v i \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 13266 OF 2007 Between: 1. Pinajari Bashu (DIED), S/o. P. Mahaboob Saheb, R/o.H.No. 5/6, Kothapeta, Dhone, Kurnool District. 2. Pinjari Abdulla, S/o Late Pinjari Bashu, Aged about 38 Agriculture, R/o H.No.5/6, Kothapeta, Dhone, Nandyal District Agriculturist years, Occ 3. Pinjari Usman, S/o Late Pinjari Bashu, Aged about 34 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o H.No.5/6, Kothapeta, Dhone, Nandyal District. (Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are brought on record as L.Rs of the deceased sole petitioner as per the Court's order dt.22.11.2024 in I.A.No.02 of 2024.) ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The Tahasildar (M.R.O.), Dhone, Kurnool District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool. 3. The Joint Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to restore the possession of the petitioner land in Survey No.479/H3 an extent of AC 3 acres situated at Dhone Village and Mandal, Kurnool District or alternative giving suitable valuable land or pay Compensation as on today market value to the petitioner land an extent of AC 3 acres in Survey No. 479/H3 situated may •-y' at Dhone Village and Mandal, Kurnool District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (Prayer amended in writ petition and affidavit as per the Court order dated 20.09.2024 vide orders passed in lA No.1 of 2024) I.A. NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP. NO: 16617 OF 2007) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order of the 3'^'^ Respondent passed in Rc E2/143/2007 dt. 9-4-2007 confirming the order of the 1st and 2nd Respondent passed in Rc B 534/2005 dt. 14-8-2005 and RCC 1610/2006 dt.30-12-2006 pending disposal of the above writ petition. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2007(WPMP. NO: 17990 OF 2007) Petition under order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, declaring the orders passed by the Joint Collector (Respondent No.3 ) in Rc.No. E2/143/2/07, dt. 9-4-2007 which confirms the orders passed by the R.D.O. in Rc.No.1610/2006, dt. 30-12-2006 as well as the M.R.O. in Rc.No.B 534/2005, dt. 14-8-2005 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and opposed to Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India as well as violative of principles of natural justice and restrain the respondents herein not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner herein in respect of Ac.3.00 of land in Sy.No. 479/H3 situated in Dhone Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. S. VENKATA RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010596642007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] m MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 13266/2007 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) 1. Pinajari Bashu (died) and Others AND 1. The Tahsildar (M.R.O.), Dhone and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. B S VENKATA RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT(S) ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief; “...to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents to restore the possession of the petitioner land in Survey N0.479/H3 an extent of Ac.3.00 situated at Dhone Village and Mandal, Kurnool District or alternative giving suitable valuable land or pay compensation as on today market value to the petitioner land an extent of Ac.3.00 in Survey No.479/H3 situated at Dhone Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, and pass such other order or \ 2 CGR, J. W.P. No.13266 of 2007 orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. During the pendency of this writ petition, 1®* petitioner Pinajari Bashu died and his legal representatives Pinjari Abdulla and Pinjari Usman are added as petitioners 2 and 3, as per order, dated 22.11.2024. St petitioner claims to have acquired an extent of 3. The 1 Ac.3.00 cents of land in Survey No.479/H3 of Dhone village, through a registered sale deed, dated 27.10.1986, from Maddi Parvathamma and was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. A part of land in Survey Nos.479 and 480 was acquired for the purpose of expansion of N.H.7, in which, even a part of petitioners’ land was affected by award No.15/86, dated 17.09.1986, compensation was paid to the predecessors of the 1®* petitioner. That being so, by proceedings in Rc.B.534/2005, dated 14.08.2005, the 1®' respondent Mandal Revenue Officer, Dhone had resumed various extents of lands in favour of the Government and taken possession to provide house-site pattas to the poor, even the petitioners land in Survey St N0.479/H3 was resumed. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1 petitioner had filed W.P. No.19378 of 2005 and even the other persons affected by the said proceedings of the Mandal Revenue 3 CGR, J. W.P. No. 13266 of 2007 r Officer, Dhone, filed W.P. Nos.18630 and 18990 of 2005. This Court disposed of the above writ petitions by a common order, dated 12.04.2006, relegating the petitioners to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the proceedings of the 1®* respondent Mandal Revenue Officer, Dhone, dated 14.08.2005, and until the same is decided, status quo as to the possession was directed to be maintained. In pursuance to the same, the petitioners preferred appeal before the 2^^^ respondent and the same came to be dismissed, vide proceedings in Rc.C.1610/2006, dated 30.12.2006, confirming the orders of the 1®* respondent Mandal Revenue Officer. The 1®* petitioner and so also the other two affected persons preferred appeals before the 3'^^ respondent Joint Collector, which also came to be dismissed by separate orders even dated 09.04.2007. In all these three proceedings, the claim of the petitioners and others that the subject properties were private properties and not that of the Government came to be rejected based on entries in the R.S.R. The two other affected persons aggrieved by orders even dated 09.04.2007, in proceedings in Rc.E2/143/1/2007 and E2/785/2006, preferred W.RNos. 10092 and 10129 of 2007. proceedings in Rc.E2/143/2007, dated 09.04.2007, of the 3'^'^ Challenging the ‘—V 4 CGR, J. W.P. No. 13266 of 2007 respondent Joint Collector, the 1 petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 4. Heard Sri B.S.Venkata Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the facts in all three writ petitions are the same and that the title to the respective properties in all these three matters traces to the sale deed, dated 15.08.1919 and it is claimed that the subject land is not Government land, but has been private land all through and that several transactions have taken place from time to time. As the petitioners’ land has been resumed and has already been allotted to third parties for housing purpose, which is done without acquiring the same, it is claimed that they are entitled to compensation in accordance with law. 6. It is further urged that the other two writ petitions in W.P.Nos. 10092 and 10129 of 2007 came to be disposed of by a common order, dated 18.09.2017, holding that the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dhone, in resuming the lands, as confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and further by the Joint 5 CGR, J. W.P No. 13266 of 2007 Collector, were illegal, improper and incorrect and thereby, the petitioners claim for payment of compensation for the value of the land was directed to be considered and as even the present facts are similar, the learned counsel for the petitioners would pray that this writ petition also be disposed in terms of the aforesaid common order. dated 18.09.2017. 7. Opposing the above submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioners though claim that the 1®* petitioner had purchased the land as claimed in the writ petition under a registered sale deed, dated 27.10.1986, the same has not been produced or filed along with the writ petition. Besides the said objection, she would also contend that the resumption order, dated 14.08.2005, passed by the 1®' respondent Mandal Revenue Officer does not disclose or reflect the name of the 1®^ petitioner, and in the absence of which, it cannot be said that the petitioners have any right to claim the compensation. In so far as the common order, dated 18.09.2017, passed in W.P. Nos.10092 and 10129 of 2007, is concerned, she would submit that those two writ petitions also relate to Survey Nos.479 and 480 of Dhone Village and the present writ petition also concerns part of Survey No.479. 6 CGR, J. W.P. No.13266 of 2007 8. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. I 9. In the earlier round of litigation, the 1®* petitioner along with two other affected persons viz., L.Hasan Khan & 2 others and S.Kamal Saheb and another, preferred W.P. Nos. 19378, 18630 and 18990 of 2005 respectively, challenging the order, dated 14.08.2005, passed by the 1®‘ respondent Mandal Revenue Officer resumingthe respective lands. The same were disposed of by a common order. dated 12.04.2006, relegating them to avail the remedy of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool and till such time. status quo with respect to the possession was directed to be maintained. The offshoot of the same resulted in aforesaid three sets of petitioners preferring independent appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, which came to be dismissed, and thereafter, three sets of further appeals were preferred before the Joint Collector, Kurnool, which were also dismissed in separate proceedings, even dated 09.04.2007. The three claims concern with Survey Nos.479/H3 and 480 of Dhone village and source of title also relates to the sale deed, dated 15.08.1919. Three independent writ petitions were instituted against the aforesaid dismissal orders, two of which came to be disposed of in W.P. Nos.10092 and 10129 of CGR, J. W.P. No. 13266 of 2007 2007, by a common order, dated 18.09.2017. In the said common order, this Court, having considered the rival submissions, came to the conclusion that the subject property was private land and though the Government has tried to lay claim, the same could not have been done by initiating proceedings as was done by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dhone, and confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector, Kurnool, which is illegal, improper and incorrect rather the State had an option of approaching the competent Court for declaration of title and having not done that they could not have resumed the petitioners land. Ultimately, the aforesaid writ petitions came to be allowed and having regard to the fact that the subject lands were already allotted to landless poor, the alternative prayer of the petitioners therein for payment of compensation was directed to be considered by the Joint Collector. \ \ 10. As the facts in the present writ petition are similar and since the order passed by the 1®‘ respondent Mandal Revenue Officer resuming the lands per se is common in both these cases, which further resulted in orders of respondents 1 and 2 confirming the same, following the common order passed in the aforesaid writ petitions, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid common The common order, dated 18.,09.2017, passed in W.R order. 8 CGR, J W.P. No. 13266 of 2007 Nos.10092 and 10129 of 2007, is made part of the present order and a copy of the same be enclosed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Joint Collector, Kurnool, to consider the alternative request of the petitioners either to pay compensation to the value of the land today or to allot alternative land to the same extent. No order as to costs. i as on As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR ./ //TRUE COPY// j IT ^ ' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Tahasildar (M.R.O.), Dhone, Kurnool District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool. 3. The Joint Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4. One CC to Sri B S Venkata Ramesh, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Three CD Copies. (Along with a copy of the common order dated 18.09.2017 No.10092 and 10129 of 2007) [OUT] in W.P. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:20/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.13266 of 2007 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS 0 HON^BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nnc inQ92 and 10129 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: Since the two writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the Joint Collector dated 09.04.201^7 in respect of proceedings No.E2/143/1/07jmd E2/785/0^respectively, they disposed of .by this common order. 1) are The petitioner in W.P.No:10092 of 2007 claims to be owner of land admeasuring Ac.0.07 cents in Sy-.No.480/3A and Ac.8.86 7) cents in Sy.No.480/3C situated adjacent to National Highway No.7 The petitiopet in:^W.P.No.10129 of in Dhone, Kurnool District. 2007 claims to be owner of. land admeasuring A^-3-09 cents in V- ... - Sy.No.480/2C situated ents An Sy.No.480/2A and Ac.2;31 National Highway Nq,7 in Done,* Kurnool District. ■'.t As adjacent to the petitioner representatives were brought on lecord. in W.P.No.10092 of 2007 died, his legal The father of the petitioner in W.P.No.10092 of 2007 and the father-in-law of the petitioner in W.P.No.10129 of 2007 by L.Mahaboob Khan, claim to have purchased the said land by After his 3) name means of a registered sale deed dated 15.08.1919. in W.P.No. 10092 of 2007 and death, his son, who is the petitioner the husband of the petitioner iaW.P.No.10129 of 2007 claim to be It is said that after the death of Mahaboob enjoying the property Khan, there was a partition between the family members by 1 2 T means of a registered partition deed dated- Subsequent to his demise, the property came to be in possession 19.07.1958. of the respective share holders.' It is stated that their names were also entered in the revenue records. In the year 1977, about Ac. 1.14 cents was acquired for laying a bypass road, proceedings under Land Acquisition Act came to be initiated and compensation was also paid to the petitioners. The As such averments in the affidavit also show that pattadar pass book and title deeds were issued to the petitioners. While things stood thus a show- cause notice was issued vide Rt.No.E-204/2005 dated 09.06.2005 stating that M/s. Gayatri Juice Industries submitted a letter dated 04.02.2005, seeking aUotment of market value and th#same ■K government land on payment of was recommenced by the Local M.L.A. It was mentioned in the said notice that thi petitioner and others have violated the patta ■condtiShs' and directed to attend the office accordingly they were oh 21.06.2005 with all supporting documents. At that point of time, W.P.No. 17968 of 2005 came to be filed before this Court, wherein this Court granted stay of dispossession. Thereafter, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 14.08.2005, stating that the petitioners have no title over the property, as the said land was recorded as “assessed waste” in R.S.R. and the payment of compensation does not,establish any title. Hence, the land was sought to be resumed to the Government. Aggrieved by the-said order, W.P.No.27809 of 2005 and 18630 of 2005 came to be filed. Vide orders dated 12.04.2006 and 28.12.2006, the writ petitiqhs were disposed of directing the y petitioners to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 14.08.2005 and 27.09.2005 respectively. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by way of a writ appeal, which was Subsequent thereto, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer-second respondent, who, vide its order dated 30.12.2006, held' that the petitioners have failed to produce any documentary evidence and as the Re settlement Register show that the land is government' land. Aggrieved by the orders of the second pspondent the matter was carried by filing revision before the Joint'Collector, who, vide order dated 09.04.2007 confirmed the prdefs of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Revenue Divisidhal Officer. The same is an dismissed. subject matter of challenge in the presendw-it petitions. Ihls CotTrt by''an order dated -■ r 52! While issuing Rule-nisi 09.05.2007 granted interim'suspension of the order of the Joint 4) Collector, which was extended until further orders. Challenging the interim order. Writ Appeal Nos.782 and 783 of 2007 came to be filed. By an order dated 24.09.2007, the Division Bench of this Court vacated the stay granted by this Court. Aggrieved by the , S.L.P.Nos.21815 and 21812 of 2007 came to be preferred before the Apex Court, which were also dismissed on 30.11.2007 with a direction to the High Court to decide the main writ same petitions. 4 I Counters came to be filed disputing the averments made in 5) the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated in the counter that one Mahaboob Khan, an Assistant Village Munsif of Dhone Village, had thorough knowledge about the classification of government and private patta lands as he was the custodian to the government land at the village level. The said Mahaboob Khan, knowingly purchased the government land, created documentary evidence and transformed assessed waste land as patta land and entered the same in 10-1 register and adangal, without the knowledge of the Tahsildar, who was the competent authority. However, he failed to carryout the changes in the R.S.R., due to which, it is still reflected as a.government land in R.S.R. It is stated that transactions between Mahaboob Khan and Mahaboob Bi have no validity in the eye of law, and as such, Mahaboob Khan has no title over'the land in Sy.No.480. Insofar as the award passed by the Land Acquisition Authorities, it is said that passing of the award was by oversight and the same does not change the nature of land, as it is shown as a government land as It is further stated that even in the award per R.S.R. 1908. No. 15/1986 it was pointed out that the “awardees have not placed any documentary evidence during award enquiry”. It is also stated that the awardee ia Sy.No.480 gave a false statement before the Land Acquisition Officer and mislead him. It is pleaded that though the said award has become final, the petitioners cannot take shelter under the award without having any It is further semblance of right and title over the property. 5 averred that due to oversight, pattadar pass books and title deeds been issued and when the said land is a government land the Insofar as the were question of issuing the title deeds would not arise. _ allotment of land to M/s. Gayatri Juice Centre is concerned, it is But however, it is admitted that the said company has denied. applied for alienation of the government land on payment of not considered. It is market value but the said application further stated that the land'in dispute, was earmarked for weaker section people and was distribution of house sites to divided into small plots and distributed accordingly the,same was It Ts further stated that the to the poor people on 16.08.2005 required under law has^^'^ilpwed to evict the Referring to the orders^passed,Vy the authorities, it is procedure as petitioners urged that the said land, roads have been* given to each of the houses, urged that the request of the petitioners cannot be granted, more when the individual owners are not made as parties to the beneficiaries Kave constpudted the houses in the laid^and blectri'c connections are also IhAhat view of the matter, it is so. proceedings. Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to note that the writ petitioners filed W.P.M.P.No.33360 of 2014 seeking amendment, of the prayer, whereby the respondents, were directed either to pay compensation for the said land or provide an alternative land to the same extent, to the petitioners. 6) to 6 IS / / J 7) From the averments made in the affidavit and the counter, tt is clear that the dispute is in relation to the nature of land namely as to whether it is a government land or a,private patta ( land. The respondents-Government would contend that in view of the entries made in R.S.R. 1908, the land is a government land and that the petitioners have no right over the property. The only plea taken by the respondents is that though the revenue records, 10-1 account and adangal were corrected by Mahaboob Khan, who is was a village muhsif, by making false entries, the same could 8) not carried out in the R.S..R. and hence, the land is a government land and the petitioners have no right over the property. 9) On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners more particularly, the / registered sale deed, registered-partition deed and also entries in ( the revenue records to show that it is a patta land and they have 7 been in possession over the said property. placed reliance on the dociiments. / 10) Apart from that it is urged that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no power to cancel the pattadar. pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners. It is further urged by the petitioners that in W.P.No.18630 of 2005, this Court, while disposing of the same Observed that “originally the land in Sy.No.480 belonged to Mahaboob Bi, which was purchased by Mahaboob Khan under a sale deed dated 15.08.1919 and since then he has been in possession of the same. In view of the above. it is urged that the right of the Government to recover possession of the property after a period of 30 years is illegal, improper and It is further urged that the Re-settlement Register, 1869 show that the land belongs to Chennama Naidu as a patta land and without there being any notice or explanation the same was changed to Government. Hence, it is urged that the entire proceedings are illegal, improper and incorrect. incorrect. 11) Keeping in view the averments made in the affidavit and counter, shall now proceed to deal with the matter. 12) Admittedly, the dispute which is now sought to be raised is 'C 9'' more on factual aspects. The respondents only relied upon the entries in R.S.R.1908, to show that it is #;^|ern^nt land, hence 1 ii ■*' I it would be relevant to refer to the said entry, which is as under; Insofar as land in Sy.No^48fr is‘cbncerned, in column No.4 it was mentioned asf-^G’ and in column No.5 it Similarly in case of n ‘D’. was mentioned as Sy.No.479/C column No.4 shown as ‘G’ and column No.5 is shown as ‘D’. In Column No.16 which relates to the name of the pattadar or Inamdar or the Manager of the Institution to which the land belongs, and no remarks in column >» it is shown as “dots It No.17. 13) The above said entries in the register, was certified by the Tahsildar, Done Mandal, Kurnool District. Since column No. 16 of R.S.R. show ‘dots’, it is pleaded that it is a governrhent land and that the petitioners herein have no right over the said land. But at the same time it is also to be noted here that the entire land 8 was allotted to the landless poor persons under Indiramma Housing Scheme, who have raised huts in the said land, government has laid roads and also provided electricity connection to them. / The 14) But a perusal of the record and R.S.R. of 1869 issued by the Assistant Director of Survey, Central Survey Office, Hyderabad, would show otherwise. Insofar'as the land in Sy.Nos.479 and 480 is concerned, in column No.4 is it was shown as ‘G’ and in column No.5 as ‘D’, but however in column No. 11, the name of the is reflected. Insofar as Sy.No.479 is concerned, one India Vobula Kondanna Kondanna was'shown as the owner and in Sy.No.480 Chennama Nayadu was shown as the owner of the land. The said Chennama Nayadu was. also shown as owner of the land in Sy.Nos.481 and 482. This Survey Register which was placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioners relates to Fasli owner 1277. 15) Two things emanate from these two records. In the R.S.R. filed by the third respondent , against the column in which the entry relating to pattadar and remarks-colurnn are to be entered^ was left blank. The land was classified as patta land in column No.4 and “dry” in Column No.5. But however, in the counter filed by the third respondent, the real owner was stated as Government as per R.S.R.1908 (Basic Land Register), explanation is forthcoming from the government pleader with regard to the discrepan^. However, in Survey Register of 1869, No y the land in Sy.No.480, corresponding to old No.636, was shown as Chennama Rayudu. The contents of copy of Survey Register for the year 1869, which'is placed on record and to which there is a reference in the affidavit, is not patta land belonging to one disputed by the respondents in their counters. 16) Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed on record the Register of Holding issued by the Sub-Registrar in the year 1929 to show that the name of Mahaboob Khan was shown as the owner of the land. It is also to be noted here that as per the declaration made under Land Reforms Act, the petitioner in W.P.No.10092 of 2007 was holding Ac.8.56 cents in Sy.NQ;480. Similarly, the order dated 08.06.1976 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal declared that the petitioner as a non-surplus holder 17) At this stage, it may be useful to .refer to the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector, wherein all the three authorities took into consideration the entries made in the R.S.R., which was published Since the R.S.R.1908, shows that it is a in the year 1908. government land, the transaction that took, place between Smt. Mahaboob Bi, W/o. Chaman Sab and L.Mahaboob Khan, father-.in- law of Shahazadi Khatoon were held is invalid in the eye of law. Further, it was. held that the issuance of pattadar pass book has no validity since it was not attested by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (ROR), who was specially appointed by the Government to issue pattadar pass books and the Karanam is not competent to issue 10 n ! pattadar pass books. Insofar as the payment of compensation is concerned, it was held that by oversight, compensation came to be awarded though the claimants have no documentary evidence in support of their plea. i 18) Therefore, ultimately, what boils out is, with regard to entries made in R.S.R. 1908 and the entries in R.S.R.1869. 19) It is to be noted here that the entire land is now under the occupation of landless poor persons, who were assigned the said land, under a particular scheme. Further, the counters which have been filed by the respondents, no where disputes the averments in the affidavit of the petitioners with regard to the entries made in R.S.R.1869. Therefore-, the averments in the writ petition with regard to entries made in' R.S.R.1869, rebutted. go un- That being the position, can it be said that the land which is subject matter of dispute in both the writ petitions, is a government land. 20) In the absence of any explanation given with regard to entries made in R.S.R. 1869, though a specific plea has been taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, a doubt arises as to whether it is a government land. As stated earlier, an attempt has been made to show that the entries in the revenue records are fake, but there is no basis to show that these entries were fabricated in the year 1914-15 by late Mahaboob Khan, except an averment in the counter to that effect. r -m •Si 11 f 4:^ 21) It is also to be noted that except R.S.R. register of 1908 wherein in column No. 16 it was mentioned as ‘dots’, no other documents have been pressed into service to show that the subject land is Government land. What is the affect of making entries as ‘dots’ in the revenue records came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in G.Satyanarayana V. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others^. After referring to judgments of the Apex Court and also this Court, the learned Judge held as under; (8) A person in possession of land for 12 years or more without title can claim trahsfer-,of registry in his favour as envisaged by para-7 of BSG-31. = '-T .V h (9) Long possession supported by niUlti.ple^ registered sale transactions give rise to presuhnptionf of title. Such presumptionds howeyertrebtittable. (10) RSR is not a stand atone document. It is one of the relevant records in determination of ownership. (11) Description of Government land in RSR only means that it is not an inam land. It can include patta lands also. (12). Dots or blank in pattadar column does not necessarily mean that the land is vested in or it belongs to the Government. Despite such blanks or dots, a private person can claim ownership based on entries in revenue record prepared both prior to and after the commencement of the 1971 Act, besides registered sale transactions. If the Government ‘ (20W) 4 ALD 358 12 disputes such entries, it needs to get its right declared by instituting proceedings before the competent court of law. (13) The entries in.TSLR do not constitute conclusive proof of title. (14) Where there is a bonafide dispute'regarding title of a person in possession of the lands other than public, roads, streets, bridges or the bed of the sea or the like, summary proceedings under the 1905 Act cannot be initiated. In all such cases, the Government which claims title shall approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of its title.” 22) From the judgment referred to above, it is clear that merely because there are ‘dots’ it does not mean tfiat it is a government land. Despite such blanks or.dots, a private person can claim y/ ownership based on the revenue record prepared prior to and after commencement of 1971 Act besides registered sale transactions. 23) As stated earlier, in the instant case there are two sets of entries in R.S.Rs. One set of entry made in RSR of 1869, show it as a private land and in the another R.S.R. 'prepared in the year 1908, it was shown as ‘dots’’. But these aspects were never considered by any of the authorities though it was urged. 24) As held by this Court, if the Government disputes such entries and when there is a bonafide dispute with regard to title and possession of the land, the Government shall approach the A civil Court for declaration of title, which is open to them, if permissible under law. . 25) At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners placed record the Andhra Pradesh Dotted Lands (Updation in Re settlement Register) Act, 2017 (Act 10 of- 2017), wherein the Government has come up with a procedure for determining the status of the land when the record show ‘dots’, speaks of constituting a District Level committee consisting of District Collector as the Chairperson, Joint Collector, Sub- Collector or Revenue Divisional Officer as members and the Tahsildar as member-convener, shall beLcompetent to hear and issue orders on the claims filed under the said Act. on The act also But no material is placed on record to show that sucMa committee has been constituted as on today. ITjthe matter is remanded back to the committee, and even if the said committee hold that ‘dots’ referred to in R.S.R.1908, relate to government land, but still there exists entries in R.S.R. of 1869 where in it is shown as private patta land. Therefore, there is no point in referring it to the said Committee. 26) Therefore, under those the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the authorities appears to be illegal, improper and incorrect. As the request of the petitioners for recovery of possession of the said land cannot be granted since the said land has already.been allotted to 1020 people, who have raised their huts and are living there since last 12 years,Whe 14 f, ► / ' r \ J *-J ^tive request of the petitioners either to pay compensation to the value of the land as on today or to allot alternate land to the said extent, shall be considered by the Joint Collector at the earliest. aSti i y* .C' '.r . \ 27) Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. 28) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 18.09.2017 gkv