Vundavalli Veera Raghavamma and two Others vs The Government of A.P. and three Others

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside endorsement in Rc. C. No. 4265/2013, dated 31.12.2013, of respondent No. 3, whereby he has declined to grant permission to the petitioners for conversion of the agricultural land, admeasuring Acs. 8.80 cents, in Survey Nos. 370 and 386 of Jammalapalem Village, Jaladanki Mandal, East Godavari District (for short ''the subject land'') for non-agricultural purpose. I have heard Sri T.C. Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area).

A perusal of the impugned endorsement shows that the only ground on which respondent No. 3 has refused the petitioners'' application for conversion was that the Re-Survey and Re-settlement Register (RSR) contains dot marks. The petitioners have filed copies of the sale deeds, dated 02.10.1915, 16.08.1969, 29.06.1969 and 22.06.2006 pertaining to the subject land. Apart from the same, the petitioners have filed copies of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in their favour by the competent authority. These documents would clinchingly establish that the subject land is treated as private land for times innumerable.

The law is fairly well settled that mere dots in the RSR would not constitute evidence of title (See Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited Vs. Collector, Hyderabad District and another, Raavi Satish Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, Shaik Ali and Others Vs. District Collector, Chittoor and Others, and Madiga Papanna Vs. State of A.P., represented by its Madiga Papanna Jammanna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others,

In view of the settled legal position referred to above, the ground on which respondent No. 3 has rejected permission to the petitioners for conversion is wholly unsustainable and the impugned endorsement is, accordingly, set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed to reconsider the petitioners'' application afresh without reference to the dots in the RSR and based on the documents filed by the petitioners showing their ownership and title. He shall communicate the decision taken afresh to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No. 1326 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.