APHC010008882021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 692/2021 Between: E. Venkata Radha Krishna Goud, ...PETITIONER AND The District Collector and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAMALAKARA RAO BATHINA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE DATE: 06.03.2025 ORDER Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the orders dated 03.05.2021 passed in Rc.B.No.1086 of 2018 by respondent no.3-Mandal Revenue Officer, Guduru, Krishna District, whereby and whereunder the representation made by the petitioner dated 03.11.2020 for mutation of his names in revenue records in so far as Ac.4-65 cents of land situated in R.S.No.85/1 of Ramannapet Village, Gudur Mandal, Krishna District, assigned to him vide D- form patta dated 03.12.2001, was rejected and further to direct the respondents to survey the land and fix boundaries. RC,J W.P.No.692 of 2021 2 2. Heard Sri Kamalakar Rao Bathina, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri Kamalakar Rao Bathina, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that he was assigned the subject land under Ex-serviceman quota by way of issuance of D-form patta dated 31.12.2001 and eversince he took possession of the said land, cultivating the same and has been paying cist to the authorities. However, the revenue authorities did not mutate his name in revenue records and they reflect the total extent of Ac.11-60 cents in R.S.No.85-1 as Bezawada Cheruvu land. In response to the representations made by the petitioner, the respondent no.3- Mandal Revenue Officer vide letter R.C.C.No.1099/2018, dated 05.10.2018 requested respondent no.1-District Collector to issue instructions on the representations of the petitioner. As the respondent no.1 did not respond, the petitioner appraising all the facts submitted a representation dated 03.11.2020 to respondent no.1 to instruct the concerned to mutate his name in revenue records, issue pattadar passbooks and survey the land and fix boundaries. Thereafter, the respondent no.3-Mandal Revenue Officer vide Endorsement No.Rc.B.No.1086/2018, dated 03.05.2021 declined to consider RC,J W.P.No.692 of 2021 3 the representation of the petitioner on flimsy and unreasonable grounds that since the subject land is classified as tank poramboke the same cannot be assigned to anybody and on verification of D-form patta, the signatures of Assistant and Head Assistant are not found, that the signatures of Village Administrative Officer, Assistant and Head Assistant are not found on pattadar passbook and so also on title deed passbook and that the resolution of Gram Panchayat does not contain any signatures except the surpanch and that too it was issued five (5) months and five (5) days subsequent to issuance of D- form patta. Whereas, the communication sent by respondent no.3-Mandal Revenue Officer, to respondent no.1-District Collector clearly shows that the enquiries made by Village Revenue Officer and Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor revealed that the petitioner was issued D-form patta for the subject land and pattadar and title deed passbooks were also issued to him. The learned counsel would further contend that endorsement impugned in this writ petition is contrary to the contents of the communication sent by Tahsildar to the District Collector. Therefore, the endorsement is illegal and the same has been issued only to deny the rights of the petitioner over the subject land. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. RC,J W.P.No.692 of 2021 4 4. On the other hand, Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while reiterating the contents of the counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit would contend that the entire extent of Ac.11.06 cents in R.S.No.85/1 is classified as Tank Poramboke and not even an inch of land out of it can be assigned to anybody being highly objectionable poramboke for assignment. Moreover, without conversion of classification of the land from Tank Poramboke to A.W.D., the said land cannot be assigned. He further contended that based on the strength of irregular D-form patta and pattadar passbook issued to the petitioner by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, who was kept under suspension for committing irregularities and who is now no more. The petitioner has been continuing in possession of an extent of Ac.2-00 of land. The subject land being a tank poramboke, which shall only be used for communal purposes but not for private cultivation by anybody, appropriate action would be taken against the petitioner for eviction from the said extent of the land. Since the subject land is a communal land prohibited from being assigned, the request made by the petitioner for conducting survey cannot be accepted. The patta being claimed by the petitioner does not find a place in assignment register and moreover the patta shall be scrutinized by the concerned Assistant and Head Assistant RC,J W.P.No.692 of 2021 5 before issuing and that too after verification of resolution of Grampanchayat. The subject D-form patta does not contain the signatures of Assistant and Head Assistant. Moreover the resolution of Gramapanchayat was five months five days after issuance of alleged D-form Patta. The circumstances referred to above would amply unfold fabrication of patta by the then Tahsildar, who was suspended from services for committing irregularities. The request made by the petitioner for mutation was rightly rejected by the Tahsildar vide Endorsement impugned in the writ petition. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner is claiming the subject property by way of grant of D- form patta under Exserviceman quota and according to him, pattadar and title deed passbooks were also issued in his favour and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property and cultivating the same and has been paying revenue cist to the authorities. As the revenue records reflect the subject property as ‘Bezawada Cheruvu land’, he made representation to the RC,J W.P.No.692 of 2021 6 authorities to mutate his name in revenue records in respect of the subject property. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on D-namoona and pattadar passbook, copies of which were filed along with writ affidavit. 7. The material would disclose that in response to the application filed by the petitioner dated 03.05.2018 for grant of No Objection Certificate to sell the land, the Tahsildar, Guduru sent communication to the Collector, Krishna District vide R.C.C.1099/2018, dated 06.10.2018, soliciting guidelines. According to the same, the Village Revenue Officer, Mandal Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor enquired the petitioner and confirmed that he has assigned Ac.4-65 cents of land under D-form patta, but, on verification of Fair Adangal, the land in an extent of Ac.11-06 cents was shown as Government land-Bezawada Cheruvu in which Ac.2-50 cents only is in possession and under cultivation of the petitioner. It further discloses that as per sample patta and pattadar passbook, an extent of Ac.4-65 cents in R.S.No.85-1 was shown. 8. Thereafter the petitioner made another application dated 03.11.2020 to the first respondent to mutate his name in revenue records as per his pattadar passbook and survey the land and fixed boundaries to the RC,J W.P.No.692 of 2021 7 subject property. Through the impugned endorsement the said application was disposed of, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. 9. The impugned endorsement states that upon close verification of the copies of D-form patta, Pattadar and title deed passbooks and Resolution of the Gram Panchayat, the following omissions are noticed. “1. There is only one signature found on the form of D-form patta in the place provided for the signature of the Tahsildar. There are no signatures of the concerned Assistant dealing with the assignment subject, signature of the Head Assistant who scrutinizes the correspondence. Without submitting the connected record and signatures of the concerned assistant, and the signature of the Head assistant after scrutiny, the Tahsildar cannot sign the patta. 2. There are no signatures of the Village Administrative officer in the column provided on the Pattadar Pass Book concerned assistant of the office and Head Assistant. The pattadar Pass Book will be submitted by the V.A.O. to the Tahsildar only after signing on the P.P.B. Then only the concerned assistant and Head assistant will sign and submit the same to the Tahsildar for approval. 3. There are no signatures of the V.R.O., concerned assistant, Head assistant of the Tahsildar’s office and concerned assistant, and Superintendent of the R.D.O’s office on the Title deed. After scrutiny and signatures of the above concerned officials only the R.D.O. will sign on the title deed. 4. On perusal of the copy of the resolution of the Grama panchayat, Ramannapeta Village of Guduru Mandal, there is no signatures of any official on the resolution except the signature as Surpanch. That too with the date 05.06.2002 i.e. after 5 months, 5 days to the issue of D- form patta. It is not known what is the necessity of the issue of resolution after lapse of 5 months and 5 days when the patta was issued on 31.12.2001.” RC,J W.P.No.692 of 2021 8 10. The respondent authorities are disputing grant of D-form patta to the petitioner for the omissions they found on verification of D-form patta, pattadar and title deed passbooks. It is the strenuous contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that the land said to have been assigned to the petitioner is a highly objectionable poramboke and no assignment can be made over the said land. Therefore, but for the possession of the petitioner over an extent of Ac.2-50 cents of land, rest of the claim made by the petitioner was disputed by the revenue authorities. A perusal of the copies of the D-form patta, pattadar and title deed passbooks would disclose that they do not contain any other signatures as rightly contended by the respondents. 11. In view of the above, disputed questions as to grant of D-form patta are involved in this writ petition, effective adjudication of which requires oral and documentary evidence, which cannot be done while exercising writ jurisdiction. 12. Therefore, as disputed questions are involved, the petitioner can approach competent civil Court to get his grievance redressed regarding assignment of the subject property and for other consequential reliefs. RC,J W.P.No.692 of 2021 9 13. As already stated, though the authorities are disputing grant of D- form Patta, they are admitting possession of the petitioner over an extent of Ac.2-50 cents of land out of Ac.4-65 cents of land claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the authorities are estopped from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the extent of Ac.2-50 cents of land, except under due process of law. 14. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach competent civil Court to get his grievance redressed. The respondent authorities shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner over Ac.2-50 cents of land, except under due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR