fact been granted to Chebolu Narayana Rao. 17. However, despite the same, it is the contention of the respondents that D-Form patta prepared in the year 1970 and that it was not signed by the then Tahsildar and nor delivered to Chebolu Narayana Rao. Therefore, it is their contention that no right had accrued in favour of the assignee. In other words, the respondents would contend that unless a copy of the patta is actually served on the assignee, mere granting the same is not valid. 18. The said contention does not deserve acceptance. As seen above, patta was granted on 14.10.1961. The land at that time was assessed in Sy.No.128/2. The said survey number was later carved into newly formed survey numbers in the year 1970 and the old Sy.No.128/2 was renumbered as Sy.No.347. It is not necessary nor is there any requirement under law that there should be a fresh grant whenever there is a change in survey numbers consequent upon re- survey and sub-division of the land. If there is any change in the survey number it is for the authorities to incorporate the same in the place of old survey number, but it does not invalidate the grant itself. Therefore, D-Form patta said to have been prepared in the year 1970 which allegedly was not served on the assignee does not invalidate the patta granted to the applicant in the year 1961. 19. In this context it is necessary to know how the term ‘order’ is understood in legal parlance. The term ‘order’ in legal parlance would indicate expression of opinion which is to be carried out or enforced. An ‘order’ is a conclusion of a Court or an authority or a Tribunal upon any motion. A learned Division Bench of this Court in Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru v. District Judge, West Godavari District[1] considered the meaning of ‘order’ in the context of a letter of Forest Settlement Officer. The Bench while construing the letter as an “order” as it contained decision on the claims put forth by the parties, observed as follows. “The term ‘order in legal parlance, would always indicate some expression of opinion which is to be carried out or enforced. In other words, an “order” is a conclusion of a Court or an Authority or a Tribunal upon any motion. The term “order,” “decision” and “judgment” are commonly used interchangeably. In Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, in the definition of the term “judgment”, it is stated: “conclusion of law upon facts found are admitted by the parties are upon their default in the course of the suit. Decision or sentence of the law, given by a Court of justice or other competent Tribunal, as the result of proceedings instituted therein. Allegheny County v. Maryland Casualty Co., C.C.A. Pa., 132 F 2d 894, 897; State v. Siglea, 196 Wash 283, 82 P 2d 583, 584. Decision or sentence of the law pronounced by the Court and entered upon its docket, minutes or record. Determination of a Court of competent jurisdiction upon matters submitted to it. State ex rel. Curran v. Brookes, 142 Ohio ST 107, 50 NE 2d 995, 998. Determination or sentence of the law propounced by a competent Judge or Court, as the result of an action or proceeding instituted in such Court, affirming that, upon the matters submitted for its decision, a legal duty or liability does or does not exist. “Term “judgment” under rules (of) practice includes “decree.” Fed R Civ P 54 (a). Terms “decision” and “judgment” are commonly used interchangeably.” 20. From the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that an order means a decision by determining some right or liability of a person. A right or liability so determined flows from the date of decision and it does not get postponed to a future date, and at any rate till the decision is communicated. 21. There is always a distinction between passing an “order” and communication of an “order”. An order can be said to have been passed when an authority/court has rendered its decision. Rendering a decision is the substantive function. A decision so rendered would thereupon regulate the rights of parties over the subject matter of the decision, whereas, communication of an order is a procedural ministerial act. A ministerial act is a simple duty that shall be exercised in obedience of an order. A ministerial act does not in any way affect an order. Even if there is a failure to perform a ministerial act, it does not affect the validity of an order. The distinction between a judicial function and a ministerial act has been succinctly explained by the Apex Court in Jamal Uddin Ahmad v. Abu Saleh Najmuddin [2], the relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows : “Judicial function is exercised under legal authority to decide on the disputes, after hearing the parties, may be after making an enquiry, and the decision affects the rights and obligations of the parties. There is a duty to act judicially. The Judge may construe the law and apply it to a particular state of facts presented for the determination of the controversy. A ministerial act, on the other hand, may be defined to be one which a person performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to, or the exercise of, his own judgment upon the propriety of the act done. (Law Lexicon, ibid.,p.1234). In ministerial duty nothing is left to discretion; it is a simple, definite duty. Presentation of election petition to the High Court within the meaning of Section 81 of the Act without anything more would mean delivery of election petition to the High Court through one of its officers competent or authorized to receive the same on behalf of and for the High Court. Receiving an election petition presented under Section 81 of the Act is certainly not a judicial function which needs to be performed by a Judge alone. There is no discretion in receiving an election petition. An election petition, when presented, has to be received. It is a simple, definite duty. The date and time of presentation and the name of the person who presented (with such other particulars as may be prescribed) are to be endorsed truly and mechanically on the document presented. It is a ministerial function simpliciter. It can safely be left to be performed by one of the administrative or ministerial staff of the High Court which is as much a part of the High Court. It may be delegated or be performed through someone authorized. The manner of authorization is not prescribed.” 22. In Kundur Rudrappa v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, and Others [3] the Apex Court while dealing with a case arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to an appeal arising under Section 64 of the said Act dealt with a question whether an appeal would lie under Section 64 of the Act against the issue of the permit in pursuance of an earlier resolution of the Regional Transport Authority granting the permit. It was held therein that an appeal would lie against an order making the permit but not against an order issuing a permit in pursuance of the order granting it. The Court held that issuance of permit is only a ministerial act necessarily following the grant of permit. 23. It is therefore abundantly clear that in the instant case, an order granting assignment is substantive order, where as issue of D- Form patta is only ministerial. As noticed above, inaction in the issuance of patta does not invalidate the order granting assignment. Thus, there is no substance in the contention of the respondents that as a copy of the patta has not been delivered, the petitioners have not acquired any rights in pursuance of the assignment order. 24. The said contention on the non-issue of patta does not deserve acceptance for yet another reason. 25. A perusal of the concerned records shows that the respondents not only granted patta but also implemented the same recognizing the right of the assignee. Village Account No.10 is a settlement register of the village maintained under the Board Standing Orders. The said register contains particulars of those who are granted pattas and the extent of patta held by them. A perusal of the said register shows patta No.801 in respect of Sy.No.347 for an extent of Acs.10.00 of land in the name of C.Narayana Rao. The register is a crucial document, which clinchingly establish that the patta granted in favour of Chebolu Narayana Rao has been implemented and given effect to. That apart, the information furnished by the District Collector in his Proceedings M/Rc.No.31/2008/C6, dated 18-03-2008 which was furnished to one S.Bhujanga Rao in pursuance of his application under the RTI Act also clinchingly show the name of Chebolu Narayana Rao at serial No.17 as an assignee of the subject land. The information was provided to the said applicant basing on the information collected from the office of the concerned Tahsildar. In the light of these documents, it is evident that the patta in favour of Chebolu Narayana Rao was given effect to and implemented. The death or otherwise of the assignee subsequent to the grant is of no consequence as an assignment of patta is indisputably heritable. 26. The contention of the respondents that the land continued to be Government land and remained in its possession is equally untenable; firstly, as noticed above the patta was given effect to and implemented and Chebolu Narayana Rao was shown as the occupier of the land in Village Settlement Register; secondly, his name finds place in the adangals of Faslis 1389, 1393, 1394, 1395, 1398, 1399, 1407 and 1410. More importantly, the District Collector in para 5 of his affidavit has admitted stating “It is further submitted that, as per the revenue records the name of the petitioners’ father was reflected in the revenue records in 10(1) adangal and adangals of the years/faslis 1389, 1393, 1394, 1395, 1398, 1399, 1407 and 1410 as pattedars. Merely reflecting the name of the petitioners’ father does not give right or confer title over the land.” Further, even according to the respondents Chirala Narayana Rao was given pattadar pass book and title deeds which were cancelled in 2007. If really the subject land was continued to be treated as Government land, no pattadar pass book and the title deed would have been issued at all. Evidently, the said material and the averment of the District Collector which are official documents besides being the admitted facts, raise a presumption in favour of the petitioners under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 27. The counsel for the 6th Respondent would still endeavour to submit that possession of the subject land was delivered to it on 11.2.2007. The counsel seeks to rely on a receipt dated 11.12.2007, but none of the respondents have placed any reliable material to show the delivery of possession. The procedure relating to delivery of possession of immovable property cannot be symbolic on paper but it should be actual which has to be shown at least by way of a panchanama conducted on the spot. The receipt relied upon by the 6th Respondent would show nothing more than paper possession. 28. The learned standing counsel for the 6th Respondent would endeavour stating that the petitioners who have remained passive for several years are not entitled for indulgence in the Writ Petition. It must be mentioned that the petitioners had no cause of action until steps were taken by the respondents to treat the land as Government land. The petitioners have clearly averred which is not disputed that they learnt that the 3rd Respondent was intending to transfer the land in favour of the 6th respondent through the recent press reports by falsely classifying the land as Government land