IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 24028 of 2001 Between: M.A. Yousuf Khan S/o M.A. Rasheed Khan R/o Hyderkhanguda, Nalgoda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to Revenue Department Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, Nalgonda. 3 Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda. 4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Nalgonda. .....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 a Writ of Mandamus by setasiding the order of the Respondent No.4 dt:4.6.1997 and consequently directing the respondents not to assign the lands in favour of the third parties without following due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.MEHAR SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.24028 OF 2001 ORAL ORDER The petitioner herein claims to be the grand son of one Smt.Hanifa Bee. It is stated that Smt. Hanifa Bee was the absolute owner and pattadar of different extents of land situated in Gollaguda Revenue village shivar of Nalgonda Mandal and District pursuant to the inam granted during the pre-independence period by the Nizam of Hyderabad. It is also the case of the petitioner that Smt. Hanifa Bee was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land till her death in the year 1990 and her name was recorded as pattadar in the revenue records including Khasra. It is claimed that after the death of Smt. Hanifa Bee the petitioner’s mother being sole legal heir succeeded to the lands in question. Thereafter when the petitioner’s mother applied for certified copies of pahanies for the year 1992-93 the same were issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nalgonda making an endorsement as under:- “In compliance to the endorsement of the M.R.O. Dt.2.6.1997 the S.Nos.262/1,263, 324/2, 325/1, 326, 329, 329/2, 330, 380, 381, 331, 332/2,374/2m, 377 S.No.378/2 were acquired by the Government for Vimana Ashramam vide Shara No.(3) Faisal Patti 1955 of Gokllaguda from 1984-85 to 1994-95 is incorporated in the pahani.” Since the acquisition said to have been made was not within the knowledge of the petitioner, a representation was made by the petitioner along with his mother requesting the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nalgonda to rectify the records and enter their names as pattadars and possessors. As there was no response, the petitioner and his mother got issued a legal notice dated.02.10.1998 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mandal Revenue Officer and the District Collector, Nalgonda. In spite of the same the entries were not rectified and on the other hand the respondents were taking steps to alienate the lands in question to the 3rd parties. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed seeking a Mandamus to set aside the order of the 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Nalgonda dated.04-06-1997 and consequently to direct the respondents not to assign the lands to any 3rd parties without following due process of law. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nalgonda filed a counter-affidavit stating that Smt. Hanifa Bee was neither a pattadar nor possessor of the lands in question at any point of time. It is further stated that the said lands were the patta lands of various other persons as per Khasra pahani from 1954-55 onwards. It is further stated that the said lands were acquired during the year 1954-55 for the purpose of construction of an Air port and since then the same vested with the Government. The plea of the petitioner that the lands in question are inam lands granted by the Nizam of the Hyderabad has been specifically denied and it is stated that neither the petitioner nor his mother are concerned with the said lands in any way. It is also explained that the entries in the revenue records were altered in the year 1958 by the competent authority during “jama bandhi” and thereafter the lands were allotted for public purposes such as Municipal park, District Training Centre, Police Training Centre and etc. apart from house sites to landless poor. The plea of the petitioner that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nalgonda deleted the names of the petitioner’s grand-mother from the revenue records has been denied and it is stated that since the land vested with the Government, the District Collector is competent to allot the same for public purpose. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Mandal Revenue Officer has no authority to change the entries in the record of rights with retrospective effect and particularly the incorporation of the names of third parties without following due process of law is arbitrary and illegal. At the outset it is to be noted that the record of rights prepared and maintained under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,1971 (for short “the Act”) shall contain the names of all persons who are owners, pattadars, occupants or tenants of the lands as well as the nature and extents of respective rights or interests of such persons. As per Sub-section.(2) of Section.3 of the Act, the record of rights prepared in respect of any village shall be notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazettle or the District Gazette and Sub-section.(3) of Section.3 of the Act made it clear that any person affected by an entry in the record of rights may within a period of one(1) year from the date of notification may apply for rectification of the entry. If any such application is made, notice thereon has to be issued and enquiry shall be conducted under Rule.17 of the Rules by the Mandal Revenue Officer within a period of 90 days. Such an order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer becomes final if no revision is preferred. Section.9 of the Act empowers the Collector either suo motu or on an application made to him to call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy him as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision should be modified annulled or reversed he may pass orders accordingly after giving an opportunity of making a representation to the persons affected. In the case on hand a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner disputing the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner’s grand-mother Smt. Hanifa Bee was in no way concerned with the lands in question. It is apparent from the rival claims made by the parties that the matter involves various disputed questions of fact which cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article.226 of the Constitution of India. If aggrieved the petitioner ought to have availed the alternative remedies as available under Section.3(3) of the Act or Section.9 of the Act for redressal of his grievance. It is also relevant to note that though the impugned endorsement in the pahanies refers to an order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated.02- 06-1997, the same has not been placed before this Court. In the absence of the said order I am not inclined to express any opinion as to the various contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to its validity. Accordingly without going into the merits of the case the writ petition is disposed of granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to work out the alternative remedy available under law for redressal of his grievance. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 24TH November,2008 *TSNR