THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.3032 of 2010 DT.01.11.2010 Between: Gadugu Reddy Purushotham and others … Petitioners And The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.R.Ramachandra Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 14.11.2007, whereby the land admeasuring Acs.13.43 cents comprised in Survey Nos.2042/1 and 2042/2 of Doddipalli Village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District is described as the Government land, and to declare the consequential action of respondent No.4 in refusing to register the property as null and void. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners have averred that the above-mentioned land was initially purchased by Sri Attar Ibrahim Saheb S/o Yousuf Saheb, vide document No.185/35, dated 18.02.1935, which was registered in the office of respondent No.4. That one of the legal heirs of the said purchaser, by name Attar Dilgiri Saheb, sold the said property to one Attar Khadervali Saheb, through registered document No.128/64. The petitioners have given details of various subsequent transactions taken place through registered deeds from 1985 to the year 2007. When the petitioners sought to sell this land and approached respondent No.4 in that connection with a request to him to intimate on the value of the land for the purpose of stamp duty and registration fee, the latter refused to accede to the petitioners’ request on the ground that through the above-mentioned letter of respondent No.1, the land was shown as belonging to the Government. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed separate counter affidavits. For the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 is relevant. In his counter, respondent No.3 has not denied the various sale transactions that have taken place in respect of this land through registered documents. He has, however, described them as null and void on the presumption that those transactions attract the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Respondent No.3 has further averred that the entire extent of 19.98 cents of land in Survey No.2042 is described as Assessed Waste Dry (AWD) in the permanent A-Register of Doddipalle Village, Piler Mandal and that therefore, the same belongs to the Government. It is further stated that petitioner No.1 and another have already filed revision petition before the Director (Appeals), Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration for the same relief which is claimed in this writ petition and that therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. I have heard Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. With reference to the first plea of the respondents that the land is presumed to be an assigned land, no basis for this plea has been shown. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that at any point of time, this land was assigned to any person. Even if at one point of time the land belonged to the Government, there can be no presumption that the same would have been assigned, unless record in respect thereof is available. No such record is placed before this Court and therefore, this plea of the respondents cannot be accepted. As regards the second plea of the respondents that the land is AWD, this Court in Shaik Dudekula Pyari Jan @ Lal Bi and others v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Punganur Road, Madanapalli, Chittoor District and others[1], while dealing with identical plea in respect of the land pertaining to the same Village, held as under: “In the present case, except for stating that entries in the Village Account R.S.R. of Doddipalli Village indicate the lands in Survey Nos.1969/2, 1972, 1969/1B and 1971 as Government lands, there is no other basis for the revenue authorities to stake a claim over the lands. To the contrary, the evidence on record, being registered transactions dating back to 1942, 1938, 1959 and 1972, as the case may be, clearly negates the unilateral claim of the revenue authorities that this land is Government land. It is of course for the Government to assert and prove its title if it chooses to do so, in a properly constituted proceeding before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Without doing so, it is not open to the revenue authorities or the registration authorities to deny persons claiming rights over such land on the basis of mere revenue entries. The action of the respondents in treating the subject land as Government land and the action of the registration authorities in refusing to receive and register documents in respect of this land is therefore unsustainable in law. I find support for my view in the Judgments of this Court in P.Suresh v. A.P. State and others [2009 (3) ALD 802]; K.M.Kamulla Basha v. District Collector, Chittoor [W.P.Nos.27249 & 28393 of 2007 dated 16.02.2009]; Meda Subbarayudu v. Sub-Registrar, Rayachoty [W.P.No.11675 of 2008 dated 30.07.2008] and S.Zakhir v. District Collector, Anantapur [W.P.No.19419 of 2008 dated 16.02.2009].” In my opinion, the above reasoning of this Court applies in all fours to the present case, as the facts are identical to the case disposed of by the learned Judge. The second plea is accordingly rejected. With reference to the objection that two of the petitioners have filed a revision petition, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue is unable to state the provision of law under which such revision petition is maintainable. In any event, in the light of the facts of this case, mere filing of revision petition does not bar entertaining of this writ petition, as the action of the respondents is patently illegal and manifestly arbitrary. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.4 is directed to entertain the documents presented by the petitioners for registration without treating the land as belonging to the Government. However, this order does not preclude the Government and its functionaries from asserting their title over the property in an appropriate Court of law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.3976 and 3977 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 01.11.2010. VGB [1] W.P.No.6016 of 2010, dated 02.07.2010,