IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 21914 of 2005 Between: 1 Chowdary Ramchandraiah, S/o. Sathaiah, R/o. 3-2, Kukatpally, R.R. District. 2 Chowdary Janardhan Rao, S/o. Ramachandraiah, R/o. 3-2, Kukatpally, R.R. District. 3 Chowdary Damoder Rao, S/o. Ramachandraiah, R/o. 3-2, Kukatpally, R.R. District. 4 Chowdary Kishan Rao, S/o. Ramachandraiah, R/o. 3-2, Kukatpally, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1The Joint Collector, O/o. The Collectorate, R.R. District. 2The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Rajendranagar, R.R. District. 3The Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal, Balanagar at Hyderabad R.R. District 4Purra Balraj, S/o. Mallaiah, R/o. H.No. 5-2/4, Kukatpally, R.R. District. 5Purra Swamy, S/o. Mallaiah, R/o. H.No. 5-2/4, Kukatpally, R.R. District. 6Purra Chinna Narsimha, S/o. Laxmaiah, R/o. H.No. 5-66, Prakasham Nagar, Kukatpally, R.R. District. 7Purra Jeethaiah, S/o. Sailoo, R/o. H.No. 5-48/1, Prakasham Nagar, Kukatpally, R.R. District. 8Purra Sailoo, S/o. Dannaiah, R/o. H.No. 6-2-55, Viveknagar, Kukatpally, R.R. District. 9Purra Ramulu, S/o. Sailoo, R/o. H.No. 5-78, Prakashnagar, Kukatpally, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to Case No. D5/2132/2004, dated 30-7-2005 of the 2nd respondent in Case No. C/545/2001, dated 12-01-2004, and the same may be declared as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the orders of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 1685 of 2004 and consequentially praying this Hon'ble Court to declare the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in ordering for correction of entries at Kukatpally village Balnagar Mandal and also the resumption of the said order as illegal and without jurisdiction and quash the same and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for official respondents. Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 appear to have filed an application to the third respondent for correction of the revenue records in respect of the agricultural land in an extent of Ac.15-15 guntas in survey No.90/AA situated at Kukatpally village, Balanagar mandal. The third respondent by a memo dated 15-01-2001 informed that the application of the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 dated 16- 12-2000 cannot be considered since the name of the first petitioner is recorded as pattedar of the said extent and description of the land and if aggrieved, these respondents may prefer an appeal to the second respondent under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedars Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). The party respondents thereupon preferred an appeal to the second respondent. The second respondent by the order dated 12-01- 2004 held that on a perusal of the primary order and the material on record filed by the respective parties, it appears that from the old revenue records such as the pahani of Kukatpally village for the year 1953-54, the total extent in survey No.90 is classified as ‘Paramboke’ ‘Sarkari Poramboke’ viz., the government land and that there was no record to suggest how the government land was converted into Patta either in the name of grandfather of the fourth respondent or the brother of the first petitioner Chowdari Kistaiah and how Chowdari Kistaiah transferred the same in favour of the first petitioner herein. The second respondent, appellate authority also recorded that a civil litigation filed on behalf of the petitioners herein as respondents in the appeal before the second respondent was not binding on the State, as the State was not a party to the civil proceedings. In conclusion, the second respondent ruled that the property belongs to the government and neither the petitioners nor the party respondents are entitled to be recognized as the owners and pattedars of the property. Consequent on the above findings, the second respondent ordered eviction of the writ petitioners (respondents before him) and directed the third respondent to evict the petitioners from the lands, resume the same and make necessary entries in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the second respondent’s appellate order dated 12-01-2004, the petitioners filed W.P.No.1685 of 2004. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court by the judgment dated 30-01-2004. This Court allowed the writ petition in part and quashed that portion of the appellate order of the second respondent dated 12-01-2004 which directed the second respondent to evict the petitioners and resume the land from them. This Court observed that while it was always open to the official respondents to initiate action against the petitioners, if the property is held to be government property, insofar as the main determination is concerned, the petitioners have a revisional remedy to the first respondent under Section 9 of the Act and must pursue the same viz., to the extent the second respondent’s appellate order directs change of entries and cancellation of patta pass books. The petitioners preferred a revision to the first respondent under Section 9 of the Act. The first respondent by the order dated 30-07-2005 rejected the revision while confirming the appellate order of the second respondent. The first respondent again directed the third respondent to resume the land forthwith, evict the encroachers if any and make necessary entries in the revenue records and to take further effective steps to safeguard the lands in question. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would urge that the petitioners are recorded as pattedars of the land in issue since long and no finding as to their disentitlement to be pattedars or a finding adverse to them to the effect that the land is government land could have been recorded either by the first respondent without initiating sui generis proceedings against them either under the provisions of the Act or by recourse to proceedings before a civil Court of competent jurisdiction or any other legal environment such as the Land Encroachment Act or other. This contention commends acceptance by this Court. It requires to be noticed that the entire episode commenced with an application filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 9 to the third respondent for mutation/recording of their names in the revenue records under the provisions of the Act. That application was rejected by the third respondent, the primary authority on the ground that the petitioners’ names are recorded as pattedars of the land. Thereagainst, the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 preferred an appeal to the second respondent under Section 5 of the Act. The second respondent had a narrow factual and legal matrix for appellate consideration viz., whether respondent Nos. 4 to 9 are entitled to have their names recorded in the revenue records and were entitled to issuance of pattedar pass books and title deeds. It is one thing for the second respondent to hold that the land is Government land; respondent Nos. 4 to 9 were not entitled in any event for grant of pattadar pass books, title deeds or to entry of their names in the revenue record or even to have held that the recording of the names of petitioners in the title deeds appears to be irregular in view of the lands being government lands as per his analysis of the material on record. But it is a different thing altogether for the second respondent appellate authority to have directed deletion of petitioners’ names from the revenue records and directing their eviction. The petitioners ought to have been sensitized and put to notice before initiation of proceedings against them. The revenue records which reflect their names as pattedars cannot be cancelled by collateral observations in the proceedings initiated by the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 or in an appeal preferred by them against the primary authority rejecting their application for recording their names viz., respondent Nos. 4 to 9. Further the provisions of the Act are not applicable to government lands qua Section 12 of the Act. It does not appear that the proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of the Act for deletion of their names and issuance of patta pass books by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Therefore, if the State felt or was satisfied that the property belongs to the State and by some illegal or irregular procedure, the petitioners are reflected as pattedars in the revenue records, the State is required to take recourse to appropriate substantive proceedings under some available and appropriate legislative environment and if there be no such enabling legislation, then by recourse to the judicial process by way perhaps a civil suit before the court of competent jurisdiction. The order of the second respondent as confirmed by the first respondent directing eviction of the petitioners and restoration of lands to the government are patently beyond the limits of appellate and revisional jurisdiction under Sections 5 and 9 of the Act. On the aforesaid analysis, the order of the first respondent dated 30-07-2005 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 12-01-2004, insofar as these orders direct the third respondent to resume the land forthwith by cancellation of the entries in the revenue records (which currently show the petitioners to be pattedars) are set aside. It is however open to the State to pursue appropriate remedies for safeguarding or resuming possession of the lands from the petitioners, if the State is satisfied that the lands are government lands. The writ petition is allowed as above, but there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 10-04-2008 Pvks/*