THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7930 of 2010 April 09, 2010 Between: Polimarasetti Kondalarao, S/o.Late Baburao And others … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7930 of 2010 ORDER: Ten petitioners herein are residents of either Mangalapalem Village or Desapatrunipalem Village of Kothavalasa Mandal in Vizianagaram District. They are agriculturists. They are aggrieved by a communication dated 04.5.2009 of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), second respondent herein, and consequential endorsement of fourth respondent, Joint Collector, informing Polimarasetti Kondalarao (first petitioner herein) of Mangalapalem Village that launching of criminal cases against persons to whom pattas were issued by the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer on 16.3.2002, is not proper, illegal, arbitrary and vitiated by non- application of mind. Petitioners are allegedly in possession of small extents of lands admeasuring Acs.0.10 to Acs.0.41 in various survey numbers of Chintalapalem Village. The land in T.D.Nos.1391 and 1392 allegedly exists in Marupalli Village never exists, and respondents 6 and 7 who are statedly rich landlords are trying to grab the land showing it to be existed. It is the case of petitioners that seventh respondent made a representation to CCLA requesting clarification as to the actual existence of T.D.No.1392. According to respondents 6 and 7, information given by CCLA in the Reference dated 18.6.2008 has caused misunderstanding to the public, that some people resorted to adjudication and filed complaint against Joint Collector, other Revenue officials and landholders, for verification of the fact that T.D.No.1392 exists in Chintalapalem Village. A report was called for from the Collector. The Collector sent a report dated 10.12.2008 informing that T.D.No.1392 is part of Chintalapalem Village. CCLA, therefore, requested the District Collector to send reply to Superintendent of Police and also given endorsement to respondents 6 and 7. In obedience thereto, District Collector informed first petitioner that M/s.Pongupati Srinivasa Rao and Pongupati Balaramaiah were shown as occupants of the land, that the same does not belong to Polimarasetti Kondala Rao and others and that the Joint Collector issued proceedings dated 16.3.2002 after verifying Inam Fair Register. The Collector also informed that T.D.No.1392 belongs to Chintalapalem Village and, therefore, criminal cases cannot be launched. This Court heard the counsel for petitioners. In spite of a pointed question regarding cause of action for filing writ petition, no satisfactory answer is forthcoming. A perusal of the impugned orders and the other material would show that as of now the Joint Collector informed the first petitioner that criminal cases cannot be launched against the occupants in view of patta granted by Joint Collector in S.R.No.11(a)/429/57 VZM/F2, dated 16.3.2002. The petitioners were also advised to file appeal before the Director of Settlements. Therefore, this Court is convinced that the land allegedly in possession of petitioners comprised in various survey numbers correlate to T.D.No.1392. In matters of this nature as to whether a particular survey number or T.D. number falls within the revenue jurisdiction of one particular Village or the other, the Court of judicial review cannot be expected to resolve such matters. Even if a mistake was committed earlier while notifying lands under Section 3(3) of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, there is nothing in law which prevents the competent authority to rectify the inadvertence and mistakes. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the patta granted in respect of T.D.No.1392 either to respondents 6 and 7 or to any third parties, remedy is to prefer appeal. Writ petition is not a proper remedy. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 09, 2010 YS