KALLEM PENTA REDDY Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the (sic) dated 10.12.2011 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District whereunder a direction was issued to incorporate the name of one Yatham Pochaiah, S/o. Jangaiah in the possession column of Pahani for the year 1999-2000 against Survey No. 63 admeasuring Acs. 8.06 gts and odd at Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy. As per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner is the owner of the land in Sy. No. 63/A over an extent of Acs. 8.08 gts., of Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the same is the petitioner's ancestral property. An extent of Acs. 4.04 gts in Sy. No. 63/AA and an extent of Acs. 4.04 gts in Sy. No. 63/E was the land acquired by the petitioner by purchase vide registered sale deed dated 23.8.1999. The petitioner had filed OS No. 788 of 1999 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, East and North, Ranga Reddy District seeking a perpetual injunction against the respondents 3 to 7 in the writ petition who are the legal heirs of Yatham Pochaiah, S/o. Jangaiah and an interim injunction was granted on 20.7.1999. Another suit OS No. 1293 of 2001 was filed in respect of the properties purchased by the petitioner and initially an interim injunction was granted on 5.11.2011, but the same was vacated on 31.3.2003. However, the injunction was restored vide orders in CMA No. 91 of 2003 on 3.2.2005. As a matter of fact, suits were decreed on 30.9.2011. In the course of trial of the suits, the respondents produced the memo of Pahani for the year 1999-2000 showing the name of Yatham Pochaiah in possession column as a common evidence vide Ex. 811 in both OS Nos. 788 of 1999 and 1293 of 2001. Even as per the certified copy of Pahani dated 22.12.2011 for the year 1999-2000, petitioner's name appears as possessor over an extent of Acs. 16.16 gts in Sy. Nos. 63/A, 63/AA and 63/E. The memo was produced in OS No. 788 of 1999 and OS No. 1293 of 2001. For the first time, petitioner came to be aware of the said memo and as the same is being used as evidence in civil proceedings, petitioner is constrained to approach this Court questioning the said memo. It is stated that the Pattadar Pass Book No. 861 was issued in favour of the petitioner and a copy of the same was filed before this Court

(2.) In the writ petition the memo is assailed on the following grounds:

(3.) On 16.6.2011 a counter-affidavit sworn by Yatham Anjaiah, S/o. late Yatham Pochaiah was filed on behalf of the respondents 3 to 7. It has been stated that the petitioner has got his name incorporated in the year 1999-2000 by playing fraud under the possessor column and issuance of pattadar passbook was denied. It is further stated that late Pochaiah's name has been entered into revenue records after conducting enquiry by the Revenue Inspector and Mandal Revenue Officer has issued the impugned memo incorporating the name of his father. Writ petition is not maintainable as there is an alternative remedy of filing appeal before the appellate authority available to the petitioner. The respondents claim that they have acquired the land of Acs. 8.28 gts in Sy. No. 63/A along with the land of Srisailajm, Hanumanth Rao, S/o. Gunnaiah by way of succession and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, it is further stated that late Pochaiah got lease deed (Koulnama) from one late A. Gunnaiah over the above said land and after the death of Pochaiah himself and his brothers are in possession. In Para No. 8 of the counter, the details with respect to civil Court proceedings, proceedings before R.D.O and the respondents filing WP No. 2040 of 2011 against the proceedings dated 4.1.2011 issued by R.D.O 3rd respondent (with respect to conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land) were all mentioned. Those details are all not necessary for the purpose of deciding the issue raised in the writ petition either for the reason the various events mentioned are all subsequent to the date of impugned memo or they are unrelated to validity or otherwise of the impugned memo.