HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7723 of 2005 Dated: 23.09.2010 Between: Polu Chinna Kondaiah. …..Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Nellore & others. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7723 of 2005 ORDER : The synonymity in the names of two brothers i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.4, led to filing of this writ petition. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, issued in Rc.F 797/2002, dated 02.09.2003, and the endorsement of the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, issued in Rc.B 356/96, dated 18.09.2003, and the further orders passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector in Rc.E 7(a) 7429/2003, dated 26.02.2005, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The dispute relates to ownership and possession over Ac.4.44 cents of land covered by Sy.No.492/1-2 of Duttalur village and Mandal of Nellore District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, vide his proceedings, dated 02.09.2003, issued in Rc.F 797/2002, addressed to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Duttalur Mandal, has requested to delete the term “Chinna”, with respect to the aforesaid land, in the Record of Rights, particularly in 10(1) account of Duttalur village and Mandal. The said instructions were issued, stating that respondent No.4 herein i.e. Polu Kondaiah was assigned an extent of Ac.4.44 cents of land in the aforesaid Survey Number, but his brother by name Polu Chinna Kondaiah, has got inserted “Chinna” in between the words ‘Polu’ and ‘Kondaiah’. Based on the said corrections, as the name of the writ petitioner was recorded in 10(1) account of the village with regard to the aforesaid land in question, directions were issued for correction. Accordingly, the Mandal Reveue Officer, Duttalur, by the impugned endorsement, dated 18.09.2003, issued in Rc.B 356/96, ordered to incorporate the name of Polu Kondaiah in the revenue records, by deleting the name of Polu Chinna Kondaiah with regard to Patta No.1808 of Sy.No.492/1-2, admeasuring Ac.4.44 cents, situated at Duttalur Village. The said instructions issued by the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer and the endorsement made by the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, at first instance, were questioned by the petitioner by way of filing a writ petition being W.P.No.24075 of 2003, which was disposed of by this Court, by an order, dated 14.11.2003, at the stage of admission, permitting the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of revision before the Joint Collector. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed a revision before the Joint Collector and the same is rejected by an order, dated 26th February 2005, issued in Rc.E 7(a) 7429/2003. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that upon his application, the land admeasuring Ac.4.44 cents, covered by Sy.No.492/1-2 of Duttalur village, was assigned to him by granting D-Form Patta No.T.D.1579/88, dated 30.01.1978, and he has developed the said land by digging a borewell, and as there was a mistake in 10(1) account of the village, wherein the name of Polu Kondaiah was recorded against the aforesaid land, the same was brought to the notice of the Nodal Officer, who had come to the village in Janmabhoomi programme in 1995, and the said mistake was corrected in the Record of Rights. Reference is also made to the original suit proceedings in O.S.No.274 of 1998 filed by the petitioner and also to the interim orders passed in the interlocutory application filed in the said suit. It is the case of the petitioner that though earlier correction was rightly made by incorporating “Chinna” in the Record of Rights, the impugned endorsement is made at the instance of respondent No.4, without conducting any inquiry and without issuing any notice to him. It is the case of the petitioner that even the original D-Form patta, which is marked before the Civil Court, indicate that the assignment was made in favour of the petitioner but not the 4th respondent. The impugned proceedings were questioned by the petitioner, mainly on the ground that inspite of the fact that he is the owner and possessor by virtue of the patta granted to him with regard to the aforesaid land, the impugned endorsement is made for deletion of his name, at the instance of respondent No.4, without conducting any inquiry and without issuing any notice to him. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, wherein, they have denied the petitioner’s contention that he was granted assignment over an extent of Ac.4.44 cents of land in Sy.No.492/1-2 of Duttalur village, by the then Tahsildar. It is further stated in the counter that the 4th respondent-Polu Kondaiah was granted D-Form patta for the said land, in 1995, when a Gramasabha was held in Bandakondapalli village in connection with Prajala Vaddaku Palana by the Nodal Officer, but the petitioner herein, by presenting a tampered D-Form patta in the name of Polu Chinna Kondaiah, requested for recording of his name in 10(1) account of the village, in respect of the land in question. It is stated that the Nodal Officer corrected the name of Polu Kondaiah as Polu Chinna Kondaiah, without proper verification of file relating to D- Form patta. Further, in the counter, reference is made to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 02.09.2003, issued in Rc.F 797/2002, stating that at the instance of the petitioner, “Chinna” was inserted by the previous Mandal Revenue Officer, in between ‘Polu’ and ‘Kondaiah’, without conducting proper inquiry. Counter further states that the D-Form patta produced by the petitioner showing the name as Polu Chinna Kondaiah, is a manipulated one and is not borne by record. It is further stated that, as corrections were made in the revenue records, based on the insertion of “Chinna” in between ‘Polu’ and ‘Kondaiah’ on the request made by the petitioner, after conducting inquiry, instructions were issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and consequently, the impugned endorsement is issued for correction of 10(1) account of Duttalur village, with regard to the land in question. The counter further states that the writ petitioner is native and permanent resident of Gangireddypalem and is living there alongwith family members and is having other assigned lands in the said village. With regard to the aforesaid pleadings on record, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was the original assignee and D-Form patta was issued in his name and the same was exhibited as Ex.A-1 before the Civil Court. It is submitted that as the original assignment itself is in his favour, the claim of respondent No.4 is illegal, and in any event, respondents 1 to 3 should not have issued the impugned orders, without issuing any notice to him and without conducting any inquiry. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 that the original assignment was in the name of respondent No.4, but misrepresenting that the assignment is in favour of petitioner, during Janmabhoomi programme, he got inserted “Chinna” in between the words ‘Polu’ and ‘Kondaiah’ and based on such D-Form patta, the name is recorded as Polu Chinna Kondaiah in 10(1) account of the village, however, when a representation was made by respondent No.4, the matter was inquired into and as the patta claimed by the petitioner was not borne out from the record, the impugned endorsement is made. It is submitted that as much as the correction ordered is in conformity with the D-Form patta granted in favour of respondent No.4, and as the correction was at the instance of petitioner without conducting any inquiry, the impugned endorsement cannot be termed as correction of record within the meaning of The A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Inspite of the averments made in the counter affidavit that the original patta is in the name of respondent No.4 and the patta claimed by the petitioner is by way of misrepresentation, the same is not controverted by the petitioner by filing any reply affidavit. As evident from the counter affidavit and also the instructions issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the proceedings, dated 02.09.2003, issued in Rc.F 797/2002, it is clear that the original assignment was made only in favour of respondent No.4, but not the petitioner. Although the assignment is claimed in the name of the petitioner, but as stated in the counter affidavit, there is no record at all to show that the patta was granted to the petitioner. On the other hand, in clear terms, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the patta was granted only in the name of Polu Kondaiah, who is respondent No.4 and brother of the petitioner, but, taking advantage of the synonymity in the names, the petitioner, by way of misrepresentation, got inserted “Chinna” between the words ‘Polu’ and ‘Kondaiah’. Had the original assignment was in favour of petitioner, there is no reason for insertion of “Chinna” between ‘Polu’ and ‘Kondaiah’. The very fact that the petitioner made a representation for insertion of “Chinna” itself is conclusive proof that the original assignment is not in his favour, but it is in favour of respondent No.4. Coming to the contention of the petitioner that no notice is issued to him before issuing the impugned endorsement, it is to be noticed that earlier, when correction was made by inserting “Chinna” between the words ‘Polu’ and ‘Kondaiah’, no inquiry was conducted, and merely basing on the representation made by the petitioner, such correction was made. In that view of the matter, any interference with the impugned order results in restoration of another illegal order, which itself is undisputedly passed without conducting any inquiry and without issuing notice to respondent No.4. In that view of the matter, and in view of the stand taken by respondents 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit that the original assignment was made in favour of respondent No.4, I do not find any illegality in the instructions issued by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer for correction of 10(1) account of Duttalur village, with regard to the land in question by recording the name of respondent No.4. Even the revisional authority has considered the matter in detail and has also recorded that though the original assignment was made in favour of respondent No.4, there is insertion of “Chinna” on the representation made by the petitioner during the Janmabhoomi programme. In view of the fact that the original assignment was in favour of respondent No.4 in the year 1978 itself, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, warranting interference of this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd September 2010. ajr