THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 28481 OF 2007 Dated: 29.09.2010 Between: Nadipalli Ramu ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Secretary to the Government of A.P., Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 28481 OF 2007 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 3rd respondent in not issuing the pattadar pass book under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘ROR Act’) in respect of the land in survey No.43/7 of an extent of Ac.1.90 cents situated at Rajupalem village, Anakapalli Mandal is arbitrary and illegal. The material available on record shows that the land in question was acquired by initiating the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of establishing industrial estate at Rajupalem village. It is not in dispute that an award was passed on 30.03.1981 determining the compensation. However the petitioner claims that the respondents 1 and 2 did not take any steps for taking possession of the acquired land, and that he is still continuing in possession. It is also pleaded that as the respondents 3 and 4 were trying to dispossess, O.S.No.47 of 1985 was filed for injunction against the 4th respondent in the Court of the District Munsif, Anakapalli. Though the said suit was erroneously dismissed, A.S.No.51 of 1992 filed by the petitioner on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli was decreed on 28.8.2000 restraining the 4th respondent from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land in question. Aggrieved by the same, though the 4th respondent filed Second Appeal, the same was dismissed at the stage of admission by this Court. Thus it is asserted that the petitioner has been in continuous possession of the land in question. In spite of the fact that the petitioner is in physical possession of the land in question as the revenue records have been mutated illegally showing the lands as acquired lands and vested in the Government, the petitioner made an application under the provisions of the ROR Act with a request to issue the pattadar pass book in respect of the land in question. Aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in not entertaining the petitioner’s application, the present writ petition has been filed. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, the fact that the possession of the land remained with the original owners has not been disputed. However, it is contended that by virtue of the award dated 30.03.1981, the land vested with the Government and accordingly, mutation was effected in the revenue records. The 4th respondent who is one of the allottees of the acquired land filed a counter denying the petitioner’s plea that he is continuing in possession. It is contended by the 4th respondent that the land was handed over to it in the year 1982 and a sale deed was executed by APIIC on 30.11.2006. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. So far as the present writ petition is concerned, the only question that requires consideration is whether the 3rd respondent is justified in not entertaining the application of the petitioner for issue of pattadar pass book in respect of the land in question. Section 6-A of the ROR Act, as substituted by A.P. Act 1 of 1989 entitles every owner, pattadar, mortgagee or tenant of any land to make application for issue of pattadar pass book and title deed to the Mandal Revenue Officer on payment of such fee as may be prescribed. On making such application, the Mandal Revenue Officer has to make an enquiry in the manner prescribed in the Rules and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Therefore the 3rd respondent is bound to receive the application made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after making the necessary enquiry. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to the rival claims made by the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to receive the petitioner’s application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after making necessary enquiry as contemplated under the Act and the Rules made thereudner. In view of the specific plea of the 4th respondent that the possession of the land in question was handed over to them in the year 1982 itself, the 3rd respondent is directed to give an opportunity to the 4th respondent to make its representation and appropriate orders shall be passed after hearing both the parties. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 29.09.2010 Ivd