IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21478 of 2000 Between: Smt.Narla Raju Bai … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Nizamabad and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Y.Neelakanta Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 19-10-2000 issued by respondent No.1, whereby he cancelled the pattadar passbook and title deed of the petitioner in respect of Ac.3.19 guntas of land comprised in Survey No.339 of Vempally village, Nizamabad District. The petitioner purchased the above mentioned land in the year 1983 from its original owner through a simple sale deed, which was subsequently regularized on 23-4-1999 under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”). When respondent No. 4 and his brother started interfering with the possession of the predecessor in title of the petitioner, the said person, by name, Smt.Padmavathi Bai W/o.Sham Rao, filed O.S.No.50 of 1975 in the Court of the District Munsif, Armoor, for perpetual injunction against respondent No.4 and his brother. The said suit was decreed on 30-9-1978. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed on 20-12-1979. After the petitioner purchased the said land, she approached respondent No.3 with application dated 15-6-1995 seeking transfer of patta in her name. After considering the objections raised by Smt.Jakka Gangu Bai, Sarpanch of respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat and others, respondent No.3 vide his proceedings dated 13-3-1999 held that the petitioner is entitled to issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed. Questioning the said order, respondent No.4 filed an appeal before respondent No.2 on 4-6-1999 and the said appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the Sarpanch of respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat approached respondent No.1, who then exercised suo motu powers under Section 9 of the Act, and by the impugned order he cancelled the order of respondent No.3, by which he granted pattadar pass book and title deeds in favour of the petitioner. I have heard Sri Y.Neelakanta Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents, and perused the record. In his order dated 19-10-2000, respondent No.1 traced the title to the property in question. While there is no dispute regarding the fact that the property in question is covered by a private patta, the only ground on which respondent No.1 set aside the order of respondent No.3 is that the said land, comprised in Survey No.339, is classified as “Shikam of Chintalakunta”; and that it cannot be cultivated during rainy season. Respondent No.1 also observed that such a land cannot be included in the pattadar pass book; and that “residuary rights of pattadar Smt.Narla Raju Bai exists on the land when the shikam is dry”. He directed that the occupant column should be recorded as ‘tank’ and column 21 should also be shown as ‘tank’ instead of ‘fallow’ in pahani. In my considered view, the basis on which respondent No.1 cancelled the pattadar passbook, granted in favour of the petitioner, cannot be sustained. Neither the Act nor the Rules thereunder prohibit grant of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of “private shikam land”. Therefore, the entire premise on which respondent No.1 directed cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed is erroneous and cannot be sustained. Even on respondent No.1’s own showing, the petitioner’s right to cultivate the property when it becomes dry exists. Such being the case, in the absence of any prohibition for granting pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of the land which admittedly belongs to the petitioner, there is no justification for respondent No.1 to interfere with the issue of pattadar passbook and title deed by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed; impugned order dated 19-10-2000 passed by respondent No.1 is quashed; and the pattadar passbook and title deed issued by respondent No.3 stand restored. -------------------------------------- -- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:25-07-2008 MNR