IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.22439 of 2014 BETWEEN A. Narsimhulu and others.
AND ... PETITIONERS Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. N. MUKUND REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioners claim that they are holding DKT pattas i.e.
first petitioner was issued patta bearing DKT.No.408/1408 in Sy.No.924/3 for an extent of Ac.1.50 cents; second petitioner was issued patta bearing DKT.No.409/1408 in Sy.No.924/3 for an extent of Ac.1.50 cents; third petitioner was issued patta bearing DKT.No.530/1408 in Sy.No.924/2-A for an extent of Ac.0.50 cents and fourth petitioner was issued patta bearing DKT.No.410/1408 in Sy.No.924/2 for an extent of Ac.1.50 cents of Peddapalli village, Rajampet Division, Sidhout Mandal, YSR District, on 01.12.1998.
2. Petitioners further claim that the said pattas were granted in 1998 and since then they are in possession and they have never mortgaged the property. Petitioners state that an Advocate gave a legal notice dated 21.03.2014 to the Tahsildar/fourth respondent regarding DKT pattas in the above survey numbers and while replying thereto under impugned proceedings Ref.No.B/44/2014 dated 28.06.2014, the fourth respondent reportedly informed that all the four DKT pattas, issued to the petitioners, referred to are not genuine. Petitioners have filed a copy of the said reply of the fourth respondent as impugned proceedings and questioned the same.
3. The impugned proceedings is, admittedly, a reply sent by the fourth respondent in response to a legal notice sent by a counsel and the said counsel was representing somebody else other than the petitioners. The said reply, issued by the fourth respondent, is neither addressed to nor is at the instance of the petitioners. The petitioners claim that since they have never been issued any notice or any enquiry is held, their pattas cannot be declared as bogus in some collateral proceedings and the said collateral proceedings is sought to be questioned in the present writ petition.
4. I am unable to see as to how the petitioners are bound by the said proceedings issued by the fourth respondent in reply to a legal notice. The information conveyed in the said reply may or may not be correct but, in any case, it does not bind the petitioners, as they were never notified and heard on any enquiry with respect to their DKT pattas. I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the said ground with reference to the proceedings which is unrelated and unconnected to the petitioners.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 7, 2014 DSK