IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 17346 of 2008 Between: G.Venkateshwarlu S/o.Sreeranganayakulu R/o. 25-55,Main Bazar, Vinukonda Mandal Vinukonda Municipality, Guntur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Dept., Secretariat Building Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, Vinukonda Mandal Vinukonda Guntur District 3 The Tahsildar,Vinukonda Mandal Vinukonda , Guntur District 4 Rachakonda Subrahmanyam S/o.Sri R,Krishna Murthy R/o.Markapuram Road, Vinukonda Guntur District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue writ or an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not taking steps to conduct full fledged enquiry into the patta HS/DK No.1414 for land admeasuring 387 sq.yards in D.No.390/3 Vinukonda being put in circulation by Respondent No.4 is unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to declare this patta was never in existence /force and prosecute persons responsible for creating this patta and putting it in circulation and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Oral order: The writ petition is misconceived and fundamentally so. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not taking steps to conduct a full-fledged enquiry into the patta HS/DK No. 1414 for the land admeasuring 387 Sq. yards in D.No. 390/3, Vinukonda and claimed to have been a patta issued to the 4th respondent, is arbitrary and seeks a consequent direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to declare that the patta was never in existence and force and prosecute the persons responsible for creating this patta and putting it in circulation. The petitioner asserts to be the owner of 0-11 cents of land in D.No. 312 (old No. 390/3) of Vinukonda. The land was given on lease to M/s Rachakonda Venkat Ramaiah and sons for running a petrol outlet for Bharat Petroleum, earlier the Burma Shell. The lease expired by 2003. After expiry of the lease, the petitioner called upon the 4th respondent to vacate the premises. He got issued an eviction notice and also filed a caveat in a Narsaraopet Court. The 4th respondent filed O.S.No.2 of 2004 for injunction, while the petitioner filed O.S.No. 57 of 2004, since re-numbered as O.S.No. 269 of 2005. The petitioner does not state in which court these suits were filed and are pending but states that both the suits were clubbed for trial. It is also stated that the suit filed by the 4th respondent was dismissed while the suit filed by him was decreed. Again the petitioner states (in para 6) that another suit O.S.No. 441 of 2007 is learnt to have been filed claiming that a patta was issued “in his favour”. Later according to the petitioner, the same patta was filed before this Court in a writ petition filed “by them” in W.P.No. 11283 of 2008, on the basis of a patta bearing reference HS/DK No. 1414 for the land admeasuring 387 Sq.yards. Apprehending that the 4th respondent contrived a fraudulent patta and was proceeding to claim title to the property belonging to the petitioner, the petitioner applied to the 3rd respondent to verify and inform whether any patta is issued in respect of Sy.No. 390/3 of an extent of 0-08 cents. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, by an endorsement dated 26-6-2008 informed to the petitioner that on perusal of the records in the M.R.O. office, it is found that no such patta is found in the records of the office. Despite this endorsement, the petitioner wants further action by the State authorities to proactively make a (public) declaration that no such patta was in existence or force and to take action to prosecute the persons responsible for creating this patta and putting it in circulation. The relief claimed in this writ petition is fundamentally misconceived. It would be impossible for the State to engage in a regular endeavour of public denouncements of all potential and fraudulent documents by the multitude of delinquent individuals. On the petitioner’s application, the 3rd respondent has issued an endorsement that no such patta is in existence, as complained by the petitioner. The petitioner and the 4th respondent are engaged in several litigations. It is for the petitioner to put-forth his claim, if he be a plaintiff or a defense if he be a defendant in such proceedings. In the considered view of this Court, it is no part of the State’s obligation to pull the petitioner’s chestnuts out of the litigative fires in the suits between the parties. The writ petition is misconceived, beseeches rejection and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 24th April, 2009. GRR