THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.20152 of 1998 June 18, 2010 Between: Gandham Suryam (died), S/o.Ramaiah And others … Petitioners And The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Nalgonda And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.20152 of 1998 ORDER: The writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 15.6.1998 passed by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The dispute is in respect of land comprised in survey Nos.653 (Acs.4.20 guntas) and 654 (Acs.0.33 guntas) situated at Jangamreddygudem of Thipparthy Mandal in Nalgonda District (subject land). Gandham Suryam, original petitioner, and Telukunta Narsaiah, third respondent, are disputants. Third respondent succeeded to some extent before the Joint Collector and he did not challenge the order of Joint Collector. But Suryam, feeling aggrieved by the order of Joint Collector insofar as it directs to record the name of third respondent as pattadar of half share in the subject land, filed the writ petition. During the pendency of writ petition, Suryam died and his legal representatives, petitioners 2 to 5, have come on record. The case of the petitioners is as follows. The land admeasuring Acs.1.05 guntas in survey No.653 (Khata No.1093) is owned by original petitioner. When there was a threat of dispossession, he filed O.S.No.186 of 1991 against the third respondent. The Court of District Munsif, Nalgonda, decreed the suit on 11.11.1994 granting permanent injunction against third respondent. Thereafter, third respondent filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, for rectification of revenue records and issue of Pattadar Pass Books (PPBs). Notice was issued by the RDO, Nalgonda. Petitioner raised objection regarding maintainability of appeal under Land Revenue Act. By an order dated 31.12.1996, RDO dismissed the appeal of third respondent, aggrieved by which, he filed revision petition before the first respondent, who while directing deletion of name of petitioner in revenue records, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to cancel PPBs issued to petitioner and issue PPBs afresh to both the parties. The Joint Collector filed counter affidavit, which reveals the following background of the case. Vanaparthy Pitchaiah was owner of subject land. Telukutla Narasamma, mother of third respondent, and Gandham Latchamma, mother of petitioner (both sisters) purchased the land jointly. Their names were mutated with equal shares. After death of Telukutla Narasamma, lands held on her name were mutated in the name of third respondent being the only son and legal heir. Latchamma also sold an extent of Acs.1.20 guntas in favour of M.Maisaiah. Third respondent also sold Acs.0.30 guntas and Latchamma and Narasaiah together sold about Acs.1.40 guntas to others. Thus out of Acs.5.13 guntas purchased, Acs.4.10 guntas was sold leaving Acs.1.03 guntas and the name of Suryam was brought on record as pattadar. Relying on such entries, he filed O.S.No.186 of 1991, which was decreed. Third respondent then filed appeal before the RDO, which was dismissed against which revision petition was filed. After considering the material on record, Joint Collector passed the impugned order. There is no denial that mother of first petitioner and mother of third respondent have jointly purchased the subject land. There is also no dispute that during the life time, they along with their sons sold away Acs.4.10 guntas and Acs.1.03 guntas remained. When subject land was purchased jointly, there is no infirmity in the Joint Collector saying that in the revenue records the said extent is shown equally in favour of first petitioner and third respondent. Reliance placed on the decree in O.S.No.186 of 1991 is wholly misconstrued. Admittedly, it is a decree for permanent injunction and not a decree in a suit for declaration of title. When first petitioner does not seriously dispute half share of mother of third respondent, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) June 18, 2010 YS