IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.21369 of 2001 Between: Vadlapudi Bapamma W/o Narayana Rao R/o Kothur, Vemsur Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary Revenue Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, Khammam District. 4 The Mandal Revenu Officer, Vemsur, Vemsur Mandal. .....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 may be pleased to issue a direction or order or a writ more particularly one in the nature of "WRIT OF MANDAMUS" declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in not issuing the pass books and pahanis as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the laws of Record of Rights. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.SHANMUKHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.21369 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer in not issuing pahanies and pass books, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased the land admeasuring Ac.25-00 gts. situated at Ammapalem Village, Vemsur Mandal, Khammam District, from one Iruvanti Gopinath Rao, under an agreement of sale, dated 25-04-1981, and ever since the date of purchase, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and her name was also entered in the revenue records for the year 1981-82. The said Gopinath Rao, from whom she purchased the property, was the father-in-law of one N.Kishan Rao. Sri N.Rama Rao, who is the brother of N.Kishan Rao, is the village patwari. Originally, the land belonged to N.Rama Rao and at the time of ceiling, it was transferred in the name of Gopinath Rao. The said transaction was arranged by N.Rama Rao and N.Kishan Rao. After her purchase, N.Kishan Rao and his brother N.Rama Rao changed their mind and filed a suit O.S.No.12 of 1989 for declaration and injunction against her husband and others, as if the property was not sold. The said case was looked after by N.Kishan Rao, as power of attorney holder of Gopinath Rao. After full fledged trial, the suit was dismissed holding that her purchase was genuine and she was in possession of the land in question. Aggrieved by the same, N.Kishan Rao filed A.S.No.39 of 1992 and the same was also dismissed confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court in O.S.No.12 of 1989. Aggrieved by the same, S.A.No.116 of 1995 was filed before this court and this court remanded the matter for a limited purpose stating that a cryptic point for determination was framed and that the agreement of sale in her favour marked as Ex.B-5 was not taken into consideration properly. During pendency of the Second Appeal, the said Gopinath Rao died and his LRs., were brought on record. After the matter was remanded, once again N.Kishan Rao started prosecuting the appeal. Having found that N.Kishan Rao had no locus standi to prosecute the appeal and as there were no others to prosecute the case, the appeal was dismissed. It is further stated that during pendency of the suit, N.Kishan Rao filed a petition to remove the name of the petitioner from the revenue records for the year 1981-82. The then Tahsildar conducted thorough enquiry and found her to be in possession of the property vide his proceedings Rc.No.A1- 2698/82, dated 26-02-1983. Thereafter, the petitioner made applications, dated 02-12-1998 and 23-09-2000, before the 3rd respondent requesting to issue pattadar pass book by making necessary entries in the pahanies. The 3rd respondent vide his proceedings L.D.C.No.A2/6741/99, dated 07-10- 2000, directed the 4th respondent to issue pattadar passbooks and make necessary entries in the revenue records. It is further stated that N.Rama Rao had started instigating people to disturb her possession over the land in question and as such, she along with her husband filed O.S.No.17 of 2001 for injunction against the said Rama Rao and his henchmen before the Senior Civil Judge at Sathupally and she obtained an order of injunction in her favour and the same is pending. Inspite of the same, the 4th respondent has not issued pattadar pass books and pahanies. Hence, the writ petition. A counter has been filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District, stating that as per agreement of sale, dated 25-04-1981, the petitioner had purchased the land admeasuring Ac.25-00 from I.Gopinath Rao and five others in Sy.Nos.404 to 406 and 978, but she has not taken any steps to get the regular sale deed executed. In fact, in the affidavit, it is stated that she entered into agreement of sale in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.406 and 978 only. Further, I.Sudhakara Rao, who is the son of Gopinath Rao, had submitted objections for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds. In fact, the land claimed by the petitioner was in possession of various persons. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for issuance of pattadar pass book as per the provisions of the A.P.Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the land in question on 25-04-1981 and ever since the date of purchase, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and her right and possession over the land in question have been declared in the suit O.S.No.12 of 1989 and that the same was also confirmed by both the appellate courts. Therefore, she made applications, dated 02-12-1999 and 23-09-2000, before the 3rd respondent requesting to issue pattadar pass book by making necessary entries in the revenue records. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings, dated 07-10-2000, directed the 4th respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner, dated 02-12- 1999 and 23-09-2000, and pass necessary orders in accordance with law with regard to issuance of pattadar pass books by making necessary entries in the revenue records. But, so far, the 4th respondent neither considered the representations made by the petitioner nor issued pattadar pass books. Therefore, she approached this court and filed the present writ petition. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader would submit that the land claimed by the petitioner was in possession of various persons. Further, the petitioner purchased the land under an agreement of sale, dated 25-04- 1981 in Sy.Nos.404 to 406 and 978. However, in the affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.406 and 978 only. Further, I.Sudhakara Rao, who is the son of Gopinath Rao, had submitted objections for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds. Therefore, pattadar passbooks could not be issued. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased the land in question by virtue of an agreement of sale, dated 25.04.1991 and her rights have been declared over the land in question, pursuant to O.S.No.12 of 1989. As N.Rama Rao, who is the one of the defendants in O.S.No.12 of 1989, had been started interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question, the petitioner filed O.S.No.17 of 2001 and obtained interim injunction and the interim injunction is subsisting and the suit is pending. Admittedly, the factum of making applications, dated 02-12-1999 and 23-09-2000, before the 3rd respondent requesting for issuance of pattadar pass book and the 3rd respondent directing the 4th respondent to consider the representations made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with regard to issuance of pattadar pass books by making necessary entries in the pahanies has not been disputed by the learned Government Pleader. Any how, the disputed questions of fact, as to whether the petitioner’s right has been declared by the civil court or not and whether the petitioner is entitled for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds or not, cannot be decided by this court. As the 3rd respondent directed the 4th respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner, dated 02-12-1999 and 23-09-2000, and pass appropriate orders with regard to issuance of pattadar pass books, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to direct the 4th respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner, dated 02-12-1999 and 23-09-2000, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, pursuant to the directions issued by the 3rd respondent in proceedings LDC.No.A2/6741/99, dated 07- 10-2000. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners, dated 02- 12-1999 and 23-00-2000 respectively, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, pursuant to the directions issued by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings, dated 07-10-2000, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 27-11-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SRAVAN}