ORDER :

This writ petition is filed for the following relief :

‘…to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the proceedings for cancellation of pattadar pass Books issued vide patta No.307 issued in favour of respondent No.11 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.10.39 cents in Sy.No.303/1 and patta No.309 issued in favour of respondent No.12 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2.84 cents in Sy.No. 297/2B of Dharbagudem Village and not issuing pattadar pass book and title deed book in favour of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.301/1, Ac.1.39 cents in Sy.No.303/1 and Ac.2.84 cents in Sy.No.297/2B of Dharbagudem village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, W.G. District by considering the representations of the petitioner in accordance with law is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to pattadar pass book and title deed book for the lands admeasuring Ac.2.30 cents Ac. 1.39 cents, Ac. 2.84 cents in Sy.No.301/1, 303/1 and 297/2B respectively of Dhabagudem Village, Jeelugupmilli Mandal, W.G. District in the matter…’

2. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.J.V.N. Pundareekakshudu, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel for the unofficial respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner took a lot of effort to argue the matter. A written note was also filed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner’s predecessor in title is the owner of Ac.30.45 cents of land. He alienated Ac.23.92 cents of land under various sale deeds which are mentioned at more than one place in the writ petition and that a balance of Ac.6.53 cents of land is still available and is in possession of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner as expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, basing on the record, is that he has made a request to survey the land and to fix boundaries of Ac.6.53 cents and that the same was not done. In addition, it is also submitted that the unofficial respondents have managed to get pattadar passbooks and record of rights book for the entire extent of land without taking into consideration that the sales were only for Ac.23.92 cents. The petitioner, according to the learned counsel, made representations to the respondents, but no action was taken to cancel the passbook issued to the unofficial respondents or for issuing pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioner for Ac.6.53 cents of land (2.30 cents in Sy.No.301/2, Ac.1.39 cents in Sy.No.303/1 and Ac.2.84 cents in Sy.No.297/2B).

4. Learned counsel points out that pattadar passbooks were issued to the unofficial respondents on 03.07.2009 and that the writ was filed on 22.12.2009. In addition, it is submitted that even prior to the issuance of the pattadar passbook, the petitioner’s protest has been lodged with the respondents, but they did not take any action. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the contention of the respondents that there are disputed questions of fact etc., is not correct and that as the official respondents had failed to exercise their statutory functions, this Court has the authority and the power to issue a Mandamus. It is also submitted that there is no dispute per se about the title or the flow of the title. Relying upon R.S. Murthy and another v. Joint Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada and others, 2001 (4) ALT 337, it is argued that a direction can be given to the respondents to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. He also relies upon the case of Polavarapu Veera Raghava Sarma and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by District Collector, Guntur and others, 2014 (1) ALT 452, where a Mandamus was issued to respondent No.4 to issue pattadar passbook. He also relies upon copies of 10 (1) adangal and other documen