IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 16816 of 2008 Between: M. Anjaneyulu S/o. M. Achaiah R/o. Ameenpur Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Chief Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, Medak District at Sanga Reddy, A.P. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy, Medak District 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar) Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not effecting amendment in record of rights in the name of the Petitioner of the land admeasuring Ac 1.04 guntas in Sy.No. 468 situated at Ameenpur Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District as arbitrary illegal, contrary to the provisions of A.P Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act and for extraneous consideration and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents to effect the amendment in favour of the petitioner in record of rights in the name of the petitiioner of the lands admeasuring Ac 1.04 guntas in Sy.No. 468 situated at Ameenpur Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16816 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner alleges that his grandfather – Sayanna was protected tenant of land admeasuring Acs.1.04 in survey No.468 situated at Ameenpur Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District. It is also alleged that Sayanna obtained protected tenancy certificate in 1974 under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (the Act, for brevity). His name was recorded in PT register. After death of Sayanna, his son Achaiah (petitioner’s father) filed an application before fourth respondent for mutation. While the same was pending, Achaiah died in March, 1987. The petitioner, who is statedly legal heir, filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar), Patancheru Mandal, for mutation. When there was delay, he approached the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Sangareddy, on 17.08.2007. In response thereto RDO addressed communication to Tahsildar on 23.08.2007 requesting to submit a detailed report, in vain. Therefore, the petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Tahsildar as illegal and arbitrary, and for a consequential direction to make amendment in his favour in record of rights. At the stage of admission itself, Tahsildar, Patancheru filed counter-affidavit. The allegation that Sayanna was protected tenant is denied. It is stated that Sayanna relinquished his patta right orally to the land prior to 1954. During 1954-1955 protected tenant was not in possession nor any application was filed for restoration of possession under the Act. It is further stated the original pattadar – Laxminarsimha Rao filed an appeal before Additional RDO, Sangareddy, for deleting PT rights in respect of land in survey Nos.467 and 468 and accordingly necessary orders were passed in file No.C5/684/74 deleting the name of protected tenant. As PT rights ceased pattadar passbook cannot be issued. As the petitioner is not protected tenant possession claimed by him is also denied. However, counter is silent as to whether Tahsildar has sent any report to RDO in response to later’s communication dated 23.08.2007. It is also not clear from the counter as to whether Tahsildar has sent a communication to the petitioner refusing to alter record of rights/mutate his name or issue pattadar passbook/title deed. In view of the position in the pleadings, which is reiterated in the oral submissions of the counsel for both sides, this Court is of the considered opinion that contentious issue raised before this Court cannot be decided at this stage. The petitioner approached this Court only seeking a direction to Tahsildar to pass appropriate orders in the application filed by him. It is a fit case where Tahsildar should pass necessary orders on the application made by the petitioner for effecting amendment in record of rights. This may be done immediately within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when such order is communicated to the petitioner, it is open to him to file an application under Section 32 of the Act (subject to law of limitation) or file an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. At this stage it is not proper for this Court to express any opinion on the right of the petitioner to claim amendment of record of rights. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26th November, 2008 GHN To 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Chief Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, Medak District at Sanga Reddy, A.P. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy, Medak District 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar) Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District 5 2CCs to GP for Revenue 6 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}