IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5920 of 2000 Between: 1 G.Anand Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy. R/o. Hyderguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 G.Andalamma, W/o. Narayana Reddy. R/o. Hyderguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 G.Narasimha Reddy S/o. ChandraReddy. R/o. Hyderguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 G.Jagan Mohan Reddy S/o. ChandraReddy. R/o. Hyderguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 G.Parvathamma, S/o. ChandraReddy. R/o. Hyderguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONERS AND Joint Collector, Ranga Redy District, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.V.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondent from proceeding further in pursuance of notice, dated 16.03.2000 issued in purported exercise of his powers under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). Heard Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General) for the respondent and perused the record. The impugned notice is issued to the petitioners calling upon them to appear before the respondent to enquire into wrong entries made from the year 1960 onwards and in order to correct them. It is stated in the said notice that the land admeasuring Acs.4.01 guntas in Survey No.4 of Hyderguda Village is classified as Kharizkhata Sarkari and it was continued as such from 1950-51 to 1953-54 and that the name of Sri Laxma Reddy was recorded as possessor; that in khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, the kharizkhata sarkari in column No.13 was struck off and the names of Sarvasri Laxma Reddy, Papi Reddy and Malla Reddy, Sons of Sarvasri Malla Reddy, Gopal Reddy and Chandra Reddy, were incorporated as equal shareholders in column No.13; that in column No.14, the kharizkhata in possession of Sri Laxma Reddy and others was struck off and written as “Mothim Sufakhas Nishan No.68, dated 08.06.1351 F (1942)” and in column No.8, ‘Sarkari’ was struck off and that in Shara of patwari, it was written as Kharizkhata in possession of Sri Laxma Reddy with dry paddy cultivation. It is further stated that in Chesala of 1955-58, it was written by the patwari in the shara as kharizkhata in possession of Sri Laxma Reddy with dry cultivation; that in the pahani for the year 1959, the patwari has written in the shara as Survey No.4 Sarkari kharizkhata Fasal Abi Padava and that from the year 1960 onwards, the names of the petitioners herein are continued as pattadars. The learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition submitted that in respect of the above mentioned land, pattadar passbooks were issued under the Act by the Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue, Hyderabad on 21.01.1980 in favour of late Narayana Reddy; that subsequently, the petitioners obtained layout from Hyderguda Gram Panchayat in the year 1982 and developed the same into plots and that the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority after considering the recommendations of the Municipality vide letter, dated 07.07.1989, accorded technical sanction for the layout vide their letter, dated 27.08.1990. He, therefore, contends that as on the date when the impugned notice was issued, the land was already used for non- agricultural purposes and hence, the same falls outside the definition of “land” under Section 2(4) of the Act. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the contents of the counter- affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the property in question is a tank-bed land and, therefore, the respondent has jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. The term “land” is defined in Section 2(4) as under: “Land” means land which is used or is capable of being used for purposes of agriculture, including horticulture but does not include land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes. Under Section 3 of the Act, as soon as may be after the commencement of the Act, record of rights in all lands in every village in that area shall be prepared. Section 9 vests suo motu revisional jurisdiction in the Collector to examine the record of any recording authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained by them. Thus, the condition precedent for application of the provisions of the Act is that the property shall fall within the definition of “land”. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the property in respect of which the respondent issued the impugned notice in purported exercise of his powers under Section 9 of the Act ceased to be agricultural land and is exclusively used for non-agricultural purposes, namely, house sites. I am, therefore, of the considered view that ex facie, the Act has no application to the property, which is covered by a newly sanctioned layout by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. As noted, in the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the property was tank-bed land. Such a stand has not been taken in the impugned show cause notice. Assuming that it was a tank-bed land, even then the provisions of the Act have no application, because tank-bed land is not included in the definition of “land”. Therefore, taking the allegations in the impugned notice as well as the counter- affidavit on their face value, the respondent has no jurisdiction to exercise the suo motu revisional power vested in him under Section 9 of the Act in view of non-application of the said Act to the property, which admittedly has been converted into house-sites and being used for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the respondent is restrained from proceeding with the impugned notice. This order, however, does not preclude the respondent from exercising powers vested in him in any other law subject to the right of the petitioners to defend themselves against such an action, if any. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th JULY, 2008. kvni