STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. J DILIP REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred by the State Government and its authorities assailing the validity of the order of the learned single Judge dated 14-6-2000 made in WP No. 2104 of 1999. The respondents herein are the writ petitioners. They filed the above writ petition for a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to send the proposals for permission for correction of survey error in respect of Sr.No. 696 of Janwada village and to accord permission as per the orders of the District Revenue Officer dated 11-9-1998 and to correct the survey error and other required corrections in the revenue records.

(2.) Though the prayer was couched in the above terms, what actually the writ petitioners have sought is the enforcement of the order made by the District Revenue Officer dated 11-9-1998 bearing No. G8/3225/94. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by an order dated 14-6-2000 with the following direction-

(3.) The learned Government Pleader for Revenue assailing the order of the learned single Judge would contend that the learned single Judge ought not to have directed the appellants 4 and 5 to send the proposals to appellants 1 and 2 for granting permission to correct the survey errors in respect of Sy.No. 696 of Janwada village as found by the District Revenue Officer because, according to the learned Government Pleader, the said order made by the District Revenue Officer is one without jurisdiction. Elaborating the contention, the learned Government Pleader would contend that under Section 87 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F (for short 'the Act'), the prescribed authority can entertain the application from the aggrieved parties only within two years after the introduction of the settlement for the correction of any wrong entry of a pattadar's name in the register referred to in the Act and in the instant case, the respondent-applicants made the applications after a long lapse of 50 years. The learned Government Pleader would also alternatively contend that even assuming that the order of the District Revenue Officer dated 11-9-1998 is the one validly made under Section 87 of the Act, there was no justification for the learned single Judge to direct the appellant authorities to take action for fixation of boundaries of the lands which are overlapping in both the District of Ranga Reddy and Medak particularly when that was not the request of the writ petitioners. Sri Hanumantha Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioners would, on the other hand, support the order of the learned single Judge and maintain that the order of the learned single Judge would effectuate the findings recorded and the direction issued by the District Revenue Officer.