IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1552 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 05/06/2008 in WP NO : 26303 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Mandla Bayyanna, s/o. Bayyanna, R/o.J.P. Cheruvu Village, Racherla Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur, Prakasam District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Racherla Mandal, Prakasam District. 4 Chepuri Venkateswarlu, S/o. Late Pedda Mallaiah, R/o. D.No. 8-17-165, Giddalure Village & Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.CHALLA.SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1552 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 05.09.2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, allowing the writ petition W.P.No.26306 of 2005, whereby the order, dated 15.11.2005, impugned therein, was quashed. 3. Appellant is respondent No.4, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 is petitioner, in the said writ petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this Writ Appeal, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the writ petition. 5. Facts of the case, in brief, after pruning, necessary for disposal of the present Writ Appeal, are that one Ch. Peda Mallaiah, the father of the petitioner, was in possession and enjoyment of the Government land, which is assigned to him, in an extent of Ac.1.70 cents, in Survey No.238/1B, situate at J.P. Cheruvu, Racherla Mandal, Prakasam District; that one Pagadala Venkata Rangamma, who initiated litigation seeking assignment of the land in question, lost the battle, after various proceedings from various authorities, from time to time; that, as a matter of fact, the said litigation was moving back and forth from one authority to another. Eventually, the father of the petitioner had succeeded. Thereafter, challenging the assignment of the land in question, in favour of the father of the petitioner, another person by name Bommu Venkataiah had raised a fresh litigation, which, again, went through various steps before different Government functionaries and eventually respondent No.1 had decided the matter holding that neither the father of the petitioner nor the said Bommu Venkataiah were entitled for assignment. When the father of the petitioner had assailed the said order of respondent No.1, the Commissioner, Land Revenue, had declined to grant stay of the same. Therefore, the father of the petitioner had approached this Court by way of writ petition W.P.No.1102 of 1986, wherein, the order, dated 20.01.1986, of respondent No.1 was stayed. Thereafter, since the father of the petitioner died leaving the legacy of litigation to the petitioner and other legal heirs, they joined as parties in the revision petition and the Commissioner, Land Revenue, dismissed the same, by order, dated 05.05.1987, confirming the order, dated 20.01.1986, of respondent No.1. Challenging the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of writ petition W.P.No.10892 of 1987, which was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court, by order, dated 03.11.1992, setting aside the order, dated 20.01.1986, of respondent No.1, which has become final. 6. Consequently, in compliance of the said order of this Court, in W.P.No.10892 of 1987, respondent No.3 had made necessary changes in the revenue records and issued pattedar pass books also, recognizing the title in favour of the father of the petitioner. Inasmuch as, the father of the petitioner was no more, after the decision in the said writ petition, and because of the consequential actions on the part of the revenue authorities, the petitioner has been in physical possession of the property in question. While so, another person by name Mandla Bayyanna (respondent No.4), again filed a petition before the Commissioner, Land Revenue, raising various objections as regards the assignment made in favour of the father of the petitioner. 7. At this stage, it is to be remembered that respondent No.4 had raised this dispute on 19.03.2001, whereas the assignment in favour of the father of the petitioner had taken place in the year 1969. Pursuant to the said petition, respondent No.1 had, again, issued directions to the concerned authorities to take appropriate action, if necessary, as per rules, with reference to the order, dated 03.11.1992, in W.P.No.10892 of 1987, passed by this Court. 8. It is also to be remembered that the said writ petition went against the second litigant, by name Bommu Venkataiah, and as a consequence thereof, pattedar pass books have been issued and necessary entries have been made in the revenue records. This action was taken serious note of by the learned single Judge. In fact, the learned single Judge had expressed his strong feelings by saying that the litigation has been going on since two successive generations with multitudinous events and litigations at different stages by different persons. 9. In the light of the brief account of the facts recorded by us, in the abovementioned paragraphs, we are of the considered view that the learned single Judge is absolutely right in observing that there must be an end to this kind of litigation. After all, the extent of land in question assigned in favour of the father of the petitioner is Ac.1.70 cents, that too nearly 40 years ago; that by different people at different stages, objections are being taken up and every time, the revenue authorities, in one way or the other, have been passing orders by taking up unnecessary exercise in trivial issues, which relate to poor people. 10. It is always desirable for the authorities to have a pragmatic approach in matters like the present one, though not always, depending upon the nature and magnitude of the litigation and the persons involved, and all reasonable steps, of course, in accordance with law, shall be taken to give a quietus to the trivial matters like the present one, at the earliest, and a mechanical approach is always not desirable, which would only lead to multiplicity of litigation on trivial issues. 11. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning accorded by the learned single Judge, in the impugned order, and hence the same needs no interference by this Court. 12. For the foregoing, the Writ Appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 02ND DECEMBMER 2008 LSK/AVS