Property claims require substantiation by appropriate documentation; unregistered wills may not suffice without evidence of possession.

The Court made the following order:

T.C.D.SEKHAR, J.

The petitioner claims that, he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Block II & III of Zamendari Estate existed in Gutala Village, Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari. It is further case of the petitioner that, his grandmother late Smt. Manyam Meenakshamma filed a writ petition vide WP No.88 of 1951 claiming ownership as against land in Block I of the said village. Upon contest, the said writ petition was dismissed and the same was assailed unsuccessfully by her in writ appeal vide WA No.53 of 1955.

2. It is further case of the petitioner that, when the respondents tried to interfere with the possession of his grandmother over an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Block II & III of the said village, she filed suit in OS No.298 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, seeking permanent injunction against the respondents herein. After hearing the parties, the trial court by judgment and decree dated 12.03.2003, decreed the said suit and it attained finality. It is further case of the petitioner that, during the lifetime of his grandmother late m Smt. Manyam Meenakshamma, executed a registered will dated 19.05.1972 in favour of the petitioner’s father, whereby and whereunder bequeathed an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Block II & III of the said village in his favour. Later, the petitioner’s ^father executed a registered will dated 25.03.2011, bequeathing all the properties held by him in favour of the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that, taking advantage of his absence in the village, the respondents tried to take possession of the subject land so as to distribute house site pattas to the eligible beneficiaries under Navaratnalu Pedalandariki lllu Scheme. It is specific case of the petitioner that, the respondents without initiating proceedings under Act 30 of 2013 and without payment of compensation, tried to interfere with his possession. Questioning the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.

3. On the other hand, the 4th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that, except filing unregistered will dated 25.03.2011, the petitioner did not file any other documents in support of his claim. It is further stated that, the subject land is recorded as village site in the revenue records and out of total extent of Ac.0.85 cents claimed by the petitioner, the respondents have issued house site pattas in an extent of Ac.0.44 cents to 22 beneficiaries admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents each and the remaining extent of Ac.0.41 cents are concerned, it is peg marked and the same is ready for distribution of house site pattas to the weaker section. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that, neither the name of late Sri Raja Manyam Kanakayya Zamindar i.e., the father of the petitioner, nor the petitioner’s name was mutated in the revenue records. With the above pleadings, the 4th respondent states that, the question of initiating land acquisition proceedings does not arise, inasmuch as the petitioner did not file any documents in support of his claim and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

5. Perused the material available on record. .

6. The claim of the petitioner over the land in dispute is based on unregistered will deed dated 25.03.2011, said to have been executed by his father. Though it is stated by the petitioner that his name is mutated in revenue records, nothing is placed on record to show that his name is actually mutated. The learned counsel for the pet