IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:3771 of 2002 Between: K.Nagendra Prasad S/o. Nallana Gowd R/o. Beerappe Gudi, Old Town, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector Ananthapur District, Ananthapur. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Ananthapur. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Ananthapur. 4 K. Nagabhushan Gowd, R/o. D.No. 1-182/B12 Samanatha Nagar, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. KARRA SRINIVAS FOR MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.4: MR. O. MANOHAR REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled to quash proceedings D.Dis.No.D4/4366/99, dated 07.01.2002 passed by respondent No.1. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The dispute pertains to an extent of Ac.0.07 cents of land in Survey No.174-1B of Anantapur Rural Mandal. To appreciate the issue involved in the writ petition, it is necessary to note the brief genealogy. One Mr. K.Busappa was the original pattadar of the land admeasuring Acs.2.20 cents. He had two wives, Nallamma and Naramma. Mr. Yellappa Goud was the son of Smt. Nallamma and Mr. Ujjanna Goud was the son of Smt. Naramma. Mr.Yellappa Goud had two wives, namely, Pedda Subbamma and Yellamma and Mr. Ujjanna Goud also had two wives, Subbamma and Sanjeevamma. Mr. Nallanna Goud was the son of Smt. Pedda Subbamma and he had two sons, namely, Yellappa Goud and the petitioner. The said Yellappa Goud is since deceased. Respondent No.4 is the son of Subbamma, the first wife of Mr. Ujjanna Goud. After the death of Sri Yellappa Goud, the joint patta was split between the father of the petitioner and respondent No.4, who was the then Tahsildar, according to which an extent of Ac.0.81 cents in Sy.No.174-1 was granted patta in favour of respondent No.4. However, by proceedings dated 04.09.1971 the pattas were again split. Under this proceeding, patta in respect of Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No.174-1 was given to respondent No.4. In the year 1997, the petitioner was granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Thereupon, respondent No.4 approached respondent No.3 to cancel the pattadar passbooks and correct the record of rights by adding Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.No.174-1. The said application was rejected by respondent No.3 vide his order, dated 15.09.1997. Respondent No.4 ﬁled appeal against the said order before respondent No.2, who by his order, dated 04.02.1999 dismissed the said appeal. Respondent No.4 thereafter, ﬁled revision under Section 9 of the 1971 Act before respondent No.1, who by his order impugned in this writ petition, allowed the same. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. While dismissing the appeal ﬁled by respondent No.4, respondent No.2 held that the only basis on which respondent No.4 claimed right over the extent of Ac.0.07 cents of land was partition deed, dated 10.03.1947 executed by Smt. Sanjeevamma and that the said Sanjeevamma was not the legally wedded wife of Sri Ujjanna Goud and being a concubine, she had no right over the property and consequently, she had no legal capacity to execute the partition deed. In the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, the only ground on which the claim of respondent No.4 was accepted was that the father of the petitioner witnessed the partition deed and that if 1/3rd share of respondent No.4 is worked out on the total extent of Acs.2.42 cents of land, it comes to Ac.0.80¾ cents, which after rounding off comes to Ac.0.81 cents of land. In my considered view, respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to properly consider the crucial aspect, namely, the eﬀect of the two diﬀerent and contradictory proceedings issued under the 1965 Act. As noted earlier, by purported proceedings dated 17.07.1968 an extent of Ac.0.81 cents is shown in favour of respondent No.4 while in the later proceedings dated 04.09.1971, lesser extent of Ac.0.74 cents has been shown. Respondent No.2 in his order erred in presuming that the then Deputy Tahsildar might have been mislead by respondent No.4 to accept the fraudulent partition deed dated 10.03.1947. There was no basis for this presumption. Respondent No.1 has totally ignored this aspect. He shall therefore consider the eﬀect of these two proceedings and the legality and binding nature of partition deed dated 10.03.1947 executed by Smt. Sanjeevamma, which appears to be the sole basis for respondent No.4 to claim right over Ac.0.81 cents instead of Ac.0.74 cents. The matter is therefore remitted to respondent No.1 to consider the eﬀect of the abovementioned two proceedings. Respondent No.1 shall pass an order afresh, after hearing the petitioner and respondent No.4. For the above-mentioned reasons, the order of respondent No.1 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th OCTOBER, 2008. kvni/ES