ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“to issue a writ, order or direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the high handed action of the 3rd respondent in attempting to dispossess the petitioner from her assigned land and demolish the cattle shed to an extent of about Ac.0.90 cents in survey No.381 of Ravinuthala Village, Koresapadu Mandal, Prakasam District without notice and without following due process of law is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders…”

2. The case of the petitioner is that the land to an extent of Ac.0.90 cents in Sy.No.381 of Ravinuthala Village, Koresapadu Mandal, Prakasam District was assigned to the petitioner by the Tahsildar on 02.04.1996 and her name is also mutated in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in her favour. From the date of assignment, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. She erected the cattle shed with asbestos sheets and she has no other source of income from the agricultural land. While so, on 01.09.2021, the 3rd respondent along with his staff visited the petitioner’s land and directed her to vacate the land and the shed without following due process of law and such highhanded action is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent No.3 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property.

3. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that D-form patta was issued in R.C.No.4/96 dated 02.04.1996 and she obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds of the property.

4. When the matter came up for hearing, this Court issued a direction dated 13.09.2021 to produce latest Adangal copy for fasili 1430 or 1431. But today, the learned counsel represented that the name of the petitioner is not entered in the Adangal and Village Cultivation Account and therefore she could not prosecute the same.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue contended that no patta was granted and the patta produced before this Court was not granted by the Tahsildar and that the petitioner could not produce any document to establish her possession and apart from that the land was Kunta Poramboku, which is not converted into AWD for issue of pattas and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in the present petition and requested to dismiss the petition.

6. The case of the petitioner is that the Tahsildar assigned an extent of Ac.0.90 cents in Sy.No.381 of Ravinuthala Village, Koresapadu Mandal, Prakasam District by issuing D-Form patta in R.C.No.4/96 dated 02.04.1996.

7. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, it is only a Kunta Poramboku land unless it is converted into AWD, patta cannot be granted in terms of BSO.No.15 as on date itself it is only Kunta Poramboku land and denied the patta in favour of this petitioner. The disputed question of fact as to issue of patta cannot be decided in the present Writ Petition. More so, the petitioner is unable to establish that she is in possession and inspite of grant of property, she cant be dispossessed except by due process of law. The petitioner produced pattadar passbook issued to the petitioner for the land to an extent of Ac.0.90 cents in Sy.No.381 of Ravinuthala Village, Koresapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. The pattadar passbooks was issued long back and thereby the same is sufficient to accept Prima facie title to the property in terms of Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Records of Rights in Land and Pattdar Passbooks Act, but it is not a substantive piece of evidence to establish the title of the property. However, the title cannot be decided in the present writ petition while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, based on such copy of pattadar passbooks it is difficult to the petit