Ganta Chanraiah v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.12065 of 2011 ORDER :

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing notices dated 10.01.2010, 28.01.2011 and 18.03.2011 on the strength of the vexatious application filed by the 3rd respondent for correction of records in respect of land in Sy.No.146 of Mogilipaka Village, Valigonda Mandal, Nalgonda District, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The petitioner claims to be absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6.32 gts. and Ac.10.03 gts., in Sy.No.140 E and 146 AA respectively, having purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing document No.2666/1991 dated 26.12.1991 from its original owner viz., Smt. Tummala Bharathamma. After purchasing the property, the petitioner approached the revenue authorities for mutation of his name in the revenue records as per the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act'). Pursuant thereto the 2nd respondent conducted an enquiry, mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in his favour. Later, the 3rd respondent herein filed a representation dated 25.10.2010 before the 2nd respondent stating that she

owns land to an extent of Ac.3.22 gts. in Sy.No.146 and one Mr.Nishaker Reddy owns land to an extent of Ac.3.21 gts in Sy.No.146 and that their names were not shown in the pahani records. As such, she requested the 2nd respondent for incorporation of their names in the records. In pursuance to the representation made by 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent issued impugned notices to the petitioner, in which he was directed to appear on 25.04.2011.

3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader submitted that pursuant to the representation submitted by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent conducted a detailed enquiry and issued proceedings dated 01.06.2011, a copy of which is placed on record.

4. A perusal of the proceedings dated 01.06.2011 would show that after conducting a detailed enquiry by the Revenue Inspector, it was found that due to clerical mistake, some extent of lands of the 3rd respondent and another person by name Mr.Nishaker Reddy were included in the petitioner's land and the same was accordingly rectified.

5. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that no further orders need be passed in this writ petition. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dated 01.06.2011, he is always at liberty to challenge the

same in accordance with law.

6. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

7. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 3rd July 2015.

mar