Nanam Laxmi, v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.25911 OF 2016 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not granting pattadar pass book to the petitioner and not incorporating her name in the revenue records as pattedar and cultivator with regard to the land to an extent of Ac.418 gts., in Sy.No.35/A situated at Kangutta Village, Boath Mandal, Adilabad District by conducting enquiry even though the petitioner submitted number of representations as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to grant pattedar pass book to the petitioner by incorporating her name in the revenue records as pattedar and cultivator with regard to the subject land.

It is the case of the petitioner that originally her husband Bojanna was the pattedar and owner of subject land and after they blessed with two daughters her husband left the house without informing anyone and from the last 26 years his whereabouts are not known. Therefore, she cultivated the said land with the help of wellwishers, but two years thereafter she gave the said land on lease to one Munigela Nadipireddy, who is her relative and she shifted her house to the neighbouring village i.e., Sonala Village.

Taking advantage of the same, the said Nadipireddy got entered his name as cultivator in the pahanies without any authority and after his death the respondents 5 and 6, who are sons of said Nadipireddy, without having any title or right over her property, they are claiming to be cultivators of the said land and interfering with her possession by virtue of the entry made in the cultivator column. After coming to know about the wrong entries made in the pahanies, she being the legal heir of her husband submitted representations to the respondents 2 to 4 to conduct enquiry and issue pattedar passbooks in her favour, but no action was taken on her representations.

has acted on her representation dated 04.07.2016 and directed the 4th respondent to enquire into the matter and take necessary action, but so far no action has been taken. Assailing the same, present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to take necessary action particularly keeping in view of the directions of the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent.

On the other hand, Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the District Collector is the competent authority under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (in short "the Act") to make any corrections under the Act, except the correction on account of clerical errors. He further submits that the petitioner may be directed to approach the District Collector invoking Section 9 of the Act and it would be obligatory for the District Collector to consider her application and pass appropriate orders.

It is not in dispute that as on the date of application by the petitioner to the District Collector, third parties names were appearing in the revenue records against the property to which the petitioner is claiming right. In other words, the petitioner is seeking substitution of her name in place of the names already recorded in the revenue records. Entries in the revenue records reflecting a party's name relate to the proceedings of the Tahsildar under Section 3 of the Act. In W.P.No.558 of 2015, this Court by its order dated 11.02.2015 had held as follows:

"A perusal of Sections 3 to 5 and 9 of the Act leave no manner of doubt that the Tahsildar is not vested with any powers to make corrections either suo motu or on an application except at the time of making entries for the first time in terms of the notification issued under Sections 3(1), 3(2) of the Act. Any corrections in relation to the entries could be made in the given circumstances satisfying Section 3(3) of the Act within one year. If the case requiring

corrections of the revenue records beyond the time limit of one year, necessary orders can be passed only by the District Collector in exercise of the revisional powers and the Tahsildar is not vested with any such power. In that view of the matter, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent-District Collector, and submit an application ventilating his grievance and seek redress. On submission of such application, the 2nd respondent-District Collector shall dispose of the same within a period of six months."

In the light of the above statutory provisions, initially, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the 4th respondent-Tahsildar seeking proceedings under which the name of Munigela Nadipireddy, who is father of 5th and 6th respondents, has been included in the revenue records and then submit an application to the 2nd respondentDistrict Collector, invoking the provisions of Section 9 of the Act seeking substitution of her name in place of the name already recorded in the revenue records and in turn the 2nd respondent-District Collector shall consider the same, in accordance with the law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of application of the petitioner.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM Date:10.08.2016 Ssv