ENTALA BHUPAL Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly prayed for issuance of order, direction or writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of District Revenue Officer, Warangal, Warangal District, 1st respondent issued in Rc. No. E3/ H5/180/2001, dated 3-9-2002 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of a. P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

(2.) THE impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, District Revenue officer, Warangal, Warangal District is challenged on various grounds. Before I consider the question as to the validity of the impugned order, it may be relevant to notice a few facts leading to filing of this writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioners are joint owners and possessors of land bearing survey No. 1061 admeasuring Ac. 1-37 gts. situated at Himmathnagar village, Zaffergadh Mandal of Warangal District. The petitioners claim that they purchased the land from the legal heirs of one Bommera narsaiah in 1994. The names of the petitioners after their purchase and their vendors names earlier (there) to are recorded as pattadars and possessors in all revenue records, ever since 1978. Pannala shyam Sunder Reddy-3rd respondent submitted an application before the District Revenue Officer, Warangal, 1st respondent claiming that the lands were purchased by his father from pattadar Bommera narsaiah in 1951. Therefore, he sought deletions of petitioners' names from the Occupancy Column of the pahanies and inclusion of his name for the years 1994-95, 1997-98 and 1998-99. The writ petitioners claimed that their names are recorded under the provisions of A. P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and thus the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction under Section 166-B of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli to pass orders in respect of correction of entries in the Revenue records. According to the petitioners, if the proceedings passed by the 1st respondent are allowed to stand, it would result in far reaching consequences adversely affecting their existing right and interest in respect of land. Thus, the petitioners filed this writ petition with the prayer stated supra.