WP/23913/2005 of A.P.Bhoodan yagna Board represented by its Secretary Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, on 29 December 2005

ORDER :

The writ petitioner challenges the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in not mutatingand recording its name in the relevant revenue records in respect of landsadmeasuring Ac.100.00 forming part of Sy.Nos.215 to 224 situated at Papaiguda,Ranga Reddy District filed the present writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner claims that he has submitted an application in pursuance ofthe circular memo No.41950/ASN.1(1)/94-4. to the Mandal Revenue Officer-3[rd]respondent on 09-05-2005 to record its name in the revenue records.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents having entertainedthe application are not passing any orders on the same and thus, it approached thisCourt by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner submittedan application to the Mandal Revenue Oficer-3[rd] respondent on 09-05-2005 torecord the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. Copy of the application filedby the petitioner has been placed on record.

6. It seems the Government issued a circular memo No.41950/ASN.1(1)/94-4dated 17-06-1997, to record Bhudan lands in the relevant revenue records. Relevantportion of the circular reads as follows :

“It is brought to the notice of Government that during the processof distribution of Bhoodan lands in recent past in most of the cases,Bhoodan lands are subjected to transfer from one person to another forthe simple reason of non-recording of undistributed land as ‘Kharej-khatha Bhoodan’ in village pahanies in Telangana area, although asper Bhoodan and Gramdan Rule 9 of 1965, the Bhoodan lands areheritable but not alienable under any circumstances except to thecommercial Banks for raising loans. In case of Andhra Area, all thoseBhoodan lands which have been finally notified in the Gazette shouldhave to be treated as “Bhoodan Government Poraboke” lands, but tilltoday the names of donors are being entered in the village recordsinstead of adopting monoculture as stated above, This Tapes is due tonegligence of the village officer.”

7. Since the application of the petitioner is in pursuance of the circular, the 2[nd]respondent has to pass necessary orders on the application.

8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2[nd]respondent to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the petitioner afterputting on notice to the persons in possession as well as the persons whose namesappear in the revenue records within period of six weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order.

______________________

Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy

Date : 29[th] December, 2005.

Dvs

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.23913 OF 2005

Dated 29-12-2005