THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 14198 of 2005 O r d e r: The petitioner filed the writ petition praying to declare the proceedings in Rc. No. E5/7800/2002, dated 27.12.2004 issued by respondent No.2, holding that the lands in an extent of Acs. 79.05 cents situated in Sy. No. 1/1 and Acs. 3.91 cents situated in Sy. No. 19/2 of Kaminenipalem village, Dagardarthi Mandal, Nellore District, belong to the Government and ordering resumption thereof, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be owner and possession of the above land, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds from the vendors, who are the original patta holders. He states that Poondla Subba Reddy, Poondla Venkata Subbamma, Kakuturu Rami Reddy and their family members are the original owners and possessors of the above land vide Patta No. 76. Their names are also reflected as “pattedars” in the revenue records in the possession column and 10(1) account. They sold the said lands to several persons. The petitioner purchased the above land from the persons, who purchased the same from the original owners, namely Poondla Subba Reddy and others. The property purchased by the petitioner is shown in the declarations filed by him under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Land Reforms Act”). Part of the land that is in the possession of the petitioner was purchased by his mother, to which he succeeded subsequently and the other land is purchased by him under registered sale deeds. The petitioner states that respondent No.2 without issuing any notice, issued the impugned proceedings behind his back, holding that the lands in question are government land. At no point of time, he was issued notice nor has the knowledge of the proceedings, said to have been considered by respondent No.2. The petitioner asserts that he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land in question for more than 30 years. He was also issued pattadar passbooks in respect of an extent of Acs. 16.67 cents. Subsequently, he purchased an extent of Acs. 5.30 cents in Sy. No. 1/1 from one Veeraiah Chowdary under registered sale deed dated 17.11.1999. The land in an extent of As. 21.96½ cents was included in his holding as held by him as on the date of submission of declaration under the Land Reforms Act. The revenue records pertaining to Sy. No. 1/1 with Patta No. 79 reflects that total extent of Acs. 79.06 cents stands in the name of the petitioner’s vendor. As per the entries in the revenue records, the land in question is a private patta land for over five decades. The petitioner has been cultivating the land since the date of his purchase, and at no point of time, any claim was made over his land by any person, muchless the government. However, due to some mistake, the entries in the Field Measurement Book, indicate that the total land in Sy. No. 1/1 is Acs. 120.00. As per the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, the land available on the ground is only Acs. 81.05 cents. Sy. No. 1/1 was sub-divided into two sub-divisions i.e. Sy. Nos. 1/1 and 1/2. Subsequently, on physical verification of the land by the competent survey authority, if was found that the land available on ground is only Acs. 81.05 cents. Based on the above said error that has crept in the Field Measurement Book, the revenue authorities felt that remaining Acs. 38.95 cents of land belongs to government. On such assumption, the Government issued pattas to various persons. While so, it appears that one of the owners of the land, who owns land in the said survey numbers filed application dated 21.09.2002 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dagadarti, stating that the land available is only to an extent of Acs. 81.05 cents, that some private persons started claiming rights over the land based on leases said to have been granted in their favour, and requested to cause an enquiry and give instructions to the officers concerned to conduct survey of the land. Based on his request, physical verification of the land was made and report was submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The proceedings dated 01.11.2002 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, reveals that the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records along with the Surveyor, Task Force, conducted survey of the land and submitted a detailed report to him. During the survey, it came to light that as per the registered documents of the year 1974 and as per the village accounts of Kaminenipalem village, there exists total land in an extent of Acs. 81.05 cents in Sy. No. 1/1. The total extent of land in Sy. No. 1/1 that exists as per the Mandal Field Measurement Book, on 30.07.1959 and 23.08.1960 is Acs. 120.00 and sub-division statement prepared for Sy. No.1, dated 18.10.1989 and 21.10.1989 show the survey numbers as 67 and 68, and each covering eight sub- division numbers. However, the same is not supported by any evidence. The survey numbers 67 and 68 are newly formed covering 16 sub-divisions, which were converted into CJFS lands under Patta No. 18 by Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, as pattedar and implemented in 10(1) account of Kaminenipalem village. The newly formed survey numbers are also implemented in the Adangals covering eight sub-divisions in Sy. No. 67 and eight sub-divisions in Sy. No. 68 of Kaminenipalem village. As per the available survey stones after measurement of the land, out of total extent of Acs. 120.00 as shown in the FMB, there is actual extent of Acs. 87.13 cents of land. Based on the above survey report, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, submitted a report to the District Collector, Nellore District, on 01.11.2002 narrating the above-said facts and also indicating that the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records conducted survey and submitted his report stating that as per the registered documents of the year 1974, the total extent of land is Acs. 79.05 cents. The Revenue Divisional Officer’s patta which came into effect in the year 1989 covers an extent of Acs. 35.75 cents for which lease orders were granted in favour of some persons in the year 1989. As per the field measurements, the land on ground is Acs. 87.13 cents in Sy. No. 1/1 of Kaminenipalem village, though the extent of land in the sketch is shown as Acs. 120.00. It is also stated that the area errata exists in the revenue records. To that effect, the Mandal Revenue Officer, submitted a detailed report stating that on verification of permanent ‘A’ Register, 10(1) account and FMB of the village, it is noticed that there exists an extent of Acs. 79.05 cents in Sy. No. 1/1 of Kaminenipalem village, which was included in Patta No. 79 and as per the sketch furnished by the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Kavali, the extent of land in Sy. No. 1 of Kaminenipalem is Acs. 87.13 cents. He further reported that on verification of 10(1) account and ROR accounts, it is noticed that the lands stand in the following order: Sy. No. Extent Patta No. Name of the Pattedar 1/1 Acs. 79.05 79 P oondl a Subba Reddy S/o. Venkatapathi Reddy 1/2 Acs. 2.00 66 Kakuturu Venkata Reddy S/o. Rami Reddy, Poondla Subba Reddy The Mandal Revenue Officer, further reported that (which is covered in the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Collector) that there is no Government land available in Sy. No. 1/1 of Kaminenipalem village with reference to F. Dis. No. 73 (F.1390), dated 06.01.1989. It is relevant to extract the operative portion of the said report, which is as under: “It is noticed that an extent of Acs. 33.95 cents in S. No. 1/3- P of Kaminenipalem village was included by the then Tahsildar, Kovur under CJFS and included Patta No. 81 in old 10(1) account and later S. No.1/2-P is denoted as Survey No. 67 Ac. 12.00 and S. No. 68 Ac. 23.81 also which is included under Patta No. 81 under CJFS and that the total beneficiaries in S. No. 67 is Nine and S. No. 68 is covering with eight members. It is also noticed as seen from the old F. Dis. File No. 73, dated 1.3.1981 of the then Tahsildar, Kovur, S. No. 1/3 is noted as ANADEENAM and Beedu on ground and that there is no evidence shown that S. No. 1/3-P as Government land and that the then Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer did not place copy of Permanent “A” Register which is the Basic Register for identification of “Government lands”. It is further submitted that as verified from the ROR register, it is noticed that there is no Survey Number 1/3-P Ac. 33.95 cents, classified as PUNJA is noted as Government land by mistake of fact and allotted to 13 beneficiaries under CJFS fold vide Patta No. 81 of 10(1) Account of Kaminenipalem village.” The above said report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, based on the survey conducted and report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dagadarthi, after physical verification of the land clearly reveals that the land purchased by the petitioner is a private land vide Patta Nos. 79 and 66. The names of the persons who purchased the land and their vendors were entered in the revenue records under ROR Act. Their vendors have title have the propery for over six decades. It is also mentioned that the entries made in the Field Measurement Book are due to inadvertence and also by mistake of fact. The report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, further indicates as follows: “With regard to survey No. 1/3-P covering Acs. 33.95 cents which was allotted under the fold of CJFS vide F. Dis. No. 73 F.1390, dated 6.1.1981 by the erstwhile Tahsildar, Kovur, is by mistake of fact and thereafter S. No. 1/3-P is denoted as Survey No. 67 Ac. 12.00 and S. No. 68 Acs. 23.81 cents and concluded that “it is reasonable that the patta land in Survey No. 1/1 covering Acs. 79.05 cents should be handed over possession to the purchasers Sri Gorantla Veeraiah Chowdary and others by canceling the land included in CJFS, under the patta No. 81 of 10(1) account which was allotted to 15 beneficiaries of Kaminenipalem village in Sys. No. 67 and 68 covering Acs. 33.05 cents (S. Nos. 67 and 68 was formed from Sy. Nos. 1/3-P) and finally reported that all the allottees under CJFS vide F. Dis. 73 of F. 1390, dated 6.1.1981 belongs to backward class community and has recommended to consider their cases sympathetically while canceling the land granted to allottees under CJFS by adopting suitable alternate relief measures. As per the above said report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer after due survey clearly indicates that the land is classified as “punja” and noted as Government land by mistake of fact and on such basis lease was granted to various persons, though the land is not available on the ground. The report further indicates that the MRO made enquiries with the beneficiaries along with Revenue Inspector and Panchayat Secretary. According to him, the beneficiaries stated that they were not given individual allotment orders and they did not belong to Boya (BC) community and they are eking out their livelihood by doing agriculture labour. All those persons who made applications were asked to furnish copies of the registered sale deeds with regard to the land to an extent of Acs. 89.05 cents in Sy. No. 1/1 of Kaminenipalem village as identified as patta land in 10(1) account vide Patta Nos. 79 and 66 with reference to revenue records.” The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer clearly indicates that the patta granted in favour of the backward class beneficiaries do not contain the actual survey numbers and it is based on vague survey numbers, though the land is not available on ground. The land in Sy. No. 1/1 of Kaminenipalem village is a patta land. Issuance of patta under the fold of CJFS is against the principles of natural justice and as such lease pattas that were granted in favour of 16 beneficiaries needs to be cancelled, as the applicant is the owner of the land. Apart from that the notice which was said to have been issued by the District Collector does not contain the name of the petitioner at any point of time. It is nowhere stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that how the petitioner was put to notice at any point of during the pendency of the proceedings. Though various facts were brought to the notice of the Collector, nothing is mentioned in the impugned order. There is no whisper about the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer and the survey conducted by the Surveyor. The report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dagadarthi, which is extensively based on revenue records, is not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. No material is filed along with the counter-affidavit to substantiate the averments made therein. It is simply stated that the averments made in the writ petition are not believable. It is also not stated whether any notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It simply states that the case of the person who made the petition is rejected. It is also stated that the claim of the petitioner’s vendor’s vendor was rejected by the Settlement Officer, Nellore, but no material has been placed before the Court to the said effect. The fact remains that the land owned by the petitioner is private land vide Patta Nos. 79 and 66 and pattas have been issued. His name was entered in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were also issued in his favour. In page 4 at para 4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that Sri. Gorantla Veeraiah Chowdary is said to have purchased an extent of Acs. 79.05 cents in Sy. No. 1/1 of Kaminenipalem village of Dagadarthi Mandal, but the material on record clearly indicates that the said statement is contrary to the proceedings issued by various authorities. Though it is stated in the counter that after rejection of his claim, Sri. Gorantla Veeraiah Chowdary applied for certain public copies, it is not stated whether such copies are made available to him or not. The further contention of the respondents that entries in 10(1) account and issuance of pattadar passbooks was made without verification of the record is false. The contention is contrary to the material placed before the Court i.e. the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali. The impugned order is vague and it is silent as to the reports submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer, with regard to the survey conducted by the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records, and it did not take into consideration those reports. The respondents also did not choose to contradict the statements made by the petitioner which are supported by the reports of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer that the land is a private land and ryotwari patta was given vide Patta Nos. 79 and 66 in respect of Sy. Nos. 1/1 and 1/2. Apart from that, the respondent did not dispute that the revenue records, FMB and ROR entries are in favour of various individuals. The material which is said to have been filed by the person who made the petitioner and extracted at para 11 of the impugned proceedings indicates various documents, including that certificates of title and other documents were filed. There is no whisper in the impugned proceedings with regard to the material that was placed before respondent No.2. As the report submitted by the Competent Officer is based on physical verification and survey conducted on the land, it ought to have been taken into consideration before passing the impugned order. The rights of the petitioner and other persons were entered in the revenue records as per the provisions of Pattadar Passbooks Act and revenue records such as 10(1) account and Adangal contain their names as per the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer. As such, the impugned order does not stand to legal scrutiny. Apart from that before passing the impugned order, no notice has been given to the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order to the extent it held that the lands in an extent of Acs. 79.05 cents in Sy. No. 1/1 of Kaminenipalem village of Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District, are government lands, is set aside. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 9th June, 2010. KSR