IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5727 of 2008 Between: D.Ramaniadu Alias Ramaiah Naidu, S/o.D.Gangaiah Naidu,Hindu, R/o.Nunjarlapalli,H/No.Gaddamvari Palli, Chowdepalli Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administraition, Andhra Pradesh, HYderabad. 2 The Joint Collector,Chittoor District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle Chittoor district. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chowdepalli Mandal, Chittoor District. 5 D.Ramanappa Naidu since died his L.Rs. R/o. Gaddamvari Palli, Chowdepalli Mandal, Chittoor District. 6 D.Chengama Naidu, R/o. Gaddamvari Palli, Chowdepalli Mandal, Chittoor District. 7 D.Ananda Babu Naidu, R/o. Gaddamvari Palli, Chowdepalli Mandal, Chittoor District. 8 D.Anjaneyulu Naidu, R/o. Gaddamvari Palli, Chowdepalli Mandal, Chittoor 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring proceedings of thel 1st respondent made in BCW2/333/2006 dt.12.12.2007,confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent made in D.Dis.E9/6570/79 dated 15-4-2006 and the 3rd respondent made in D.Dis.No.9/1995 dated 18-2-1999 as illegal, and void and consequently direct them to modify the assignment made in AM No.3265/4/79 dated 15-7-1970 by the then Tahasildar, Punganur and issue Revised DKT patas in favour of the petitoner and the respondents 6 to 8 herein assigning each Ac.1.02 cents in S.No.378/3 of Gaddamvari palli village, chowdepalli Mandal, Chittoor district and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.RADHAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 8: MR. J.M. NAIDU The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 5727 of 2008 Oral order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and at their request, the writ petition itself was heard finally. Assailing the order dated 12.12.2007, passed by respondent No.1, namely the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, confirming the orders dated 15.04.2006, passed by respondent No.2, namely the Joint Collector, Chittoor district, dismissing the appeal preferred against the order dated 18.02.1999, passed by respondent No.3, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli, confirming the orders dated 15.07.1970, passed by respondent No.4, namely the Tahsildar, Punganur, Chittoor district, granting DKT patta in respect of land in an extent of Ac.2.08 cents in Sy. No. 378/3 of Gaddamvaripalli village, Chowdepalle Mandal, Chittoor District, in favour of respondent No. 5, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, states that the land in an extent of Ac.2.05 cents in Sy. No. 378/3 of Gaddamvaripalli village, Chowdepalle Mandal, Chittoor, is part of their ancestral and joint family properties, and pursuant to abolition of Punganur Zamindari Estate, the land in question was classified as government poramboke. He states that since the properties were being managed by respondent No.5, respondent No.4 issued DKT patta in respect of the land in question was issued in favour by respondent No. 5 on 15.07.1978. The petitioner claims that the property in question is a joint family property, and as such, he is entitled to half share, and inasmuch as respondent No.5 taking advantage of the fact that DKT patta was issued in his favour, obtained pattadar pass book in respect of the total extent of land, he preferred appeal to respondent No.3 to cancel the pattadar pass book issued in favour of respondent No.5, and partition the property in question between himself and respondent No.5 as per the agreement entered into between them, and issue pattadar pass book in respect of the extent of land that fell to his share. Respondent No.5 contested the appeal contending that the appeal is barred by limitation and as such, is not maintainable, he denied that the property in question is a joint family property and contended that the revenue records reveal that respondent No.5 is in possession of the property in question. Respondent No.3, having considered the rival contentions, vide order dated 18.02.1999, refused to entertain the appeal holding that the same has been filed 25 years after the assignment, that it is time barred and it is not supported by any condone delay petition. Assailing this order, the petitioner preferred another appeal to respondent No.2. It appears that respondent No.5 died during the pendency of the appeal, and his L.Rs. contested the appeal. Respondent No.2, having considered the appeal and the arguments advanced, vide order dated 15.04.2006, confirmed the order of respondent No.3 holding that the land in question was assigned to respondent No.5 that he being a landless poor person refused to share the same and was living separately with his wife and children, and that adjacent to the land in question, the petitioner and other brothers were having Ac.2.08 of land, and since respondent No.5 was eligible for assignment, and the same having been assigned to him, his legal heirs are entitled to the property in question. Questioning this order, the petitioner preferred revision petition before respondent No.1, who upon hearing the rival parties and having perused the orders of respondent Nos. 3 and 2, vide order dated 12.12.2007, confirmed the same. Though the petitioner contends that he is entitled to half share in the property in question, he being a member of the joint family, the fact remains, the fact remains, all the authorities, right from the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration found that respondent No.5 who is a landless poor and in whose favour the land in question was granted did not agree to share the property and that he was living separately, and that the other members of the joint family were having land in an extent of Ac.2.08 cents situated adjacent to the land in question, which was in the possession of the petitioner and others, and apart from this, the material filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 8 along with the counter shows that the petitioner has himself in the suit filed by him in O.S. No. 222 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, has admitted that the joint family properties were partitioned and divided in the year 1960 itself, and when such is his case, he cannot contend that the property in question which was assigned to respondent No.5 in the year 1978, formed the joint family property. Apart from that, the petitioner sought cancellation of the patta granted to respondent No.5 after lapse of 25 years, and he has not filed any application to condone the long delay, which justified him to prefer appeal after long lapse of time. In the above view of the matter, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition passed by respondent No.1, confirming the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3, refusing to cancel the patta granted to respondent No.5 by respondent No.4 and dividing the land equally between the petitioner and respondent No.5. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 1st April, 2008. KSR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}