WP/7218/1996 of Harijana Kuntanna Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer on 26 December 2005

Conclusion

ORDER:

The prayer in the writ petition is

“To issue a writ, order or direction, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamusdirecting the 1[st] respondent to dispose of the representations of the petitioners byconducting enquiry under Act 9 of 1977 and transfer the pattas in respect of landsadmeasuring Ac.10.00 in S.No.348/2, Ipperu village, Kudair Mandal, AnantapurDistrict in favour of petitioners and pass such other order or orders in the interest ofjustice”.

2. The case of the petitioners, as disclosed from the averments in the affidavit filed insupport of this petition, in brief, is that their father was assigned Ac.10.00 cents of land in S.No.348/2 of Ipperu village by the Tahsildar, Anantapur vide hisproceedings DAR/Disc/2628 dated 15-04-1952 and eversince then their father andafter him they have been in enjoyment of the said land and about 4 years prior to thefiling of this petition when second respondent, who is a rich landlord, tried tointerfere with their possession over that land stating that he purchased the said landfrom their father, they prevented him from interfering with their possession, but from afew months prior to the filing of this writ petition, respondents 3 and 4 claiming thatthey have purchased the said land from the second respondent are trying to interferewith their possession over the said land and so they made a request to the MandalRevenue Officer (1[st] respondent) to mutate their name in the revenue records and transfer the pattasin their name, but he at the instance of respondents 2 and 3, is not taking any actionon their petition and hence this petition.

First respondent did not file a counter affidavit.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the firstrespondent is not passing any orders on the representation made by the petitioners,a direction may be given to the first respondent to make an enquiry and passappropriate orders.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader sought time to verify from the MandalRevenue Officer, if any representation is made by the petitioners.

4. I find no grounds to grant any time to the Assistant Government Pleader becausethis petition is filed about 10 years back and till now first respondent did not chooseto file his counter affidavit.

5. Petitioners did not file copies of the representations said to have been made bythem to the first respondent. Question of conducting an enquiry, under A.P. Act 9 of1977, for mutating the names of the petitioners in the revenue records does notarise, because there is no such provision in A.P. Act 9 of 1977. Enquirycontemplated under the said Act relates to alienation of a land assigned to alandless poor person with a condition prohibiting alienation. Enquiry relating toacquisition of a right in a land by way of succession would be under the provisionsof the A.P. Rights in land and pattadar Pass book Act, 1971 (A.P. Act 26 of 1971).Affidavit filed in support of this petition is mute about the petitioners filing an

6. The main grievance of the petitioners is about respondents 2 to 4 interfering withtheir possession. So their remedy is to file a suit in a civil court for appropriate reliefagainst them.

7. Since no enquiry relating to acquisition of a right through succession can be madeunder A.P. Act 9 of 1977 petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this petition. Ifpetitioners were to file an application for mutation of their names as per A.P. Act 26of 1971 before the first respondent, he, after making such enquiry as he deems fit asper the provisions of the said Act can pass appropriate orders.

8. Hence petition is dismissed. No costs.

Dated: 26-12-2005

rns

_____________________

C.Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.