THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1187 of 2009 ORDER: Mr.Palle Eshwaraiah, the father of the petitioner, was an Excise Contractor and he fell in arrears to an extent of Rs.14222.46 p., for the period from 1358 to 1362 Fasli. Therefore, the Government of A.P., proceeded against the lands of the Contractor in survey Nos.454, 616, 689 and 693 of Aliabad Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the year 1964. However, the land continued to be in possession of the owner, or his tenants. Obviously, because there were no bidders, the Government itself has retained the lands towards the arrears. Thereafter, the Government conducted auction of the said lands on 04.03.1976. The petitioner and one Mr.Valligonda Gnaneshwar have emerged as highest bidders for the land in survey No.689 of that Village admeasuring Acs.3.18 guntas, for a sum of Rs.1,750/-. Similarly, different persons were emerged as highest bidders for the other survey numbers. Though the petitioner emerged as highest bidder and the amount was paid, the transfer was not effected. His possession, however, remained uninterrupted. The petitioner and other highest bidders approached the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, with a request to make entries in the revenue records, in their favour. After discussing the matter in detail, the District Collector, addressed a letter in March, 2005, to the 1st respondent, seeking necessary instructions. The latter, in turn, issued proceedings, dated 15.06.2006, directing that the auction has to be confirmed in the name of the highest bidders and necessary entries are to be made in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Specific instructions were issued to the Joint Collector, the 2nd respondent herein, to seek clarification, if necessary. Acting on the said proceedings, the 2nd respondent issued memo, dated 10.08.2007, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, as time barred. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition and a further direction is sought to the 3rd respondent to make necessary entries in the revenue records. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit, admitting that the petitioner has emerged as highest bidder. Reference is also made to the order passed by the 1st respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. It is a matter of record that the petitioner emerged as highest bidder, along with one Gnaneshwar, in respect of Acs.3.18 guntas of land in survey No.689. Gnaneshwar is said to have relinquished his rights in favour of the petitioner. That, however, is a different aspect. Obviously, because the petitioner was in enjoyment of the land, he did not evince much interest, to verify the correctness of entries in the revenue records. It was only in the year 2004, that the petitioner and other successful bidders approached the District Collector. In his communication to the 1st respondent, the District Collector observed as under: “In view of the above circumstances stated above, I am to request kindly to clarify whether the above Sy.No’s i.e., 454, 616, 689 and 693 may be re-assigned in favour of auction bidders though the reason for not confirming the auction for which the auction bidders are not responsible as explained by the then Tahasildar, Medchal and more over the entire amount for which the above Sy.No’s are bought in lands has been recovered from the auction bidders and they are in possession since 1976 to avoid court litigations.” In all fairness to the petitioner and acting with utmost objectivity in the matter, the 1st respondent issued proceedings, dated 15.06.2006, which read as under: “The attention of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District is invited to the reference cited and he is informed that the auction has to be confirmed in the name of the persons who have paid the auction amount, and the names of bidders must be entered in to the records under the R.O.R. Act following its provisions and procedures, since the land was auctioned and the bid amount was already paid. It is further informed that the Joint Collector may discuss the matter with the Special Commissioner in case he has any difficulty. The original record bearing No.C3/8017/60 with total pages of (420) received through the reference 2nd cited is returned herewith, and the Collector, Ranga Reddy district is request to acknowledge the receipt of the same.” Any honest, sincere and disciplined Officer would have either confirmed the sale in favour of the petitioner, entered his name in the revenue records, and if he found any difficulty or ambiguity, would have sought clarification from the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent, however, exhibited his wisdom, knowledge of law, and in a way, excessive intelligence in the matter, little realizing that he was resorting to acts of insubordination. In his memo, dated 10.08.2007, he stated: “In the instant case the application was made in the year 2004 after 28 years. The applicants have not shown sufficient cause for delay. In fact the applicants had knowledge of the said issue as early as in the year 1976. Though the issue was very much within the knowledge of the applicants as early as 1976, the applicant has chosen not to agitate the same till 2004. As such the delay cannot be condoned. For the above reasons, it is held that this application is not maintainable. If the petitioners are aggrieved as to any rights of which they are in possession by an entry made in any record of rights they may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny their title to such right for declaration of their rights under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and in accordance with Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.” To say the least, the view expressed by the 2nd respondent in the impugned memo, is despicable. He did not exhibit the minimum discipline to respect the proceedings of his superiors. He proceeded as though he is dealing with the matter for the first time and the petitioner had approached him straight away. This Court takes serious exception to the impugned memo. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned memo is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to implement the proceedings, dated 15.06.2006, issued by the 1st respondent, in its letter and spirit forthwith and without waiting for any other orders or proceedings. The 3rd respondent shall effect mutation and take other steps under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, in favour of the petitioner, vis-à-vis the land of an extent of Acs.3.18 guntas in survey No.689 of Aliabad Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:09.04.2009. GJ