IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 12344 of 2001 BETWEEN: K. Lakshmidevamma, W/o KV Subramanyam, D/o late S.Subbaiah Sastry, R/o Tummala Agraharam, Rajampet Post, Cuddapah District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Cuddapah. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Cuddapah District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajampet, Cuddapah District. 5 Smt. Rudraju Tirupalamma W/o Rama Raju, R/o Rajampet, Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents in not implementing the order dt: 3-5- 1982 passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, A.P., Hyderabad in CLR Proceedings R.T.No.1577/82 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents to grant patta in the name of the petitioner by collecting nominal value in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 1.58 cents in Sy.No.519/2B, situated in Rajampet Village, Cuddapah District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: MR. S. SRINIVAS REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents 1 to 4 in implementing the order dated 03.05.1982 passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in CLR proceedings R.T.No.1577/82. The petitioner also seek a consequential direction to respondents 1 to 4 to grant a patta in her name after collecting nominal value for the land admeasuring Ac.1.58 cents in Sy.No.519/2B, Rajampet Village, Kadapa District. 2. The case of the petitioner as culled out from her aﬃdavit is as follows: The father of the petitioner, late Sri S. Subbaiah Sastry, applied for assignment of the subject land to the Sub-Collector, Rajampet stating that his family had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the said land since 1901, duly paying land revenue to the Government. However, the said claim was rejected by the Sub-Collector, Rajampet in his proceedings L.Dis.No.4799/79 dated 04.07.1979. Aggrieved thereby, Sri S. Subbaiah Sastry is said to have ﬁled an appeal before the Joint Collector, Kadapa, which was dismissed in proceedings bearing D.Dis.10499/79 dated 21.07.1980. Thereafter, Sri S. Subbaiah Sastry is said to have ﬁled a revision against the said order before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad. The revision was allowed by order dated 03.05.1982 of the Commissioner of Land Revenue in CLR proceedings R.T.No.1577 of 1989, directing the District Collector, Kadapa District, the second respondent herein, to take action for granting a patta in the name of the petitioner’s father by collecting nominal value for the land. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the order dated 03.05.1982, her father submitted a representation dated 25.04.1983 to the erstwhile Tahsildar of Rajampet, the fourth respondent herein, requesting him to pass appropriate orders. He also offered to pay Rs.158/- towards the nominal value of the subject land at the rate of Rs.100/- per acre. Sri S. Subbaiah Sastry is said to have expired on 18.11.1984. The complaint of the petitioner is that no action was initiated on the representation made by her father during his lifetime. She also claims to have submitted representation dated 18.02.1985 to the second respondent, who issued instructions thereupon to the fourth respondent to take action as per the orders dated 03.05.1982. It is stated that the second respondent by his letter in L.Dis.No.1323/85 dated 14.03.1985 also directed the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Rajampet, Kadapa District, the third respondent herein, to take necessary action in the matter. The Tahsildar, Rajampet, is said to have issued an Express Memo bearing No.J/904/85 dated 10.05.1985 asking the Revenue Inspector, Rajampet to inspect, enquire and report the matter. The petitioner claims to have submitted a further representation dated 13.10.1985 to the Tahsildar, Rajampet requesting him to pass necessary orders and grant a patta, but to no avail. She also claims to have issued a legal notice dated 10.03.2001 to the second respondent, which resulted in the third respondent calling upon the fourth respondent to submit a detailed report. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that there was no progress in the matter in spite of the many representations and eﬀorts made by her seeking implementation of the order dated 03.05.1982 passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad. 4. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajampet Mandal, the fourth respondent herein, filed a counter affidavit stating as follows: The petitioner is said to have ﬁled only one application dated 10.03.2001 which was referred to the second respondent, who in turn sent proposals to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, recommending rejection of the request as she was found ineligible for grant of patta. The fourth respondent explained at great length as to why the petitioner was ineligible for grant of a patta and also asserted that the subject land was suitable for other public purposes. In this regard, it is also stated that the District Collector, Kadapa District had sent proposals to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration requesting him to grant permission to use the subject land for allotment of house sites to weaker sections and orders were awaited. 5. It is relevant to note that one Smt. Rudraraju Tirupalamma, came on record as the ﬁfth respondent herein, by virtue of this Court’s order dated 16.03.2004 in WPMP.No.2597 of 2004 in WP.No.12344 of 2001. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the said application, the fifth respondent asserted as follows: One Sri Rudraraju Subba Raju, the father of the ﬁfth respondent, was assigned part of the subject land, admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents, by way of DKT patta dated 05.10.1983 issued by the competent authority. His name was also entered in the revenue records. The fifth respondent raised a claim to the subject land as the heir of her father, who was the assignee. It is her case that the revenue authorities carried out mutation in her name by entering her name in the revenue records and issuing a pattadar passbook. She claims to have paid land revenue in respect of the subject land. It is her further case that she received a notice dated 12.09.2003 from the fourth respondent asking her to show cause as to how she had acquired the title deed and pattadar passbook in respect of the subject land. Thereupon, she made enquiries and came to know about the claims being put forth by the petitioner in respect of the subject land. Accordingly, she got herself impleaded in the present writ petition and raised various contentions against the petitioner on facts. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. The factual matrix narrated above clearly demonstrates that the rival contentions raised by the parties evolve several disputed questions of fact for adjudication. The learned counsel for the ﬁfth respondent ﬁled a copy of the show cause notice issued by the fourth respondent in proceedings A.536/2001 dated 12.09.2003 wherein the fourth respondent stated to the eﬀect that Sri S. Subbaiah Sastry and thereafter, his daughter, the petitioner herein, had sought for grant of a patta in respect of the subject land and called upon the ﬁfth respondent to come forth with her source of title, within a period of seven days. In view of the pendency of this writ petition, no action appears to have been taken pursuant to the show cause notice. It seems that the continued eﬀorts of the petitioner, as evidenced by her averments in the aﬃdavit, resulted in the revenue authorities initiating action in the matter as is demonstrated by the show cause notice dated 12.09.2003 issued by the fourth respondent. 8. Keeping the above aspect in mind, I am of the considered opinion that the issues raised by the rival parties and the factual aspects, which are concomitant therewith, are not amenable to adjudication in a writ petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The proper and appropriate course is for the parties herein to work out their remedies before the revenue authorities by putting forth their rival claims and all the material available with them in support thereof. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the petitioner and the ﬁfth respondent to assert and prove their claims before the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajampet. The ﬁfth respondent shall submit her explanation along with all supporting documents in response to the show cause notice dated 12.09.2003 issued by the fourth respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajampet shall pass appropriate orders in the matter expeditiously, after giving due notice to the petitioner and the ﬁfth respondent and also an opportunity of hearing to both of them. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J November 11, 2008 DSK