IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14450 of 1997 Between: Mulakala Suraiah (died) per L.R & another. ..... Petitioners AND The District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri S. Appadhara Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Social Welfare This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14450 of 1997 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents not to assign any patta in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 or in the alternative to cancel the pattas, if already granted in favour of the said respondents. Heard Sri Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the official respondents and also for respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are the private respondents. Originally, this writ petition was filed by Mulakala Suraiah, son of Venkanna. During the pendency of the writ petition, his son M. Nageshwara Rao came on record in his place, as Suraiah died. In his affidavit, the petitioner stated that he owns an extent of Ac.5.69 cents in R.S.Nos.185/1, 185/2 and 186/3 of Swarnavarigudem Village of Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District, that he is a Scheduled Tribe and the abovementioned lands are covered under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short, ‘the Regulation’) and that the deceased first petitioner’s daughter by name Smt. Pamula Durgamma executed a registered sale deed to an extent of Ac.2.00 of land in favour of Sri Ramaiah, Smt. Veeramma and Sri Durgaiah. It is further averred that the petitioner made a complaint to the Special Deputy Collector against the said transfer and that the said transfer is hit by the Regulation as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 and no title is passed to the transferees. The petitioner asserted that the property in dispute is his ancestral property and the Government has no right whatsoever to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further stated that respondent No.1 is contemplating to issue pattas to respondent No.4, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe, over an extent of Ac.0.83 cents in Sy.No.185/2 and Ac.0.17 cents in Sy.No.186/3 and to respondent No.5 over an extent of Ac.1.00 in R.S.No.185/2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the official respondents have not issued any notice to him calling for objections before deciding to issue pattas in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Despite notices, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not entered appearance. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit Though this Court tried to understand the true purport of the counter-affidavit, its contents are so vague and ambiguous that despite best efforts, this Court is unable to decipher its contents. Be that as it may, on the petitioner’s own pleadings, he is not entitled to get any relief in the present writ petition. Though initially he pleaded that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe, later he filed an affidavit stating that he belongs to Yadava community and by mistake he wrongly pleaded that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The writ petition is based on an apprehension that the official respondents are likely to assign a part of the land in R.S.Nos.185/1, 185/2 and 186/3 to respondent Nos.4 and 5, over which the petitioner claims his right. In the counter-affidavit albeit amidst confusion, an averment is made that the extent of Ac.2.64 cents in R.S.No.185/2 and 186/3 was resumed from Sri Chakiri Balaramudu on the ground that the sale made in his favour by the daughter of the deceased first petitioner was in violation of the Regulation as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 and that the same was assigned in favour of two persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Thus the petitioner’s apprehension that the official respondents are likely to grant pattas in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 became a reality even by the time of filing of this writ petition with the grant of pattas in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court that granting of such pattas is illegal, this Court cannot go into this aspect. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by grant of pattas in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5, his remedy lies elsewhere. The petitioner can only question the validity of grant of pattas before appropriate forum by establishing his right over the land for which pattas were granted in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.17452 of 1997 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.02.2009 ES