The woes of the petitioner, an Ex-Serviceman (retired as Leading Seaman (CD-3) in Indian Navy) appeared to have started with his securing an assignment in respect of Ac.1.73 cents of dry land in Survey No. 143/4 of Paradesipalem, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal in the year 1989.

2. The petitioner approached respondent No. 3 time and again for mutation of his name in the record of rights. As his request was not heeded to by the subordinate officials, he has approached respondent No.1 who vide his order, dated 3.5.2005, directed respondent No.3 to take necessary steps on the petitioner's request. As there was no response to the petitioner's request even thereafter, he has filed WP No. 24217 of 2006. The writ petition was initially dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order, dated 29.11.2006. WA No. 11 of 2007 filed against the said order was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 4.1.2007, and the case was remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal.

3. In the said writ petition, respondent No. 3 filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the official respondents, wherein it was inter alia stated that Paradesipalem Village was an estate village in Vizianagaram Jamin Estate and that the same was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948, and that following the survey operations, the extent of Ac.1.70 cents in Survey No. 143/4 is classified as assessed waste (gayalu) in the settlement record. It was further averred that in the permanent settlement records and 10(1) Adangal, the petitioner's name does not find a place as pattadar, but his name was entered in Village Account No. 3 as pattadar and enjoyer in Column Nos. 12 and 13. It was also averred that DR File No. 24/1989, under which the petitioner claims assignment is not available and therefore, the genuineness of the patta claimed by the petitioner cannot be accepted for the present. The counter-affidavit further stated that the photo copy of the purported patta filed by the petitioner disclosed that the same was issued and signed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, by name, Sri D.J. Prakasam who has since retired from service and that on verification of the signature of the Mandal Revenue Officer on the copy of the DKT patta, it was found that the same tallied with that of the signatures in the revenue records and that due to non-availability of the original file, no final decision is taken.

4. In the light of the above averments in the counter-affidavit, by order, dated 21.10.2008, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to produce the original patta/assignment before respondent No. 3 to enable him to compare the signature of the then Mandal Revenue Officer thereon with that of his signatures found in the other revenue records and thereupon, respondent No. 3 shall undertake the said exercise and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. The learned Judge further directed that if after comparison of the signatures, respondent No. 3 comes to the conclusion that the signature of the then Mandal Revenue Officer on the assignment proceedings is genuine, he shall take appropriate steps to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the record of rights in respect of the land in question.

5. Even after disposal of the WP No. 24217/2006, the petitioner's agony continued. He went on making representations after representations to all the revenue officials for redressal of his grievance. Copies of those representations have been filed and marked as Exs.P14 to P36. Obviously after being convinced that he will not receive justice from the respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

6. After disposal of the above mentioned writ petition, respondent No. 3 instead of confining his exercise to the comparison of the signatures as directed by this Court, embarked upon a roving enquiry. He has assigned to the Mandal Revenue Inspector the task of exami