IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1795 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09/09/2008 in WP NO : 12564 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Agent to Government,(District Collector), Khammam District. 2 The Special Deputy Collector (T.W), Paloncha, Khammam District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 Yampati Laxma Reddy, S/o.Konda Reddy, R/o.Janampet Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Koram Nagaiah, S/o.Not Known, R/o. Singareddypalli Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P.RAVI SHANKER The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1795 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt JusticeT. Meena Kumari ) The present writ appeal is filed against the order, dated 9.9.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.12564 of 2001. The 1st respondent herein is the writ petitioner and the appellants are respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition. Originally, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner filed the above writ petition questioning the order of the 1st respondent-District Collector, dated 16.4.2001 in C.M.A.No.138 of 1988. The brief facts of the case of the writ petitioner are that he claimed to have purchased the land admeasuring Acs.3.07 guntas in survey Nos.169 and 170 of Singareddipalli Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District under a sale deed from one Koppula Seethaiah, admittedly, a non-tribal, on 10.5.1966. Respondent No.2 in the writ petition initiated suo motu proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and passed order, dated 17.2.1972 for his ejectment in respect of land of an extent of Ac.1.12 guntas in Survey No.170 of Singareddipalli village. Subsequently, the said order was set aside by the 1st respondent vide order dated 10.6.1977. Later on, the 2nd respondent issued suomotu proceedings, directing the ejectment of the petitioner and restoration of the land to one Koram Nagaiah-respondent No.4 in the writ petition. The petitioner challenged the said order in CMA No.138 of 1988. Pending the said appeal, the 2nd respondent suo motu initiated another case, wherein one Komaram Narasaiah was shown as the petitioner. Subsequently, the said C.M.A.No.138 of 1988 filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed by the 1st respondent. Having aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition. The learned single Judge having observed that a contra view was taken by the 2nd respondent in the proceedings wherein Komaram Narasaiah was shown as party, accepting the plea of the writ petitioner and recording a finding that the transactions between the original pattadar and Seethaiah in the first instance and between Seethaiah and the petitioner later, are not hit by the Land Transfer Regulations and thus, there are conflicting opinions expressed about the nature of the transactions, under which, the writ petitioner is claiming his right and that even the order passed by the 1st respondent was based on suspicion that as the occupant’s column in the revenue records was filled with different inks, the record would have been fabricated, and if the record was fabricated, the 1st respondent ought to have held an enquiry and found as to who is responsible for fabrication of the record and this itself cannot be made a ground to jump to the conclusion that the records were fabricated, and as the findings relating to the transactions entered into between the original pattadar and the vendor of the petitioner and between the petitioner’s vendor and the petitioner rendered in different proceedings are mutually contradictory in nature, there is no justification to subject the petitioner to further litigation, allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The material on record goes to show that the gaps were filled up in the revenue records with different inks, which give rise to suspicion. If that being the case, nothing prevents the authorities to trace out the truth or otherwise of the entries by way of an enquiry before concluding the proceedings in the C.M.A as rightly observed by the learned single Judge. But, without doing so, the authorities cannot act on mere assumptions and presumptions and jump to the conclusions without any basis. In view of the chequered events and the facts and circumstances of the case, We have no hesitation to hold that the observations arrived at by the learned single Judge, are just and proper and therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ______________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Nn/gurc Dated: 1/6/2009 THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1795 of 2008 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt JusticeT. Meena Kumari ) 1.6.2009