IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 7346 of 2000 Between: K.Ramakrishna Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collecotrs, W.G. District, Eluru & others. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: G.P FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR.E.S.RAMACHANDRA MURTHY The Court made the following Order: This writ petition was earlier allowed by order dated 17-03-2004. However, the Division Bench of which I am a party remanded the case in W.A.No.760 of 2005 to the Single Bench in view of the stand taken by the respondents that the assignment claimed to have been granted to the petitioner in respect of Ac.2.20 cents in Sy.No.423/5A of Kalavapudi Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District, is bogus. The Division Bench while so remanding the case directed the District Collector to file an affidavit as to whether the claim of the petitioner that he was granted DKT patta in the year 1981 was correct or not. After remand, the District Collector filed an affidavit on 26-09-2007 and another affidavit on 13-06-2008. Thus after the remand, the short question that requires to be considered in this writ petition is whether the patta under which the petitioner is making claim in respect of Ac.2.20 cents in Sy.No.423/5A is genuine or not. In the affidavit filed by the District Collector after remand, she stated as under: “It is humbly submitted that Sri K.Ramakrishna Rao was issued D-form patta for an extent of Ac.2.20 cents in R.S.No.423/5A by the then Tahsildar, Bhimavaram vide his Roc.No.A6/453/80, dt. 03-11-1981. It is submitted that the entire record relating to Kalla Mandal was brought to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalla due to bifurcation of Mandal set-up in the year 1985 and the entire record and furniture of M.R.O’s Office, Kalla have been burnt and destroyed by the violent mob during the violent incidents occurred on 26-12- 1988 due to the assassination of Sri Vangaveeti Mohana Ranga Rao, the then M.L.A., Vijayawada. Hence, it could not be possible to trace out the office record relating to D-form patta issued to the petitioner.” Having thus admitted that the petitioner was issued D-form patta for an extent of Ac.2.20 cents in R.S.No.423/5A, she stated in the immediate following para that the verification of the village records available reveals that there is no survey number such as 423/5A measuring an extent of Ac.2.20 cents and that the petitioner was not in possession and enjoyment of the said land since the date of issue of D-form patta. She also stated that there is no possibility to sub-divide the survey numbers as A, B and C in assessed waste lands. She relied on B.S.O.No.34A para 15(a) to state that in the case of assessed and unassessed waste lands and porambokes, the sub-divisions formed out of entire survey numbers will be numbered serially as 1, 2, 3 etc., and new sub-divisions in existing sub-divisions will be assigned numbers serially in continuation of the last registered sub-division of the survey field of which it forms part. She further stated that the petitioner was issued patta with R.S.No.423/5A contrary to the said provisions. In short, the stand taken by the District Collector is that the petitioner was granted D-form patta but mentioning of R.S.No.423/5A is contrary to the provisions of B.S.O.No. 34A para 15(a). In the face of this admission by the District Collector, it is not necessary for this Court to delve further into the aspect whether the patta granted in favour of the petitioner is bogus or not. Therefore, ordinarily, this writ petition should have been straight away allowed and the respondents should have been directed to restore possession of the land assigned to the petitioner. But the Collector in her said affidavit pleaded that with the assignment of the entire land of Ac.13.82 cents in R.S.No.423, which is made into seven sub-divisions, to the third parties, no land is available for being restored to the petitioner. Therefore it has become necessary to deal with this plea. It is an admitted fact that the total extent of land comprised in Sy.No.423 is Ac.13.82 cents. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) with reference to the FMB record of the village fairly submitted that on 24-02-1982 Sy.No.423, which only had five sub-divisions at that time i.e. 423/1 to 423/5, was further sub-divided as 423/6 and 423/7. This record shows that while Sy.No.423/1 comprising Ac.4.83 cents was sub-divided as 423/1 with Ac.2.50 cents and 423/6 with Ac.2.33 cents 423/5 which consisted of Ac.4.70 cents was sub-divided as 423/6 with Ac.2.50 cents and 423/7 with Ac.2.20 cents. This being the admitted fact, interestingly in the affidavits filed by the District Collector, it is pleaded that an extent of Ac.2.33 cents in Sy.No.423/6 was assigned to one Galla Raju on 11-11-1955 and an extent of Ac.2.20 cents in Sy.No.423/7 was assigned to one Kandula Surya Rao on 16-06-1974 and both the alleged assignees have died and their legal representatives have been in possession of the land. It is beyond one’s comprehension that 423/6 and 423/7 having been carved out for the first time on 27-02-1982 out of Sy.Nos.423/1 and 423/5 respectively, the said Galla Raju and Kandula Surya Rao would have been granted assignment far earlier than the land was sub-divided. Though the Tahsildar, kalla Mandal, is present in the Court at the hearing and disposal of the case, he is unable to explain this patent contradiction in the pleading of the respondents. This fact clearly falsifies the plea that Galla Raju and Kandula Surya Rao were granted assignments on 11-11-1955 and 16-06- 1974 respectively in respect of the land in non existent Sy.Nos.423/6 and 423/7. Unfortunately, the District Collector failed to apply her mind while filing two affidavits and pleaded her inability to provide the extent of Ac.2.20 cents to the petitioner who was admittedly granted patta albeit by assigning alphabet subdivision instead of numeral subdivision. It is, therefore, quite obvious that on the basis of an improbable fact viz. that Galla Raju and Kandula Surya Rao have been granted assignments, the respondents cannot deny the petitioner the land under the DKT patta admittedly issued in his favour on the plea of non-availability of the land in Sy.No.423. Since the legal representatives of the two assignees viz. Galla Raju and Kandula Surya Rao are not before this Court, I am not inclined to give specific finding on the alleged assignments in favour of their predecessors. Respondent No.1 is directed to initiate immediate proceedings to examine whether the assignments said to have been granted in favour of Galla Raju and Kandula Surya Rao were genuine or not. After hearing the legal representatives of the said two persons, she shall pass appropriate orders. If respondent No.1 is satisfied that no pattas could have been granted in favour of the said two persons, in respect of Ac.2.33 cents and Ac.2.20 cents in Sy.No.423/6 and 423/7 respectively, which were non existent on the dates when the alleged pattas were granted, she shall cancel the said pattas and handover the extent of Ac.2.20 cents to the petitioner. If it is found that subdivision 5A requires correction, respondent No.1 shall take necessary steps to correct the same to bring in line with B.S.O.No.34A para 15(a). She shall complete the exercise within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.9670 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:08-07-2008 usd