Jurisdictional review mandates consideration of existing records and due process in decisions affecting land ownership, emphasizing established possession over mere administrative reports.

JUDGMENT :

K.SARATH

This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by the respondent No.2 in Rc.No.E/231/2016 (RC.No.D1/2254/2015) dated 24.10.2017 in setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal No.A/200/2013 dated 25.01.2014 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Smt R. Madhavilata, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 7.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-10 gts in Sy.No.84/38 situated at Vallemkunta Village Shivar, Malhar Rao Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District, was assigned to the petitioner through final patta certificate No.A3/509/1980 date -11-1980 and since then, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of same by cultivating it. When the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were interfered with his possession and enjoyment, the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.49 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, for perpetual injunction and the same was decreed ex parte on 07.09.2010. He submits that the respondent No.4 has issued 1-B proceedings and also entered his name in the revenue records from the year, 1980 and the same was continued till date and his name was shown in the pattadar and possessor column in the pahanies of the year 1980-81 and 2014-15.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent Nos.5 to 7 by playing fraud got entered the name of the respondent No.7 in the pahanies of the year, 2014-15 as if he is the pattadar of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No.84/66 and illegally interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the subject land. The petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.3 in File No.A/200/2013 and the same was allowed on 25.01.2014 and cancelled the pattadar passbooks and patta certificate issued in favour of the respondent No.7. Against the said order, the respondent Nos.5 to 7 have preferred a revision before the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2, without considering the material on record and purport of the order passed by the respondent No.3, allowed the revision in Rc.No.E/231/2016 (RC No.D1/2254/2015) dated 24.10.2017 by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.3 and cancelled the patta issued in favour of the petitioner for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-10 gts in Sy.No.84/38 situated at Vallamkunta Village and directed the respondent No.4 to seize the pattadar passbook and title deed from the petitioner and delete his name in the revenue records, which is illegal and arbitrary and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 7 based on the counter submits that the petitioner has failed to produce the original patta of assignment before the respondent No.2 and without any right and title, mere entries in the revenue records does not confer any right to the petitioner. As per the report dated 29.06.2017 submitted by the Inspector of Survey and Land Records, the respondent No.7 is in possession of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.30 gts in Sy.No.84/66 and as per the survey and panchanama, the petitioner is not in possession of the property and there is no need to interfere with the order of the respondent No.2. She further submits that in the impugned order, the respondent No.2 observed that the land in Sy.No.84 is Government land as per the Sethwar and it was assigned long back to the landless poor and as per the report of the Tahsildar dated 27.02.2017, there is no record in which year the alleged assignment was made in favour o