1. Though reliefs sought are different, the subject-matter is common and both the writ petitions are between the same parties. Hence they are heard together and decided by this common order.
2. The petitioners are the sons and daughter of one Penkey Raghavulu who is stated to have purchased the land admeasuring Acs. 9-51 cents in Sy. Nos. 276/8, 276/23, 278/1 and 278/1-3 of Ramanaiahpeta Village of Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District in the year 1962. It is pleaded that on the death of their father on 5.5.2010 the petitioners have succeeded to the said property and have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, A.P Bhoodan Yagna Board (for short, Bhoodan Board) claimed that the said land was donated to Bhoodan Board in the year 1964 by one Paida Suryanarayana Murthy and that the petitioners had illegally occupied the said land. At the instance of the Bhoodan Board when the resumption proceedings were initiated in the year 2007 under the A.P Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977), the petitioners herein filed WP No. 10286 of 2007 and etc. The said writ petitions were allowed by this Court by common order dated 28.1.2009 and the show-cause notices issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer under the Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 were set aside. Thereafter, the petitioners made applications for grant of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of their respective extents. Alleging mat the 4th respondent failed to consider their request, the petitioners filed WP No. 11765 of 2010 seeking a mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in issuing the pattadar pass books and title deeds to the petitioners in respect of Acs. 9-51 cents of land is arbitrary and illegal apart from being contrary to the provisions of the A.P Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ROR Act).
3. The petitioners have also filed WP No. 19601 of 2010 seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the A.P Bhoodan Yagna Board in denotifying the above said Acs. 9-51 cents of land in terms of the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, dated 14.7.2010 is arbitrary and illegal.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, it is pleaded by the petitioners that in pursuance of the common order passed by this Court in WP No. 10286 of 2007 and etc., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, after obtaining the legal opinion addressed a letter dated 14.7.2010 to the A.P Bhoodan Yagna Board stating that as the donor of the land in question was not competent to make the donation, the Bhoodan Board has to denotify the lands Page: 261so that the petitioners herein who had purchased the said land and have been in continuing possession of the said lands for the last SO years can seek regularization of their possession and they can also seek issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. It is contended in WP No. 19601 of 2010 that Bhoodan Board failed to respond to the letter dated 14.7.2010 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada and no steps are taken for denotification of the land which is in occupation of the petitioners.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the A.P Bhoodan Yagna Board. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the other respondents.
6. As could be seen from the material available on record, the father of the petitioners Penkey Raghavulu claims to have purchased the land in question from Paula Suryanarayana Murthy under a Sale Deed, dated 16.10.1962
7. On the other hand, the claim of Bhoodan Board is that the very same land was donated to the Bhoodan Board by one Paida Suryanarayana Murthy on 8.8.1964 and pursuant thereto the final Notification under Section 15(4) of A.P Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 196S was also published in the Official Gazette on 3.7.1986 and thus the said land is vested in Bhoodan Board. It is also the case of the Bhoodan Board that the writ petitioners are illegal encroachers and that their possession is not lawful.
8. It is no doubt true that the petitioners herein are claiming possession for the last more than 50 years and WP No. 10286 of 2007 and etc., were allowed by this Court. However it is not as if the title claimed by the writ petitioners was upheld by this Court. In fact it was observed by this Court that the land in question is vested in Bhoodan Board. The relevant portion from the order of this Court reads as under:
“There is no dispute that petition schedule land in all the cases is the land which vests in Bhoodan Board. This stands proved by the very Show-cause Notice No. E/18188, dated 18.11.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent namely Secretary of the Bhoodan Board….”
9. Apparently the show-cause notices impugned in the said writ petitions were set aside by this Court on the ground that the land in question was not covered by the Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 and therefore resort to the Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 was not permissible.
10. That being so, it is un-understandable as to how the Revenue Divisional Officer could address the letter dated 14.7.2010 to Bhoodan Board to take steps for denotification of the land in question. Neither the Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners nor the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue officials could point out any statutory provision which empowered the Revenue Divisional Officer to call upon Bhoodan Board to denotify the land in question. Virtually the said letter dated 14.7.2010 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer amounts to upholding the title claimed by the writ petitioners.
11. As noticed above, there is a title dispute between the writ petitioners and the Bhoodan Board in respect of the land in question which requires to be adjudicated by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction.
12. In fact, as per the provisions of the A.P Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965 once a donation made to Bhoodan Board is vested in the Board under Section 15 of the said Act, there is no provision for Page: 262denotification. On the other hand, as per Section 29 of the said Act any person whose interests are effected as a result of the donation of any land for the purpose of Bhoodan Yagna or Gramdan whether before or after the commencement of the Act has to institute a suit in a civil Court having jurisdiction.
13. Thus it is clear that the so-called letter dated 14.7.2010 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer has no statutory basis so as to enable the petitioners to enforce the same by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. Therefore, in my considered opinion, WP No. 19601 of 2010 in which the petitioners are seeking a mandamus compelling the Bhoodan Board to denotify the lands in question is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be dismissed in limini. So far as WP No. 11765 of 2010 is concerned, the fact that the petitioners made applications for grant of pattadar passbooks and title deeds has not been disputed in the counter-affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Kakinada Rural Mandal. Hence it is left open to the Tahsildar, Kakinada Rural Mandal to consider the said request of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the ROR Act and the Rules made the reunder.
15. WP No. 11765 of 2010 is accordingly disposed of and WP No. 19601 of 2010 is dismissed. No costs.