N.Venkata Narayana vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh,
2023 Latest Caselaw 5437 AP

        HE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

                   WRIT PETITION No.34777 OF 2012

JUDGMENT:-

1.    Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 3rd

petitioner has died and seeks adjournment.

2.    The writ petition is of the year 2012 and is an old one.

3.    On 04.11.2023, the following order was passed:

              "The    matter   is   posted   for   hearing,   after
      21.02.2018, for the first time.
              2.     Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
      one last adjournment to argue the matter.
              3.     Post on 10.11.2023.
              4.     On the next date, since the matter
      pertains to the year 2012, no further adjournment
      will be granted."


4.    Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioner No.2 on record is the legal representative/son of the

deceased petitioner No.3. In view of the said submission, as also

considering    the    order    dated   04.11.2023,      the   prayer   for

adjournment is rejected.       Office shall make entry of (died and

represented by petitioner No.2, against the name of 3rd petitioner.

5.    Heard Sri K.R. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri S. Krishna Vamsi, learned counsel representing
                                        2


the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the merits of the

writ petition and perused the material on record.

6.    This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been filed for the following reliefs:

     ....to issue Writ or Direction especially one in the nature of
     WRIT    OF   MANDAMUS      with   a   direction   to   the   official
     responants 1 to 3 to hand over the petitioners lands
     admeasuring an extent of Ac.4.85 cents in Sy.No.661/4 with
     regard to the let petitioner and admeasuring an extent of
     Ac.4.90 cents in Sy.No.661/5 with regard to the 2nd petitioner
     situated at Vempalle village and mandal Kadapa District
     illegally occupied by the unofficial respondents i.e 4 and 5 and

for such other reliefs."

7. The petitioners sought a direction to the official respondents

1 to 3 to hand over the land to the extent as mentioned in the

prayer clause on the ground that the petitioners were granted

pattas and pattadar pass books for the land to an extent of Ac.4.85

cents situated in Sy.No.661/4 to the 1st petitioner and to an extent

of Ac.4.90 cents in sy.No.661/5 to the 2nd petitioner, and the 3rd

respondent-Tahsildar issued pattadar pass books on 26.07.2004

in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners were dispossessed by the unofficial respondents 4 to 6

and they also got entered their names in pattadar passbooks over

the petitioners' patta lands. The petitioners filed applications for

necessary action but the official respondents did not take any

steps.

9. In the counter affidavit the 3rd respondent, in para No.3, has

deposed that as per the records available, the Government had not

issued any D.K.T pattas to the petitioners for the land

admeasuring an extent Ac.4.85 cents in sy.No.661/4 with regard

to the 1st petitioner and an extent of Ac.4.90 cents in Sy.No.661/5

with regard to 2nd petitioner in Vempalli Village and the question

of issue of pattadar pass books and title deeds did not arise.

10. To the said counter affidavit, there is no reply affidavit filed

by the petitioners.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that D.K.T patta

was not granted and the petitioners were issued only pattadar pass

books under landless poor category. There appears to be dispute

with regard to grant and issue of pattadar pass books and title

deeds in favour of the petitioners. Undisputedly, D.K.T paata was

not granted to the petitioners. The writ petition involves disputed

questions of fact. For determination of such questions, the writ

proceeding is not the appropriate remedy. The petitioners

admittedly are out of possession and as per their own case,

dispossession is by the unofficial respondents 4 to 6. Their

application for interim relief was also rejected by this Court on

09.11.2012.

12. In view of the above, the prayer as in the writ petition cannot

be granted in the present proceedings.

13. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, however, leaving it

open to the petitioners to avail such other appropriate remedy as

may be available to them under law. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in

consequence.

__________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date:10.11.2023 Gk4445

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

WRIT PETITION No.34777 OF 2012

Date:10.11.2023

Gk