HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1158 of 2014 % 22.01.2014 Between:
# Vundavalli Veera Raghavamma, W/o Ramakrishna and two others.
. Petitioners And:
$ The Government of A.P., reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and three others.
. Respondents < Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri T.C.Krishnan ^ Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue ? Cases Referred:
1. 2001(3) ALD 600
2. 2013(1) ALT 774
3. 2011(1) ALT 474
4. 2011(2) ALT 2 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1158 of 2014 Date:22.01.2014 Between:
Vundavalli Veera Raghavamma, W/o Ramakrishna and two others.
. Petitioners And:
The Government of A.P., reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and three others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri T.C.Krishnan Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside endorsements in Rc.C.Nos.4263/2013, 4264/2013 and 4265/2013, dated 31.12.2013, of respondent No.3, whereby he has declined to grant permission to the petitioners for conversion of their various extents of agricultural lands in Survey Nos.363, 370, 376, and 377 of Jammalapalem Village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District (for short ‘the subject land’) for non- agricultural purpose.
I have heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area).
A perusal of the impugned endorsements show that the only ground on which respondent No.3 has refused the petitioners’ application for conversion was that the Re- Survey and Re-settlement Register (RSR) contains dot marks. The petitioners have filed copies of the sale deeds, dated 02.10.1915, 16.08.1969, 29.06.1969 and 22.06.2006 pertaining to the subject land. Apart from the same, the petitioners have filed copies of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in their favour by the competent authority. These documents would clinchingly establish that the subject land is treated as private land for times innumerable.
The law is fairly well settled that mere dots in the RSR would not constitute evidence of title (See Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited Vs. Collector,
[1] [2]
Hyd , Raavi Satish Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ,
[3]
Shaik Ali Vs. District Collector, Chittoor and Madiga Papanna Vs. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and
[4]
others ).
In view of the settled legal position referred to above, the ground on which respondent No.3 has rejected permission to the petitioners for conversion is wholly unsustainable and the impugned endorsements are, accordingly, set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the petitioners’ application afresh without reference to the dots in the RSR and based on the documents filed by the petitioners showing their ownership and title. He shall communicate the decision taken afresh to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.1326 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.
22ndJanuary, 2014 Note:
LR copies to be marked. B/o
DR
[1] 2001(3) ALD 600
[2] 2013(1) ALT 774
[3] 2011(1) ALT 474
[4] 2011(2) ALT 2
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY