IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing legal right and title to the lands in question and highlights the significance of pleadings in a writ petition. It also emphasizes the need for evidence to substantiate claims and notes that disputed questions of fact require evidence and should be adjudicated in a competent civil court.

COMMON ORDER

Subba Reddy Satti, J. - Since the issue involved in both the petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. These writ petitions are filed to declare the action of the authority in mutating the names of respondent Nos.6 to 14 in the place of petitioners, in respect of survey Nos.1 to 93, Janakirampuram Agraharam village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds to respondent Nos.6 to 14 on public holidays on 14.08.2021 and 15.08.2021, after transfer and relieving of respondent No.1 on 14.08.2021, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently cancel pattadar passbook and other record of rights and to declare the petitioners are absolute owners, possessors and enjoyers of the subject land etc.

3. Petitioners 137 in number filed the above writ petitions.

In the affidavit it was contended, inter alia, that petitioners and their legal heirs are permanent residents and farmers of Janakirampuram Agraharam, Rolugnta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioners are small farmers and have been in possession and enjoyment of bits of agricultural lands. Petitioners' ancestors acquired the land around 400 years ago. The lands have been used to nurture paddy, sugarcane, cashew, mango, coconut etc. The total extent of land is 462.80 cents. When some portion of land in survey Nos.73/25, 72 and 68 was acquired for house sites, compensation was provided to the landowners. Most of the petitioners were provided 10(1) adangal by the Tahsildar, Rolugunta.

b) The Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, long ago, vide its order, dated 14.10.1950 in S.R.No.35/50, Narsipatnam, declared that village called as Janakirampuram Agraharam, also known as Ramachandrapuram Agraharam is not an Inam land and hence, neither unofficial respondents and their forefathers nor nunna families were ever Inamdars of Janakirampuram Agraharam. Unofficial respondents obtained orders without impleading the petitioners, who are in possession and enjoyment of the lands, as parties and hence, said orders do not bind the petitioners. Respondent No.3-RDO, in proceedings, dated 24.12.2021, referred to the order dated 21.06.1979 passed in I.A.No.1 of 1979, by the Sub Collector, Narsipatnam, as if lands were allotted to unofficial respondents. In fact, respondent No.3 stated that original order in I.A.No.1 of 1979 is not found in his records. The said order is a result of collusive transaction between one Nunna Krishnaiah and Rongali Jaggu Naidu. Petitioners were neither arrayed as parties nor heard in I.A.No.1 of 1979. The then Tahsildar, who is respondent No.1 herein, despite issuance of transfer and relieving orders, issued pattadar passbooks to unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 14 on public holidays i.e. on 14.08.2021 and 15.08.2021. No enquiry was conducted under Rule 26(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'). Neither Nunna families and Vegesina families nor anybody have saleable or vested rights to alienate the lands to sell the lands in favour of unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 14. Unofficial respondents/their forefathers are running the surreptitious litigation by claiming 1/3rd of the alleged inaam land i.e. Ac.124.8675 cents. Petitioners issued legal notice dated 25.01.2022 and submitted detailed representation dated 28.01.2022 to the official respondents. However, no action has been taken. Hence, the writ petitions.

4. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit. It was contended, inter alia, that in the year 1950, Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, enquired the tenure of lands in Janakirampuram Agraharam, while it was erstwhile Narsipatnam Taluk of Visakhapatnam District and passed order dated 14.10.1950 in R.N.35/50, wherein it was noted that as per Inam account of Fasili 1313, the names of Gopalabatla Seethanna and Boddapati Sundraappa were recorded as enjoyers, in register maintained under Regulation XXXI of 1802 Act; that at the time of the Inam Se