GOPINATH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The woes of the petitioner, an Ex-Serviceman (retired as Leading Seaman (CD-3) in Indian Navy) appeared to have started with his securing an assignment in respect of Ac.1.73 cents of dry land in Survey No.143/4 of Paradesipalem, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal in the year 1989.

(2.) The petitioner approached respondent No.3 time and again for mutation of his name in the record of rights. As his request was not heeded to by the subordinate officials, he has approached respondent No.1 who vide his order, dated 03.05.2005, directed respondent No.3 to take necessary steps on the petitioner's request. As there was no response to the petitioner's request even thereafter, he has filed W.P.No.24217 of 2006. The writ petition was initially dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order, dated 29.11.2006.

(3.) In the said writ petition, respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the official respondents, wherein it was inter alia stated that Paradesipalem village was an estate village in Vizianagaram Jamin Estate and that the same was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948, and that following the survey operations, the extent of Ac.1.70 cents in Survey No.143/4 is classified as assessed waste (gayalu) in the settlement record. It was further averred that in the permanent settlement records and 10(1) Adangal, the petitioner's name does not find a place as pattadar, but his name was entered in Village Account No.3 as pattadar and enjoyer in Column Nos.12 and 13. It was also averred that DR File No.24/1989, under which the petitioner claims assignment is not available and therefore, the genuineness of the patta claimed by the petitioner cannot be accepted for the present. The counter affidavit further stated that the photo copy of the purported patta filed by the petitioner disclosed that the same was issued and signed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, by name, Sri D.J.Prakasam who has since retired from service and that on verification of the signature of the Mandal Revenue Officer on the copy of the DKT patta, it was found that the same tallied with that of the signatures in the revenue records and that due to non-availability of the original file, no final decision is taken.