IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11445 of 2008 Between: 1 TAdkapalli Renuka W/o.Yadagiri R/o.1-1-219, Vivekananda Colony, Siddipet, Medak District. 2 Nakkala Vojalu S/o.Mallaiah R/o.1-1-219, Vivekananda Colony, Siddipet, Medak District. 3 Uppala Madhavi W/o.Narasimhulu R/o.H.No.3-2-53, Boyagalli, Siddipet, Medak District. 4 Smt.Banka Papavva W/o.Kistaiah R/o.H.No.3-2-53, Boyagalli, Siddipet, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Medak District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Siddipet, Medak District. .....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 will be pleased to to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders of the Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy vide No.F3/2632/2006- F3/41/Assign/2006, dt. 18.4.2008 as arbitrary illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the assignment made to the petitioners proceedings No.5730/1993 dated 23.09.2003 in Sy.No.1498 of Prashanth Nagar Gram Panchayat in Siddipet Mandal, Medak District is in accordance with law and pass any such other order or orders appropriate in circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PRATAP SINGH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Oral order: This is a third round of litigation by the writ petitioners. The grievance is in respect of the orders of the 1st respondent dated 18-4-2008 rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioners under Section 4-B of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 31-10-2005 rejecting the appeal. The petitioners earlier filed independent writ petitions being W.P.Nos. 10567 of 2004 and batch seeking a declaration that the conduct of the respondents 3 to 5 therein in not allowing the petitioners to construct houses in plots in R.S.No. 1498 of Prashanth Nagar village of Siddipet Mandal is arbitrary, since the plots were assigned to them by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Siddipet Mandal vide proceedings dated 23-9-1993. In the said batch of writ petitions, the official respondents took the plea that the alleged pattas produced by the petitioners are fabricated and also that the petitioners are not in possession of the land. The State specifically pleaded that the land in Sy.No. 1498 is classified as Chakalivani Kunta (Tank bed) as per the Assignment Rules and the extant Government orders prohibit assignment of the Tank bed land. It is the specific case of the State that the patta certificates produced by the petitioners are forged documents. The batch of writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 22-9-2004, by the learned Single Judge of this Court, directing the 2nd respondent herein to conduct an enquiry into whether any pattas were granted to the petitioners under Laoni Rules. Thereupon and pursuant to the judgment of this Court supra, the 2nd respondent entertained the issue as Appeal No. C/266/2005. By the order dated 31-10-2005 the 2nd respondent held that no assignment was made in favour of the petitioners; no Special Laoni Land Certificates were granted in respect of the land in Sy.No. 1498; that the land in Sy.No. 1498 being classified and as Tank bed land, as per the extant Government orders, cannot be assigned; and that no patta certificates were issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Siddipet to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the above order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioners filed another writ petition (this time jointly) being W.P.No. 785 of 2006. This writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 6-3-2006 directing the petitioners to pursue the available alternative remedy of a revision before the 1st respondent under Section 4-B of the Act. The petitioners then preferred a revision to the 1st respondent who rejected the same by the order dated 18-4-2008 concurring with the 2nd respondent and holding that no patta certificates were issued to the petitioners and no patta certificates could also have been issued as no assignment was permissible in respect of the Tank bed lands, as the same was prohibited by Government orders. In the circumstances, this writ petition constitutes a third litigation campaign by the petitioners. As the respondents consistently deny having issued any patta certificates to the petitioners and on the basis of Government records as evident from the orders of the 2nd and 1st respondents dated 31-10- 2006 and 18-4-2008 respectively and as the petitioners, per contra, assert that patta certificates were in fact issued, this dispute should more appropriately be determined before a civil court of competent jurisdiction whereat the petitioners may if so advised, seek a declaration of title on the basis of the pattas claimed to have been issued to them by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Siddipet. Any dispute as to the genuineness or otherwise of the patta certificates would be more effectively examined in a process to which the elaborate Rules of the Code of Civil procedure and the Evidence Act are applicable. On the aforesaid analysis, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate alternative remedies before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 23rd April,. 2009. GRR