IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15958 of 2008 Between: B.S. Swamy Dasu S/o. S. Subba Dasu @ Dasari Subba CDasu R/o. C/O. B.S. Suresh Dasyu, D.No. 26/91 Municipal Colony, Vasanthapeta, Proddutor, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Rep. by its Chairman, Kadapa, Office at Near Lakshmiranga Circle, Nagarajupeta, Kadapa City and District. 2 Andhra Pragathi Farmers Service Cooperative Society Ltd. Devuni , Kadapa, Kadapa Mandal, Kadapa District. 3 Chintha Krishna Reddy S/o. Subbanna R/o. Buddayapalli Village, Kadapa Mandal, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents NO.1 and 2 in not rectifying the mistake said to have been committed by them in Mortgage Deed dt. 26-7-1999 executed by the 3rd Respondent herein in their favour as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct respondents No.1 & 2 to rectify the mistake said to have been committed by them in Mortgage Deed dt. 26-7-1999 executed by the 3rd Respondent herein in their favour and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.R.REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15958 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein claims to be the owner and possessor of Ac.0.27 cents of land situated in Sy.No.460/1 of Chinna Chowk Village Fields, Kadapa Mandal and District. It is stated that the 3rd respondent herein who is the owner of the adjacent land to an extent of Ac.0.13 cents availed a loan from the respondents 1 and 2 herein by mortgaging his land of 13 cents. However, while executing the mortgage deed, dated 26.7.1999 the extent of land was shown as Ac.0.40 cents by including the Ac.0.27 cents of land belonging to the petitioner. Having come to know of the same in the year 2007, the petitioner requested the respondents 1 and 2 to rectify the mistake in the mortgage deed. He also got issued a legal notice dated 12.11.2007. In response to the same, the 2nd respondent by letter dated 17.11.2007 though assured that the mistake in the mortgage deed would be rectiﬁed as early as possible, no further steps were taken. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not rectifying the mistake in the mortgage deed dated 26.7.1999 executed by the 3rd respondent as arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the 2nd respondent’s letter dated 17.11.2007, the loan to the 3rd respondent was sanctioned on the basis of the 3rd respondent’s declaration as to his landed property as mentioned in the revenue pass book and title deeds. The 2nd respondent society further stated in the letter dated 17.11.2007 that the 3rd respondent also approached the society and informed that he was taking steps to get the mistake rectiﬁed in the pass book by the Revenue Authority and that on receipt of the rectiﬁed pass book the society would be able to make the corrections in their records. Thus, it appears that the mistake, if any, is in the revenue records itself. Be that as it may, such a disputed question of fact cannot be enquired into by this Court and therefore no Mandamus as prayed for can be issued. If aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law either for rectiﬁcation of the revenue records, if such mistake is found in the revenue records, or to proceed against the 3rd respondent in case there is deliberate inaction on his part. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 24.07.2008 Kvr