WP/33356/2023 of CHILLAKURU MOHAN REDDY Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2023

Order:

The short grievance of the petitioner is non-consideration ofhis representation so made in Spandana programme on 19.06.2023for restoration of grazing lands in Survey Nos.294/2, 326 and 327 ofArlapadu village, Tellakuru Madnal, Tirupathi district, to enable thepetitioner as well as Other villagers to avail the grazinglands forfeeding their cattle.

2. Heard Sri P.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel, representing[Sri]Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the petitioner,[and][ learned]Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the petitioner,[and][ learned]Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what hasbeen statedin the affidavit contended that, the landsin SurveyNos.326 and 327 are classified as 'grazing lands' and arebeingutilized by the petitioner's ancestors for ages and now the said landsare under encroachment for which a grievance has beenraisedinSpandana programme on 19.06.2023.So far, the authorities havenot passed any orders and,in view of the same, the present WritPetition is filed and prayed to pass appropriate orders.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader forRevenue, on written instructions dated 28.12.2023,contended thatthe subject lands were already converted intoassessed waste landsandissued DKT pattas and also incorporatedtheir namesandpattadar passbooks also issued and the said assignees are enjoyingthe lands by raising crops. This was happened way back in the year1980 and on the petitioner's complaint, the authorities have alreadyissued an endorsement informing about the same.In spite of it, thepresent Writ Petitionis filed, as such there remainsnothingforadjudication and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

Conclusion

5. In response to the same, Sri P.D. Phani Kumar contendedthatthe endorsementwas already placed before this Court in the WritPetition, but no orders have been passed by the authorities exceptthe endorsement and unless orders are passed the petitioner will notbe in a position to know where he stands legally,As such merepassing of endorsement is not sufficient.

6. Perused the record.

7. Itis not in dispute that the petitioner raised a grievanceinSpandana programme on 19.06.2023 and thereby requestedtherevenue authoritiesto restore back the grazing iandswhichareSpandana programme on 19.06.2023 and thereby requestedtherevenue authoritiesto restore back the grazing iandswhichare Situated in Survey Nos.326 and 327 of Arlapadu village.The revenueauthorities, instead of |)assing a detailed speaking order, issued anendorsement dated18.08.2023andthesaidfactisalsonotindispute.A perusal of the said endorsement goes to[show][ that][ the]subject lands have been altered as "Anadheena" and DKT pattas havebeen issued to the beneficiaries and the said pattadars are cultivatingthe lands.The petitioner now, without questioning the same, hasfiled the present Writ Petition. The contention of the petitioner is thatuntil and then a reasoned order is passed duly informing[about][ the]conversion proceedings said itb have been done way back in the year1980, the petitioner cannot question the said endorsement.Until andthen the said material is given to the petitioner and the particulars ofthe conversion, the petitioner cannot question the[same.]

8. At this length of time, learned counsel for the petitioner[has]brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner[has][ asked under]Right to Information Act to furnish the particulars of the assignees,who are said to have been given pattas, for which the[authorities]havestatedthat thosqparticulars arenot available and feelingaggrieved thereby thepetitioner preferred an appealbeforetheCommissioner and the same is pending consideration.brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner[has][ asked under]Right to Information Act to furnish the particulars of the assignees,who are said to have been given pattas, for which the[authorities]havestatedthat thosqparticulars arenot available and feelingaggrieved thereby thepetitioner preferred an appealbeforetheCommissioner and the same is pending consideration.

(

4

9. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case,thepetitioner either has to question the endorsement dated 18.08.2023or await information from the appellate authority under the Right toInformation Act.This Court cannot adjudicate the grievance[of][ the]petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty tothe petitioner to question the endorsement dated 18.08.2023,[if][ he so]desires, after getting information from the appellate authority underthe Right to Information Act. There shali be no order as to costs.the petitioner to question the endorsement dated 18.08.2023,[if][ he so]desires, after getting information from the appellate authority underthe Right to Information Act. There shali be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications,if any,pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

Sd/- K SRINIVASARAJUASSISTANT REGII^RARh-f //TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,State of AndhraPradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,Guntur District

2. The District Collector, Tirupathi District, Tirupathi.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sullurupeta RevenueDivision,Sullurupeta, Tirupathi District.

4. The Tahsildar, Pellakur Mandal, Pellakur, Tirupathi District.5. One CC to Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate f[OPUC]

6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhraj Pradesh. [OUT]7. Three CD Copies.

HIGH COURT

DATED;29/12/2023

ORDERWP.No.33356 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS