APHC010043982021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 2945/2021 Between: Illa Nagamani, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G RAMACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)-15548/AP/15548/2017 2. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO 2 The Court made the following order: The petitioners claim that they were allotted house plots to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents each in plot Nos.6, 8, 7, 9 & 12 in RS.No.48/3P and 48/3(part) respectively of Elwinpet Village, G.L.Puram Mandal, Vizianagaram District, on 26.09.2002. It is further case of the petitioners that, since the date of allotment of the house site pattas they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said plots. Further, they contend that RS.No.48/3 consisting of Ac.1.18 cents which is classified as government land in all the revenue records. 2. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 4th respondent in collusion with the 5th respondent, who is politically influenced in the village, entered the 5th respondent’s name in revenue records over the subject lands at his instance. It is specifically contended by the petitioners that till 23.01.2021, the classification of the subject lands was shown as government lands in the revenue records. Later, the name of the 5th respondent was entered without issuing any notice to the petitioners. The said action of the 4th respondent in mutating the 3 5th respondent’s name is being assailed in the present writ petition. 3. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit in the present writ petition. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issuance of house site pattas in favor of the petitioners is admitted. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that among the petitioners, the 1st petitioner alone constructed house in the land allotted to her. Insofar as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, though they were allotted house plots, they have not constructed houses and kept the lands vacant, thereby violated the conditions of allotment of house site pattas. 4. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that initially land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.20 cent in RS.No.48/3 of Elwinpet village was assigned in favor of Sri Perupaka Minnarao during the year 1977, as the land was classified as gayalu as per the FCO record. The said Minnarao was in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. Thereafter, the 5th respondent approached the revenue authorities for mutation of his name in revenue records. After conducting an enquiry, the 5th respondent’s name is entered into the revenue records on 01.10.2015, in respect of land 4 admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.18 cents in RS.No.48/3. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that, as the petitioners also claim the very same land which was assigned in favor of 5th respondent’s father, the same could not be ascertained by the 4th respondent, in view of the fact that the 4th respondent’s office was subjected to Maoists’ Attack in which the entire office was blasted and the records pertaining to the subject lands were destroyed. It is further averred that, a report was also given on 14.12.2002 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Elwinpet. Apart from the same, it is also averred in the counter affidavit that RS.No.48/3(part) appears to be incorporated later, as such the pattas alleged to have been granted in favor of the petitioners is doubtful. 5. The 5th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the issuance of house pattas in favor of the petitioners. He would further contend that, his father was initially assigned an extent of Ac.1.20 cent in RS.No.48/3 of Elwinpet village and since then he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property till his demise in the year 1987. It is further averred that, subsequent to his father’s death, the 5th respondent approached the 4th respondent for transfer of DKT patta in his favor, and accordingly, pattadar passbooks were issued in his favor by duly mutating his 5 name. In support of his claim, the 5th respondent filed 1B register and adangals. He would further submit that, the alleged pattas issued in favor the petitioners cannot be sustained, as the land in question was assigned to his father in the year 1977, i.e., even before grant of alleged pattas in favor of the petitioners. Therefore, the alleged pattas granted in favor of the petitioners is nothing but illegal and on mistake of fact and prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 7. Perused the material available on record. 8. On perusal of the pleadings, it is clear that the 5th respondent’s father was granted DKT patta of land over an extent of Ac.1.20 cent in Sy.No.48/3 of Elwinpet village, during the year 1977 and he was also issued pattadar passbooks. Later, on demise of the original assignee, the 5th respondent approached for mutation of his name in revenue records and to transfer the DKT patta in his favour. Accordingly, 5th respondent’s name was 6 mutated in the year 1986 and pattadar passbooks were also issued in his favor, after due enquiry. 9. On the other hand, it is the contention of the petitioners that they were allotted house site pattas over the same land in which the 5th respondent’s father was granted assignment. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is categorically stated that, except the 1st petitioner no other petitioner constructed houses as per conditions of the house site pattas. It is also clear that, when the petitioners and the 5th respondent are claiming right over the subject lands, the 4th respondent contemplated an enquiry into the matter, but the same could not be proceeded with, inasmuch as the office of the 4th respondent was subjected to Maoists Attack. 10. On overall consideration of the contentions of all the parties, this Court is of the opinion that, unless an enquiry is conducted in respect of the subject lands by retrieving the records, no positive order can be issued in the present writ petition. Further, the 4th respondent admitted that the 1st petitioner has constructed house over the lands allegedly allotted to her. 7 11. In that view of the matter, the respondents including the 5th respondent are directed not to interfere with the possession of the 1st petitioner till enquiry is conducted. As the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 have not constructed houses in the lands allegedly allotted to them, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the lands in dispute. 12. It is further directed that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall conduct a discrete enquiry into the matter with regard to rival claims of petitioners and the 5th respondent and to pass appropriate orders thereon after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned. 13. In case the respondents come to a conclusion that the 5th respondent’s father was assigned with the subject lands, the case of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 may be considered for issuance of alternative house site pattas in their favor, if they are otherwise eligible. 14. It is further directed that the said enquiry shall be completed within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8 15. With the above directions the present writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.04.03.2025 DSB 9 149 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR W.P.No.2945 of 2021 Date: 04.03.2025 U DSB