THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9558 of 2010 April 26, 2010 Between: Sri Gonuguntla Venkateshwarlu, S/o.Sri Ranga Nayakulu … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9558 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner assails the order bearing No.D.Dis.2764/2009-ES, dated 06.4.2010 of the second respondent. In obedience to the interim orders of this Court in WPMP No.28031 of 2009 in W.P.No.21578 of 2009, second respondent passed the impugned order to the effect that the land admeasuring Acs.0.11 in survey Nos.390/2 and 390/3 situated at Vinukonda in Guntur District is Grama kantham poramboke and that the petitioner has no right over the land and that no patta was granted to anybody in respect of the said land. The case of petitioner, as alleged by him, in a nutshell to the extent necessary for the purpose of in limine disposal is as follows. He is allegedly owner of land admeasuring Acs.0.11 in survey Nos.390/2 and 390/3 situated at Vinukonda, having purchased the same from Shaik Ahmed Saheb under registered sale deed dated 26.7.1933. He leased out the land to fifth respondent for establishing and running petrol filling station. The lease was initially for 10 years and it was extended in 1963, 1972 and 1982 for a period of 20 years. Before expiry of the lease, petitioner filed O.S.No.269 of 2005 for eviction. The same was decreed. In the mean while, when second respondent was about to renew licence of seventh respondent under Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order 1980, the same was disposed of directing the authority to consider all the documents and take a decision. Seventh respondent filed O.S.No.414 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, claiming that he was granted patta for 387 Sq.yards on 24.10.2004. Petitioner filed another writ petition being W.P.No.17346 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court directing the authorities to enquire into the matter as to whether patta claimed by seventh respondent is bogus. When the second respondent refused to renew the licence, seventh respondent filed W.P.No.11283 of 2009. The same was disposed of, giving liberty to licensee to prefer appeal before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. In the mean while, third respondent directed fourth respondent to seize the licensed premises. The said order was challenged by seventh respondent in W.P.No.16497 of 2009. At that stage, seventh respondent requested the Revenue authorities to grant lease of Government land, in vain. Therefore he filed W.P.No.21578 of 2009 seeking a direction to consider his representation. This Court passed interim orders on 09.10.2009. In obedience thereof, respondents 3 and 4 issued notice to petitioner to submit detailed representation. It is alleged that case was adjourned by the Joint Collector number of times and on 17.4.2010 fourth respondent summoned the petitioner and served a copy of the impugned order. The counsel for petitioner raised number of submissions. But having regard to the nature of the order passed by the Joint Collector, it is not necessary to refer to all of them. Suffice to mention that the Joint Collector passed orders in obedience to the interlocutory orders dated 09.10.2009 as referred to herein above. Therefore, the Joint Collector cannot be faulted. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of Joint Collector declaring that the petitioner was not granted patta, that he had no right over the land and that the land is Grama kantham poramboke as per RSR and adangal, his remedy is to prefer revision before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) under Para 15(18) of Board Standing Orders. As the issues involved mainly touch upon disputed questions of fact, at this stage, it is not proper to consider merits of the case. Liberty is given to petitioner to prefer revision before CCLA within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The revision may be disposed of by the said authority within a reasonable period preferably within a period of four months from the date of its filing. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 26, 2010 YS