JUDGMENT :

Surepalli Nanda, J.

Heard K.V. Rajasree, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8, Sri R. Balasubrahmanyam, learned counsel in the implead petition, and learned Government Pleader for Assignment.

2. The present writ petition has been filed in the form of Public Interest Litigation seeking the following relief.

“to direct respondents 1 and 2 to cause an enquiry into the transfer of land in Survey No.1019, 1077 and 1078 of Bhongir Village (Town), Yadadri-Bhuvangir District (erstwhile Nalgonda District) admeasuring Ac.98.08 gts in the name of the 5th respondent and take over the said land into the possession of the Government.”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows :

(a) The land admeasuring Ac. 98-08 Gts in Sy. Nos. 1019, 1077 &1078 (herein referred to a Schedule Land) of Bhongir Village was standing in the name of one Hazi Ghulam Mohmmed (herein reffered to as Hazi) and he does not have any legal heirs or relatives. As a result, there were no claimants to the said property. Hazi has left the country during the time of partition, however, his name continued to appear in the revenue records as pattadar up to the year 2000.

(b) During the year 2000-01, the name of 5th Respondent was shown as the pattadar on the basis of an unregistered sale deed stating that the schedule property has been purchased from the sons of late Hazi. On the other hand, when there are no legal heirs of late Hazi, it is not known how his sons are shown as vendors.

(c) However, the 5th Respondent’s statement was recorded neither they were examined by the revenue authorities nor any legal heir certificate was produced before the authorities. There was no payment towards any regularization fees in respect of Sada Bainama. But, in collusion with the 5th Respondent, the 3rd and 4th Respondents have raised proceedings favouring private persons.

(d) The then 3rd Respondent vide his Proc.No.C/73073/2005 dated 16.02.2006 has clearly stated that the change of patta and transfer of ownership (mutation) is a clear action of manipulation and malpractice. The 3rd respondent also requested to delete the name of the 5th Respondent as pattadar for the year 2000-2001 and to restore the names as they existed in the year 1999-2000.

(e) Aggrieved by the same, the 5th Respondent preferred appeal before the 3rd Respondent by showing some unofficial respondents. The 3rd Respondent has passed the order in Case No.D/1429/2006 dated 11.06.2007 holding that the appellants/unofficial respondents have purchased the Schedule land by way of sada bainama dated 08.05.1999. However, the unofficial respondents did not produce either registered Sale Deed or ordinary Sale Deed.

(f) Subsequently, the unofficial respondents approached the 2nd Respondent and withdrew the Revision Petition in the year 2013 apparently compromising the matter while the same was pending.

(g) In the year 2013, the 4th Respondent has issued mutation orders favouring the 5th Respondent vide proceeding No. A/3488/2013 dated 13.08.2013. Thereafter, on 25.05.2014, on the request of the 5th Respondent, the 4th Respondent in above mentioned proceedings mutated the land in favour of the 5th Respondent’s daughters to an extent of Ac.59.34 Gts of land in Sy.No. 1019, which is not possible.

(h) On 15.03.2021, the petitioner has also made a complaint to the 2nd respondent brining to her notice that the valuable unclaimed land nearly Ac.100 is being given away to the unofficial respondents. Also, there was collusion between the 3rd, 4th and the 5threspondents.

(i) Hence, this writ petition is filed.

4. The contents of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent is as follows :

(a) As per the entries recorded in the Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 of Bhongir Village the Schedule land is recorded as pattadar and occupant. Further as verified from subsequent pahanies for the year 1980-81, the name of Garlapati Jaggaiah is