THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 24217 of 2006 Oral order: The petitioner ﬁled this writ petition praying for the following relief: To issue a writ or any appropriate writ or writs or direction/s more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in not incorporating the name of the petitioner as pattedar in the revenue records as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently direct respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to incorporate the name of the petitioner in all revenue records from the date of assigning the lands i.e. from 28.10.1989 to record the name of the petitioner in all adangals and 10- 1 records and to issue pattedar pass book and title deed book to the petitioner as per A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 1-70 cents in Sy. No. 143/4 of Paradesipalem village, Visakhapatnam and District in the interest of justice. A learned Judge of this Court, on the basis of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, who submitted that on veriﬁcation it was found that no patta was granted in respect of the land in Sy. No. 143/4 and that the patta produced by the petitioner before this Court was never granted by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, by order 29.11.2006 dismissed the writ petition observing that the respondent No.4 should inform the petitioner about the existing position immediately. Questioning the said order, the petitioner preferred writ appeal in W.A. No. 11 of 2007, and a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 04.01.2007, allowed the writ appeal setting aside the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, and while admitting the writ petition, posted it to be directed before the appropriate Bench as per roster. That is how the case came to be listed before this Court. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, the petitioner, who retired from Indian Navy as Leading Seaman, claims that he was assigned dry land in an extent of Acs.1-73 cents in Sy. No. 143 of Paradesipalem village, Visakhapatnam in 1989 and that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Visakahaptnam, also issued D-Form patta in respect thereof on 28.08.1989. He claims that he has been in possession of the said land for the last 16 years and that he had developed the same into a garden by raising plantation. It is his case that he made application dated 06.02.2002 to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer for incorporation of his name in the revenue records and paid necessary charges, that he applied for issuance of FMB sketch map, but was not given to him. As no action was taken by the respondents for incorporating his name in the revenue records, he filed the present writ petition. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter that Pardesipalem village is an Estate village in Vizianagaram Jamin Estate, that the same was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. Thereafter, survey and settlement operations were conducted and settlement rates were introduced w.e.f. 01.07.1959. In the survey and settlement record, the land in Sy. No. 143/4, admeasuring Acs.1.70 cents is classified as assessed waste (gayalu). While admitting that the petitioner made application for incorporation of his name in the revenue records, he stated that in the permanent settlement records and 10(1) Adangal, the name of the petitioner does not ﬁnd place as pattedar in the said land, however his name was entered in Village Account No.3 as pattedar and enjoyer in Column Nos. 12 and 13. DR File No. 24/1989, under which the petitioner claims, was allotted the land in question, is not available, and therefore, the genuineness of the patta claimed by the petitioner cannot be accepted for the present. He contended that the Xerox copy of the patta ﬁled by the petitioner discloses that the said patta was issued and signed by the then Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam, by name Sri. D.J. Prakasam, who has now retired from service. On veriﬁcation, the signature of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer tallied with that of the signatures in the revenue records, however, because of non- availability of the original file, no final decision is taken. He further contended that except the entry in the Village Account No.3 in Column Nos. 12 and 13, which reﬂects that the petitioner is the pattedar and possessor of the land in question, there is no other recorded evidence available in his office. He admitted that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land in question from the year 1989, and in the Adangal also his name is recorded as pattedar and enjoyer. He contended that the petitioner has not produced the original patta for veriﬁcation of the signature of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer with the one found on the Xerox copy to come to a final conclusion with respect to the genuineness of the signature of the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is lastly contended that the only course that can be adopted to verify the genuineness of the patta of the petitioner is to verify the signature of the then Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer thereon with that of the signatures available in the revenue records, and that is possible only if the petitioner produces the original patta. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7, and having regard to the stand taken by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer in his counter, all the counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner shall produce the original patta/assignment proceedings before the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural, to enable him to compare the signature of the then Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer thereon with that of his signatures as found in the other revenue records. Upon production of the original patta/assignment proceedings, the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam, shall compare the signature of the then Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, who is said to have issued to assignment proceedings/patta to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. If after comparison of the signatures, the Tahsildar, Viskahapatnam, comes to the conclusion that the signature of the then Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer on the assignment proceedings/patta is genuine, then he shall take appropriate steps to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the lands in question. The order of status quo granted by the Division Bench of this Court, shall continue until the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam, passes final orders in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 21st October, 2008. KSR