IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18359 of 2005 Between: Raidu Krishna Rao and another. … Petitioners And The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.V.Venu Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue (Assignments) This Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 25-7-2005 passed by respondent No.2 and consequently direct the respondents and their staff not to dispossess the petitioners from their lands - i.e., Ac.0.68 cents in R.S.No.176/9, Ac.0.83 cents in R.S.No.176/10 and Ac.0.03 cents in R.S.No.176/5 in respect of petitioner No.1; and Ac.0.16 cents in R.S.No.141/3, Ac.0.38 cents in R.S.No.140/2 and Ac.0.07 cents in R.S.No.176/5 in respect of petitioner No.2 – situated in Kunaparajuparva village, Reddygudem Mandal, Krishna District. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of the said properties having purchased the same under various registered sale deeds from the original owners. They also claim that pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to them. When local leaders tried to lay a road across the said lands, the petitioners filed O.S.Nos.79 of 2005 and 63 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru, Krishna District, and the said suits are pending. It is further averred that respondent No.2 issued notice dated 5-7- 2005 directing the petitioners to attend enquiry on 16-7- 2005 with documentary evidence; that they appeared in the enquiry which was adjourned to 22-7-2005 and thereafter to 25-7-2005; and that apprehending that they are going to be dispossessed from their lands, they filed Writ Petition No.16769 of 2005 for directing the respondents not to dispossess them without following due process of law. It is further averred that, subsequently, respondent No.2 served the impugned order on the petitioners on 7-8-2005. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit, in which it is, inter alia, stated that the land in dispute is shown as “Vagu Jalu” in the FMB and the Village Plan prepared in the year 1956, and that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to the petitioners by mistake. It is also stated that the road in question was being laid in public interest and the petitioners have no manner of right to prevent the said work. It is also stated that in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No.16769 of 2005 a detailed enquiry was held and directions were issued to take immediate action for formation and completion of the road; and that formation of road was completed by 14-8-2005. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, while not disputing that the road was formed, however, confined his submission to the purported illegality of order dated 25-7-2005 to the extent that a proposal was made by respondent No.2, by which direction was given by respondent No.2 to respondent to submit proposals to the Joint Collector & Settlement Officer, Krishna at Machilipatnam to rectify the settlement error in R.S.No.176/5 and 140/1. I have carefully gone through the impugned order, in which it is mentioned that there is a mark of watercourse in the FMB and also in the Village Plan and that it was recorded as patta land in the village accounts by mistake. The fact that the petitioners have been granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds is not in dispute. If the revenue officials are of the view that pattadar passbooks and title deeds were wrongly issued, they are not entitled to take unilateral action and deny valuable rights, which evidently came to be vested in the petitioners. Unless the respondents initiate appropriate action, in accordance with law, and give the petitioners an opportunity, they cannot be deprived of the lands being claimed by them merely on the ground that there was a mistake in showing the lands in question as patta lands in the village accounts. Since a road was already laid, in respect of which the learned counsel for the petitioners has not persisted with raising any objection at this stage, consideration of this Writ Petition is confined only to the remaining land. The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive steps to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in their occupation for which they were given pattadar passbooks and title deeds without initiating appropriating proceedings under relevant statutory provisions. However, with respect to the road already formed, the petitioners are not entitled to raise an objection with regard to the same. If the petitioners’ claim, that they are the absolute owners of the property over which the road was laid, is eventually upheld by a competent Court, they will be entitled only to appropriate compensation. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26-06-2008 MNR