THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6160 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus a) declaring the Memo.No.4753/AH.III(3)/2004-4 dated 30.06.2005 of the first respondent to the extent directing second respondent to handover the land of the petitioners in Sy.Nos.18/2, 19/2 and 29/2 of Chinagadila Village, Visakhapatnam Rural admeasuring Acs.5-50 cents on the pretext that it belong to Animal Husbandry Department, as illegal and contrary to law. b) declaring that handing over the petitioner's land admeasuring Acs.5.50 cents covered in Sy.Nos.18/2, 19/2 and 29/2 of Chinagadila Village, Visakhapatnam (rural) by the fifth respondent under delivery receipt dated 04.02.2006 to the fourth respondent is contrary to the proceedings of the third respondent vide Rc.2039/2004- F2 dated 15.06.2004. c) declaring that the wrong entry made in 10(1) Adangal relating to the petitioners’ land in the year 2003, as illegal, untenable and contrary to record and d) declaring that the petitioners are the absolute owners & possessors of the land admeasuring Acs.5- 50 cents in Sy.Nos.18/2, 19/2 and 29/2 situated at Chinagadila Village, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District. According to the petitioners, they are the owners, possessors and enjoyers of the land admeasuring Acs.5.50 cents situated in Sy.Nos.18/2, 19/2 and 29/2 of Chinagadila Village, Visakhapatnam Rural. Old Sy.Nos.12 of Santhapalam Village correlated to Sy.Nos.18/2, 19/2 and 29/2 (Acs.5.50 cents) of Chinagadila Village, Visakhapatnam Rural. The total extent of the land in the said survey numbers is Acs.6.20 cents, which originally belong to Zamindar of Vizianagaram. In the year 1956, one Ponnuswamy was granted ‘Jeroyati’ patta in respect of Acs.5.50 cents, out of Acs.60.02 cents of total land. Since 1956, the said Ponnuswamy and his legal heirs and successors have been enjoying the said property, wherein a mago tope is also existing and required taxes were being paid to the Government. In order to establish a Diary Farm at Visakhapatnam, certain lands were sought to be acquired in the year 1948. The then Land Acquisition Officer, after following the procedure, issued notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and ultimately acquired Acs.68.16 cents of land covered by different survey numbers in different villages of Santhapalem, Chinagadila and Peddagadili Villages, including Acs.0.52 cents of land in old Sy.No.12, correlated to Sy.Nos.18/2, 19/2 and 29/2 of Chinagadila Village of Visakhapatnam (rural). An Award was also passed vide Award No.2/59 dated 31.12.1959 in respect of the acquired lands. It is stated that Visakhapatnam Diary Authorities, under a misconception, resorted to claim the mango tope belonging to the petitioners assuming it as part of the acquired land. There were civil disputes in this regard, which are not of much relevance to the present writ petition. One P.Mohan Raj, who is no other than the son of Ponnuswamy (pattadar) filed W.P.No.6771 of 1989 before this Court complaining interference of the officers of Visakhapatnam Diary with regard to the land in question and sought for writ of mandamus declaring their action as arbitrary and illegal. When the said writ petition was taken up for hearing, the Diary Authorities had informed the Court that they had no claims on the land of the petitioners, and hence the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.04.2004. While that being so, the Visakhapatnam Dairy Authorities influenced the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam and brought changes to 10(1) Adangal in the year 2003 by deleting the name of Ponnuswamy in the owner and possessor column and inserting the name of Government Diary, on the ground that as per Award No.2/59 dated 31.12.1959, the land was acquired for diary farm. In fact, the said change was made without affording any opportunity to the pattadar and without following the procedure under the of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder. On knowing the same, representations were made on 21.04.2004 and 15.06.2004 assailing the changes made in 10(1) Adangal. However, no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioners predecessor in interest Sri P.Prema Sai Babu and his sister filed W.P.No.11165 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Court on 12.07.2004 as under: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. The only grievance of the petitioners as projected in the writ petition is that though they made representations dated 21-4-2004 and 15-6-2004, requesting respondent No.1 to conduct and enquiry and make necessary corrections in the Settlement Fair Adangal and 10(1) Adangal, no action had been taken thereon. They, therefore, filed the present writ petition. Though the learned Government Pleader for Revenue sought time to get instructions in the matter, he did not report any instructions. He, however, agreed that the writ petition be disposed of with the following directions: Respondent No.1 is directed to consider and dispose of the representations dated 21-4-2004 and 15-6-2004, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate speaking orders thereon, expeditiously, and in any case, not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.” It is further stated that in pursuance of the above order, a representation was made on 21.07.2004 requesting the fourth respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representations dated 21.04.2004 and 15.06.2004. Surprisingly, the fourth respondent with prejudiced mind issued proceedings dated 18.11.2004 rejecting the request by stating that the land in question has been classified as poramboke and noted as Vagu in pattadar column; that at the time and settlement operation, the name of Ponnuswamy was incorporated by deleting the word ‘vagu’ treating treating as “ryotwari” dry land and that the land in question was given possession of the diary farm on 09.03.1955 and hence their request cannot be considered. It is stated that against the said order, an appeal is filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and the same is pending. While that being so, the land in question was allotted to the Zonal Manager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The facts are not much in dispute. The only ground on which the entries were sought to be corrected was that the land was acquired for Visakhapatnam Diary and though it is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, the name of the pattadar-Ponnuswamy was shown since 1956 till 2003 and the same appears to be a fraudulent act on the part of some unknown persons. Therefore, the entry needs to be corrected and it was corrected as vagu poramboke. Admittedly, even according to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the petitioners are in possession of the land from 1956 onwards. The very correction of the entries made in 2003 itself would indicate that the patta was issued in 1956. Nowhere in the counter-affidavit the respondents have stated that the name of the vendor of the petitioners did not reflect since 1956 till the date of his purchase, and from the date of purchase till 2003 the names of the petitioners were not reflected in the revenue records. The learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.21719 of 1997 and batch, dated 15.09.2009, wherein when the so called fraudulent and fabricated entries were sought to be corrected, this Court held that since the entries were made more than 50 years back, those entries cannot be brushed aside just by saying that they were made fraudulently. The learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao[1]. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, however, stated that possession of the land in question was handed over to Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, whereas the learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that the petitioners are still in possession of the land in question and that this Court, while admitting the writ petition, granted status quo, and therefore, even if possession is delivered in favour of Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, the same is null and void and nonest under law. Admittedly, when a person is in long possession of the land for more than 40 years, it is not proper on the part of the respondents to correct the entries and claim the same to be Government land, without conducting any enquiry, as required under the law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed for more than one reason, and the same is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, it is left open to the respondents to file a civil suit and get the matter resolved as to the title, possession and enjoyment of the respondents vis-à-vis the petitioners. Since the litigation, which is purported to have been emanated from the directions of respondent authorities, is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, it will not have any bearing in future and it can be treated to be nonest in the eye of law. There shall be no order as to costs. C.V.RAMULU,J Date: 29.12.2010 va [1] AIR 1982 SC 1081