IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 9227 of 1994 BETWEEN: Smt. N. Rajaratnam ... PETITIONER AND District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru and others ...RESPONDENT 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.RANGA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is seeking mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent, Mandal Revenue officer, Chintalapudi, to record the name of the petitioner as “Pattadar” in the records maintained under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971), as purchaser of the lands in a Court auction conducted under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) and consequently direct the Mandal Revenue Officer not to enforce the order dated 26.07.1990, in L.D.No.141 and 414/90. It appears that the land to an extent of Ac.10-00 i.e., Ac.5-00 in R.S.No.1/4 and Ac.5-00 in R.S.No.1/5 of Teegalavancha village, Chintalapudi Mandal, was assigned and D-form patta was issued by the Tahsildar, Chintalapudi, in favour of Sri Kopuru Krishna Rao of Yerraguntapalli village, in L.D.No.73/A4/1392, dated 31.01.1983 to an extent of Ac.5-00 and to Smt. Dasari Vajra Kumari, Yerraguntapalli village, in L.D.No.74/A4/1392, dated 31.01.1983 to an extent of Ac.5- 00. They have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, on 09.08.1988 a show cause notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to explain as to why the patta granted in their favour should not be cancelled. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer cancelled the pattas and passed resumption orders. However, it appears that the property was mortgaged in favour of District Co-operative Bank Limited, Chintalapudi branch, and for non payment of loan amounts under the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act, the said land was sought to be auctioned and in the auction, the petitioner purported to have purchased the same and the sale was confirmed on 20.07.1991 in favour of the petitioner. However, in the meanwhile against the order of resumption passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer an appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was dismissed on 18.03.1993. Subsequently, the matter was carried in further Revision before the District Collector, wherein though initially status quo was granted on 21.05.1993, thereafter the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits on 12.08.1993. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that though she purchased the land in question in the auction conducted as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and auction was confirmed in her favour on 20.07.1991, her name is not entered as a purchaser in the revenue records as “Pattadar” as required under Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971). At the outset it may be noticed that all the earlier proceedings referred to, including the orders passed by the District Collector dated 12.08.1993, are not challenged in this writ petition. The only grievance of the petitioner is that her title could have been recognized by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the entries could have been made as required under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971 as she had purchased the land in the auction conducted by the Co-operative Bank. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice that the history of the case as recorded in the orders passed by the District Collector, West Godavari District, dated 12.08.1993 in D.Dis.No.A11/8214/93. According to the said order it appears that a writ petition was filed before this Court by one People Development Project, Chintalapudi, alleging that benami pattas were issued to non-residents by ignoring the local people including pattas made in favour of Kopuru Krishna Rao and Dasari Vajra Kumari. The said petition was disposed of directing the authorities to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter. After the inspection and enquiry, patta lands of Smt. Dasari Vajra kumari and Sri Kopuru Krishna Rao were found to be benami as no one occupied and cultivated the lands. On further enquiry, it was revealed that Sri Tammireddy Muralidhara Krishna Mohan Rao, got these two L.D. Pattas issued in the name of his relations and raised loans by pledging the two D-Form Pattas to the Co-operative Society. This individual is none other than the husband of the writ petitioner herein. It was also revealed that no such persons (Smt. Dasari Vajra Kumari and Sri Kopuru Krishna Rao) ever resided in the village or in the neighboring villages. The land was vacant by that time and the same was occupied by eight local tribal people by removing the forest growth and kept the land under cultivation. The Mandal Revenue Officer was instructed to resume the lands as per B.S.O. 15 (12) (3) (iii) for violation of conditions of Patta, if any. On the directions of Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued show cause notices on 13.07.1990 to Smt. Dasari Vajrakumari and Sri Kopuru Kishna Rao and after enquiry, cancelled the pattas on the ground that the pattadars are benamis. In the meanwhile, the two benami pattadars i.e.,Dasari Vajrakumari and Sri K. Krishna Rao have filed writ petition in W.P.No.11845/90 before this Court and orders were issued on 14.08.1990 saying that the pattas given should not be cancelled without giving an opportunity to the petitioners. Therefore, again notices were issued to the petitioners, but they failed to appear before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chintalapudi and as such the pattas were cancelled and land was resumed back to the Government as per rules. Subsequently, sub-division record was prepared for grant of pattas to the local tribals. The petitioner did not participate in the proceedings before the Mandal Revenue Officer. However, she filed appeal before the District Collector, which was rightly dismissed. The District Collector has rightly held that the petitioner has no right to get her name incorporated in the Revenue Records as per R.O.R Act. The land was also under the occupation of some landless tribals. Moreover, the husband of the petitioner was behind issuance of benami pattas and the series of transactions including thereafter i.e., obtaining loans and purchase of the land in the auction. Everything appears to be cleverly planned and managed by the husband of the petitioner. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J 7th July, 2009 MD/KSH