G. Narayana Murthy v. Dist. Collector, Bhupalapalli And 5 ORS.

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No. 685 of 2017 Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.42145 of 2016 dated 31.1.2017.

The appellant herein is the petitioner in the Writ petition. He filed the Writ Petition seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the District Collector in not exercising his powers of revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'), for continuation of the name of the petitioner's father and his name thereafter in the revenue records from 1986 fasli (1977) in respect of the lands in Survey No. 1 of an extent of Acs.8.28 acres situated at Sarakalanka revenue Village, Venkatapuram Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge noted the contention of the appellant-writ petitioner that his father's name, and his name thereafter was reflected in the revenue records till 1986 fasli (1977) as per 1-B Register; and no information was furnished as to whose name was reflected, in the revenue records, thereafter. The learned Single Judge, rightly, held that, in the absence of necessary particulars such as whose name is reflected in the revenue records after 1986 Fasli (1977) and since 30 years had elapsed, no interference was called for. While Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would contend before us that no other person's name is reflected in the revenue records after 1986 Fasli, no documentary evidence is filed before us in proof thereof. We see no reason, therefore, to fault the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition.

Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the appellant would produce documentary evidence in this regard if an opportunity were to be given to him to do so. Suffice it to make it clear that the order now passed by us shall not disable the appellant-writ petitioner from availing his legal remedies in accordance with law. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ ________________________________ GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J 22nd December, 2017.

pnb

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No. 685 of 2017 22.12.2017 pnb