HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.6476 of 2005 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners are questioning the validity of the notice, dated 15.03.2005, issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in Letter No.B/1376/02. The petitioners herein claim to be the owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Acs.20.08 guntas covered by Survey Nos.109, 110, 111, 112 and 113 situated at Regadidoswada Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is their case that they are sons of late Sri Kista Reddy, the original owner of the said land. It is also their case that their father Sri Kista Reddy purchased the said land in the year 1972 in the auction conducted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and his name was recorded as possessor in the revenue records, but not as pattadar. It is their grievance that in spite of repeated representations, including the last, dated 18.04.2002, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not taking any steps for mutation of their names in the revenue records as pattadars. It is stated that on the application, dated 18.04.2002, made by the petitioners, respondent Nos.1 and 2 by the impugned letter, dated 15.03.2005, have informed that the said land was auctioned in favour of the third respondent herein and as such, they were directed to vacate the lands in question. The Mandal Revenue Officer has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the land admeasuring Acs.20.06 guntas covered by Survey Nos.109, 110, 111, 112 and 113 situated at Regadidoswada Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was originally held by one Sri Narayana Prasad, who reportedly died issueless. Subsequently, the said land was declared as ‘lawaris lands’ and there was a Gazette publication to that effect in District Gazette No.26, dated 15.11.1968 by the then Tahsildar, Chevella. Thereafter, the aforesaid lands were put to auction on 20.12.1968. It is stated that in fact the auction was conducted on 28.01.1969 and it was knocked down in favour of the third respondent, Sri Md.Shoukath Hussain, S/oMd.Mustafa Hussain for an amount of Rs.2,100/- and the amount was remitted by the auction purchaser vide Challan No.110, dated 01.02.1969, for a sum of Rs.315/- and vide Challan No.395, dated 25.03.1969, for a sum of Rs.1,785/-. It is further stated that the sale in favour of the auction purchaser was confirmed. In the counter affidavit, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have denied the alleged purchase of the lands in question by the father of the petitioners and it is stated that the petitioners do not have any legal right to continue in possession of the lands in question. A separate counter is filed, along with impleading petition, by the third respondent. As per the affidavit filed by him, he purchased the lands in question and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief for grant of patta as prayed for. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. Although it is the case of the petitioners that their father late Sri Kista Reddy has purchased the lands in question, there is no evidence placed on record to substantiate the same. Merely basing on the entries in the revenue records in possessory column, the petitioners cannot seek mutation of their names by transfer of patta. In any event, from the counter affidavits filed by the first respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer and also the third respondent, it is clear that the land was auctioned by the Government and the third respondent was the purchaser of the lands in question in the auction conducted on 28.01.969. In view of the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent and also the third respondent, the purchaser of the lands in question in the auction is the third respondent, but not the father of the petitioners. The very claim of the petitioners for grant of mutation is based on the alleged purchase by their father. In the absence of any evidence to that effect and further in view of the stand of the respondents in the counters, no directions can be granted for mutation of the names of the petitioners. However, with regard to possession, as the possession of the petitioners is admitted, they cannot be dispossessed pursuant to the impugned notice, dated 15.03.2005. Therefore, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not be evicted from the lands in question as otherwise than due process of law. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) Dt.26.08.2010 VGB