ORDER :

Challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, dated 15.11.2017, this Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner.

2. This Court has heard Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 5, the learned standing counsel for the 6th respondent and Smt. S. Pranathi, learned counsel for unofficial respondents. Extensive arguments were advanced by all the learned counsel in this matter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of land which he has purchased vide Document No.1278 of 2010, dated 22.03.2010 from his vendor in a layout. It is submitted that the land was initially “agricultural” land which was converted into non-agriculture land on 23.01.2010. Thereafter, the land was converted into a layout on 08.02.2010 and an approved layout plan was given on 26.03.2010. Some part of the land was also mortgaged to the 6th respondent as a part of the approval of layout and later the mortgage was redeemed on 26.03.2010. It is submitted that the entire sequence of proceedings from conversion of the agriculture land into non-agriculture land, approval of layout etc., were ignored by the 3rd respondent in passing the impugned order, dated 15.11.2017 directing the 5th respondent to cancel the “pattadar passbook” issued in favour of petitioner’s vendor holding that the 7th respondent is entitled to the property in Sy.No.21/2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) is only applicable to the agricultural land and will not apply to the non-agriculture land. He points out that the definition of land under Section 2(4) of the Act 1971 means land which is used or is capable of being used for purposes of agriculture, but it is not including land which is used for non-agricultural purposes. It is his contention that as the land was converted into non-agricultural land in 2010 and the layout was approved, passing of the impugned order dated 15.11.2017 is not at all correct. He points out that the impugned order dt.15.11.2017 was passed against the revision order dated 14.03.2011, filed by the 7th respondent. Even by that date he points out that the land is not agricultural land. Relying on the unofficial respondent’s title learned counsel points out that she claims to acquire the title through the document dated 07.12.2006 (Document No.6597 of 2006) and her vendor had acquired title through document No.393 of 1972. This sale deed dated 07.12.2006 purportedly conveys the land in Sy.No.21/2 and 21/3. Relying on an extract of the sale deed No.393/1972 learned counsel points out that it relates to the land in Sy.No.15/5 and not to Sy.No.21/2 or 21/3. Therefore, he submits the unofficial respondents have no valid title at all to the property.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing counsel for the TUDA, argue essentially justifying the orders that were passed and do not really raise other issues. Lengthy arguments were, however, advanced on behalf of Smt. S. Pranathi, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent. One prime argument that is advanced is that the 7th respondent had died long prior to filing of the Writ Petition itself and that the Writ filed against the 7th respondent is void. It is argued that the writ petitioner is fully aware of the death of the 7th respondent and yet he filed this Writ. It is also pointed out by relying upon para-4 of the counter affidavit of the 8th respondent and tabular statement contained therein that the petitioner has suppressed a number of facts while filing the writ and that a person who comes to the Writ Court must make a free and frank disclosure of all the facts. It is contended that as there is clear suppression of facts, the Writ should be dismissed in limine. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in K. Jayaram an