THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 6906 of 1999 Order: Heard Ms. M. Hemalatha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Neither is the learned Government Pleader for Revenue present nor is there any representation on his behalf. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of Ac.1-99 cents out of Ac.3-70 cents of wet land in R.S.No.600/1, Patta No.264 of Pathigondi village in Tallarevu Mandal, and that he has been cultivating the said land for the past more than 30 years. The petitioner contends that he has been regularly paying land Cess to the revenue authorities and that the authorities had also issued a passbook earlier in recognition of his being in possession. The petitioner would submit that a certiﬁcate dated 29.06.1994 was also issued that he was the owner and in possession of Ac.1-99 cents in R.S. No.600/1 and that the said land is covered by boundaries on four sides belonging to others and a water canal. The petitioner contends that, in the year 1997, the respondents had directed him to surrender his old passbook to enable a new pattadar passbook and title deed to be issued in his favour. It is his case that, despite surrender of the old passbook, the respondents have not issued any passbook to him and that his written representation and legal notice through counsel have met with no response. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Tallarevu Mandal, the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Pathigondi, H/o P. Mallavaram village, that he has been cultivating an extent of Ac.1-99 cents in R.S. No. 600/1 for more than 15 years, that his name is shown as the person in enjoyment in the village Account No.3 and that land revenue has been collected from him, is admitted. Respondents would, however, contend that the petitioner never surrendered his earlier pattadar passbook, that there was no evidence on record that the petitioner was the owner of the land and that the contention of the petitioner, that he was the owner of Ac.1- 99 cents of land, was not correct. Respondents would further contend that, while they had directed the petitioner to surrender his old passbook with record of evidence, if any, to issue a new pattadar passbook, he had failed to surrender his old passbook. They would deny that the 4th respondent had collected the old passbook. They would also contend that the petitioner had failed to ﬁle any document in support of his claim that he was issued a patta earlier for the extent of Ac.1-99 cents. Ms. M. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to the legal notice issued to the respondents on behalf of the petitioner on 30.12.1997, wherein it has been speciﬁcally stated that the petitioner was paying land revenue to the said property under patta No.264. She also refers to the averment in the aﬃdavit to contend that under patta No.264 the petitioner was granted patta earlier. Except this averment there is nothing else on record to show that the petitioner was earlier granted a patta. Learned counsel would contend that the very fact that the petitioner has been cultivating the said land, and has been shown to be in enjoyment thereof in the Adgangal, coupled with the fact that patta No.264 was mentioned in the legal notice was suﬃcient proof that the petitioner was issued a patta earlier, which would in turn entitle him for issuance of a pattadar passbook. In the light of the fact that the petitioner is admittedly in possession and has been cultivating the property for the past more than 15 years prior to the ﬁling of this writ petition, and as he has indicated that the patta number given to him earlier was 264, it is but appropriate that the 4th respondent cause veriﬁcation of the records and ascertain whether patta No.264, which the petitioner claims to have been issued in his favour, was in fact so issued. If the records disclose that the petitioner was, indeed, issued a patta earlier, the respondents shall consider his case for grant of pattadar passbook in accordance with law. The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 25.08.2008 Nsr