BOLLINENI PEDAYOGAIAH Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR OFFICER ONGOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the second respondent in R.P.32/90(A2), dated 25.3.1991, and consequential action of the Respondents 3 and 4, in directing the petitioners not to enter into the lands situated in Sy.Nos.96 and 171 of Toorpuchoutupalem admeasuring Ac.1.52 cents and Ac.12.73 cents respectively, as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore, in his proceedings Sr.No.505/ll/A/ 63, dated 27.2.1971, granted pattas in favour of the father of the 1st petitioner and the Petitioners 2 and 3 to an extent of Ac.12.73 cents in Sy.No.171 of Toorpuchoutupalem Village under Section 11 (a) of the Estate Abolition Act. It is also their case that Petitioners 4, 5 and 6 have purchased Ac.3-00 cents and Ac. 1-00 cents respectively from the original grantees through a registered sale deed, dated 6.7.1987 and since then they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Further, as the then Tahsildar, Darsi, had reported some irregularities in granting the pattas, the Director of Settlements, Hyderabad, conducted suo-motu enquiry and passed the impugned order remanding the case to the Settlement Officer and Joint Collector, Prakasam District, with a direction to hold 'De novo' enquiry and for disposal according to law. While so, the Revenue Inspector, Darsi, issued a notice, dated 14-9-1994, asking the petitioners to attend for an enquiry to establish their rights and possession over the lands in question. Thereupon, the petitioners attended before him and brought all the facts to his notice, but the Revenue Inspector, Darsi, caused tomtom in the village and then directed the petitioners not to enter into the said land. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) The 3rd respondent filed the counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition.