V. CHALLAPA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

(2.) It is the case of petitioner that petitioner's grandfather along with his brother filed Claim Petition for grant of Ryotwari Joint Patta under Sec. 11(a) of Estate Abolition Act, 1948, before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor. As per the rules, the Assistant Settlement Officer has issued notices to the concerned, conducted enquiry, passed orders on 18/11/1966 vide proceedings in S.R.No.493/11(a)/64/PN/CCR by allowing the petition and granted joint Ryotwari Patta in favour of petitioner's grandfather and his brother namely Gujjireddy @ Munuswami Reddy. In the said orders, it was categorically stated that petitioner's grandfather along with his brother are enjoying the land for the past 35 years by cultivating and raising dry crops. By virtue of said orders, petitioner's grandfather and his brother were in possession and enjoyment of the subject property, they were issued Pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour. Said Gujjireddy @ Munuswami, who is brother of petitioner's grandfather was unmarried. Petitioner's grandfather and his brother Gujjireddy expired, thereupon, the petitioner's father namely V.Venkateswara Reddy succeeded the entire estate. Petitioner's father also died in the year 1995. At the time of demise of his father, the petitioner was an young boy, he was not aware of the land details and the documents pertaining to said land and he could not secure the documents. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for mutation of his name in respect of subject property in the revenue records and also made several representations to the revenue authorities. In pursuance of orders passed by this Court, 4th respondent issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to submit relevant documents. All of sudden, 4th respondent issued an endorsement, dtd. 17/5/2021 vide D.Dis.A/368/2020 refusing the claim of petitioner for mutating his name in revenue records for various extents of land in Sy.No.91/4 of Damineedu Village of Tirupati Rural Mandal. Said endorsement is now challenged on various grounds and one such ground is that non-compliance of proviso to Sec. 5(1) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. As the respondents did not comply proviso to Sec. 5(1) of the Act, the endorsement is liable to be set aside and requested to issue direction to the respondents as claimed in the writ petition.

(3.) During hearing, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, while drawing the attention of this Court to the pendency of other writ petition in W.P.No.7980 of 2020 before this Court, but he has distinguished the facts of above case and the facts of the present case. Such disputed fact in the present writ petition is irrelevant to give intimation under Sec.