The genuineness of documents submitted by the petitioners and the need for the 5th respondent to consider the observations made by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief :

“to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly on in the nature of writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to order bearing No.F1/4548/2012, dated 09.09.2019, passed by the 5th respondent, and set aside the same, as illegal, contrary to law, unjust, against the principles of natural justice and in violation of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and also the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 consequently direct the 6th respondent to act upon the application vide Roc.F1/4548/2012 for implementation of orders of the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor issued under 15(1) of EA Act, 1948 in SR.No.432/15(1)/60/PN/KHT dated 31.08.1961 for land in old survey no.1, new survey no.1P admeasuring 600.00 acres in Ramanujapalle village of Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District and to carry out necessary mutations in the revenue records and to issue the pattadar passbooks in accordance with proceedings S.R.No.432/15(1)/60/PN/KHT, dated 31.08.1961, as confirmed by higher authorities…..”

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that a joint patta was granted in the name of grandfather of the 1st petitioner and the ancestors of the other petitioners in the Estate Dittam account vide patta No.2 and as per the said joint patta the first petitioner’s grandfather, and ancestors of other petitioners were granted joint patta vide S.R.No.432/ 15(1)/60/ PN/KHT, dated 31.08.1961 under Section 15(1) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 to an extent of Ac.600-00 cents in Old Survey No.1, R.S.No.1P of Ramanujapalle village of Srikalahasthi Mandal of Chittoor District and the petitioners are the surviving legal representatives of the pattadars of the said lands. It is the further case of the petitioners that, inspite of allotment of the land, though the petitioners made several efforts, the revenue authorities did not carry out necessary mutations and subsequent amendments in the connected revenue records and the said land is classified as ‘Adavi Poramboke’ in revenue records as if reflected in the proceedings of the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer and the proceedings though became final, remained unimplemented in the revenue records. The 1st petitioner and ancestors of other petitioners made several oral representations to the 6th respondent-Tahsildar, Srikalahasthi to issue pattadar passbooks and patta Certificates/Title deeds in their names but they went in vain and the 5th respondent-Joint Collector also had not initiated any action on the representations so submitted by the petitioners. The 1st petitioner’s grandfather and ancestors of the other petitioners have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject land even prior to the order issued by the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor as is evidenced from the deposition of the village karanam before the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor and the same is also reflected in the order issued vide SR.No.432/15(1)/60/PN/KHT, dated 31.08.1961 and the petitioners have also paid cist until abolition of land revenue for dry lands. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner’s grandfather and ancestors of other petitioners were granted Ryotwari pattas for the subject lands and they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said lands, however, their names have not been mutated in the revenue records and despite representation made to the 5th respondent on 09.04.2012 for issuance of pattadar passbooks, the authorities failed to issue the same till date. The petitioners learnt that the respondents are contemplating steps to allot the said land to third parties, while keeping the representation of the 1st petitioner pending, contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of th