WP/26185/2005 of Smt. Narsamma Vs Special Deputy Collector Cum Revenue Divisional on 29 December 2005

:O R D E R:

The third petitioner is the son of one late Hanumanthu. The second petitioner is thedaughter-in-law and third petitioner is the grand son of Hanumanthu. Hanumanthuwas protected tenant of land admeasuring Acs.56-20 gts. in survey Nos. 20, 56 and68 of Chinna Hyderabad village, Zaheerabad mandal, Medak district. He appears tohave obtained a certificate under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (TelanganaArea) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958. After the death of Hanumanthu, histhree sons Manayya (husband of the first petitioner), Bakkappa (father of the secondpetitioner) and Sanganna (third petitioner herein) succeeded to the property andstatedly been cultivating the land. It appears, the petitioners made an application tothe second respondent for issue of Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds under theAndhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘theROR Act’). An inquiry was initiated and a notice in No. ROR/ROR/1989 dated 16-07-1993 was issued by the second respondent informing the interested persons andto Hanumanthu proposing to conduct an inquiry on 26-07-1993. The petitionersattended the inquiry, but no orders were passed. In the meanwhile, it is alleged, thatthe second respondent is taking necessary steps to mutate the names of respondentNos. 3 to 16 and, therefore, they filed the present writ petition seeking a direction tothe respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pass appropriate orders in the matter.

Even according to the petitioners, there is a dispute as to the extent of land to whichlate Hanumanthu is entitled to as a ‘protected tenant’. Indeed, in 1976 ownershipcertificate was issued only in respect of Acs.26-00 in survey Nos. 20 and 68excluding the land admeasuring Acs. 18-22 gts., comprised in survey No.56. Thisaspect of the matter has to be inquired into by the second respondent, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

At the stage of admission itself, learned Assistant Government Pleader, afterobtaining instructions in the matter, submits that Hanumanthu applied forregularization of the land purchased by him in survey No. 56 and that the inquiry isstill pending. Therefore, it would not be proper for this court to express any opinionregarding the right of the petitioners, who claimed to be the legal heirs of lateHanumanthu. Admittedly, the inquiry, pursuant to the notices dated 16-07-1993, isstill pending; and it would be in the interest of justice to direct the second respondentto complete the inquiry within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order after giving notice to all the persons claiming right in the landand/or to whom the notices are required to be given while conducting the inquiryunder the ROR Act. There shall be a direction in the above terms.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

29-12-2005pvks/*

____________V.V.S. RAO, J

Nb:-Registry to furnish c.c. by day after tomorrow i.e., 31-12-2005.Pvks/*