WP/27390/2005 of Syed Fakhir Saheb, Vs The Commissioner of Land Administration, on 28 December 2005

:O R D E R:

The petitioners allegedly made an application on 30-09-2005 before the thirdrespondent requesting for Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds in respect of the landadmeasuring Acs.05-00 in survey No. 41/14 (part) situated at Khanammet village,Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy district. Alleging that the same was not acted upon,the present writ petition is filed.

It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner was granted ‘D’ form patta inrespect of the subject land and is in possession since 1949. The first petitioner alsoalleges that he, with the help of petitioners No. 2 and 3, brought the rocky terrain tocultivation and approached the Revenue authorities for grant of Pattadar Passbooks.The petitioners also made a representation to the Chief Commissioner of LandAdministration on 23-05-2005 requesting for suitable order under the provisions ofthe Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, in vain.

Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the first petitioner wasassigned land, who has cultivated the lands with the help of his sons –petitionersNo. 2 and 3 and, therefore, the Mandal Revenue Officer ought to have conducted aninquiry and issued pattadar passbooks. Per contra, learned Assistant GovernmentPleader, after obtaining instructions, submits that the land in survey No. 41/14 isclassified in revenue records as Sarkari poramboku and the same has not beenassigned to the first petitioner. He further submits that the land is covered by rocksand not fit for cultivation and that the petitioner is not in possession of the land.

Except annexing the representations made by the petitioners to the respondents, noproof is placed before this court to show that the land was assigned to the firstpetitioner in 1949/1951. The matter was initially listed on 23-12-2005 and the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to produce documentary proof toshow that the land, in fact, was assigned to the first petitioner. Today, learnedcounsel for the petitioner has not produced any such proof, much less a certifiedcopy of the ‘D’ form patta. He placed reliance on reference entry No.3 in therepresentation dated 23-05-2005 allegedly made by the petitioners through theirG.P.A. holder to submit that the then Tahasildar, Hyderabad West issued a patta infavour of the petitioner. The same cannot be taken as a valid proof. It is arepresentation made by the petitioners through the G.P.A. Further, even according tothe affidavit filed in support of writ petition by the G.P.A. holder, first petitioner wasgiven assignment in the year 1949; whereas in the representation dated 23-05-2005made to the first respondent, it is alleged that ‘D’ form patta was assigned on 26-04-1951. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate their right, which can be enforcedin these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, theyare not entitled to the relief as prayed for.

The writ petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed. No costs.

28-12-2005pvks/*

____________

V.V.S. RAO, J