Gadiyaram Kantha Rao, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W.P.No. 352 of 2015 DATE: 23.01.2015 Between:

Gadiyaram Kantha Rao .. Petitioner And

1. The State of A.P.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer

3. The Tahsildar .. Respondents

O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he purchased an extent of Ac.7.53 cents of agricultural land in Sy.No.195 situated in Kosinepalli village, Muddanuru Mandal, Kadapa District from one Palem Narasimhulu by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 21.09.1966, and since then, he has been cultivating the same, and he was also issued pattadar passbook vide Patta No.144 and his name was mutated as "owner" of the land in the revenue records. While so, it is stated that on 01.09.2014, on application through Mee Seva Centre, the petitioner was issued Pattadar Adangal Pahani, wherein at Column Nos.12 and 13, his name is shown as "Pattadar" and "Enjoyer", but on the contrary at Column No.6, the nature of land/sistu is shown as "Government Land" and at Column No.15, it is shown as 'DKT'.

Pointing out these discrepancies, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 06.09.2014 to the 3rd respondent requesting him to delete the words "Government" at Column No.6 and "DKT" at column No.15 of the Pattadar Adangal Pahani and make suitable corrections if any in the revenue records as so to enable him to raise any crop loan, etc. Now, the petitioner's grievance is that the 3rd respondent has neither considered his representation nor passed any orders thereon so far. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and

perused the material placed on record.

Having regard to the fact that the inclusion of the words "Government" and "DKT" at the respective columns of the Adangal Pahani do not entitle the petitioner either to obtain any crop loan or to alienate his land and the relief sought by the petitioner is only to the extent of correction of entries to be carried out in Pattadar Adangal Pahani with reference to the revenue records, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case, but deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction:

"The 3rd respondent-Tahsildar is directed to consider the representation dated 06.09.2014 said to have been made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from today."

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

_______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 23.01.2015 bcj