IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE: ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD (<7) W.P.No.18434/2011 Between: Lingam Somasundara Rao, .. Petitioner AND 1. State of A.P., Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, ‘And others. Respondents. COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED E RESPONDENT NO, 1, DiPeddi Raju, Son of late Narasa Raju, aged 48 years, R/o Visakhapatnam, Occu: Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, now having temporarily come down to Hyderabad, do here by solemnly affirm and sincerely state on oath as follows. FLL MII III III ID of attr ti tater 1). Tam the 5® Respondent herein and as such, I am well acquainted with the facts of the case. Iam filing the counter-affidavit on my behalf of and on behalf of the Respondent No.2 as I am authorized to do so. I have read affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. I deny all the allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein. The Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. 2). It is submitted that the Madhurawada Village of Erstwhile Visakhapatnam Taluk is an Estate Village taken over under the provisions of Estate Abolition Act- itrest created in (or) over the 1948, _ after taking over Estates all rights an Estate shall cease and they have to be determined under the provisions of E.A.Act. | submitted that the Settlement records were introduced in this Village with effect 7.1959. Originally the R.S.No.330 with extent Ac.175.06 cts of vtachrawade Vilage & crved out fom O:SNos, 356,358 and 359 and further I ig sub-divided as the RS.Nos. 330A and 3308 and the Government lands were notified under S.No. sos an extent Of Ac.161.52 cts, During assignments Gath progiammé the lands in S.No.330A were assigned to certain people after renumbering, Tt fs submitted in that assignment crash programme the petitioner fond in S.NO- 3308/2 a renumbered a S.No.368/3 and noted as Asta nd in from CHAR. #MSaisapatham (Riu at) Scanned with CamScannernotified under fevenue records under original Patta.No.745 and it Is G.0.M.S.No.583, Revenue (Registration. 1), 4” may 2005. 1 submit that the cause of action arose with regard to this issue when the Petitioner has filed representation on 09.08.1990 before the then Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of Ryotwari Dry land certificate. jhe Then Mandal Revenue officer {Conducted enquiry after issuing notice to the petitioner and obtaining permission and relevant records from the District Collector and finally withdrawn the subject Bind from assignment register vide ‘his office _—_—proceedings § Re.No.618/90/H1A/0t.27.10.1990. It is submitted that as seen from MDR, the petitioner has granted Ryotwari Pata under S.No.330B/2 and renumbered as S.No.368/3 under Patta.No.745 but it is not an authenticated settlement record to decide nature and title of the land lence MDR is could not be taken into consideration and V.A.No.10 (1) account s2ls0 is dispensed long back therefore the records produced by the petitioner is re ‘ould not be taken into consideration. It is submitted that as per directions of the Hon'ble High court in their common es judgments in W.P.No.13700, 13718, 13719 and 13725, the then Mandal Revenue fficer rejected the claim of the petitioner to with draw the S.No.368/3 from the MBA ssignment Register vide Rc.No.338/A/04 dt.13.02.2008 considering the report of the Spl.Gr.Dy.Collector, Land protection holding that on tie documents such as tified copies obtained from competent authority i.e., M.D.R. pages beyond .No.346, Gilman Register, 10(1) Register and D.Dis.No.618/90/HA dated 3.11 1990 are fabricated documents, and also observed that the claimant is liable prosecution for his illegal and fraudulent methods adopted for grabbing luable Govt.Land. It is submitted that the proceedings of the Tehsiider in .338/04/A dated 13.02.2008 is suspended by this Hon'ble High Court in .P.No.3243/2008 with a view of the counter filed by the same Tahsildar in .P.No.5510/2004 is contrary to his proceedings in Rc.338/04/A dated 13.02.2008 d the said writ petition is still pending. J submit that the S.No.3! 1nd S.No.346 as reported by the 4" Respondent. 2 Ie never I submit that the then Joint collector cum Settlement Officer, who is the todian of the Settlement records has thorouighly enquired in to the matter to ‘counter in W.P.No.3243/2008 as instructed by the 2 Respondent, he reported a fand hnalanns to Tammiraiy Krishnamma in S.No. 368/3 me: i ring ac.3.60 cts ‘not tampered and itis not disturbed in the scanned C.D. and original M.0.. yy : lent”. Scanned with CamScanner\ a AS the entries are intact in both the scanned CD and M.D.R. Moreover, the said name, Survey Number and extent were also recorded in new survey number in 'S.No.330B. It appears that the S.No. 368/3 is carved out from S.No.330B and he mentioned tampered Survey Numbers after scanning of the M.D.R. at first page of his note file. %6). 1 submit that in pursuance of the instructions of the 2 Respondent the 4" sespondent has submit his detailed reports to the 2% respondent in Re.No.5619/2008/A on 05.09.2009, 26.10.2009,20.01.2010 and 24.02.2010 after Teceiving explanations from the petitioner, settlement proceedings from the STahsildar and Settlement Fair Adangal of Madhurawada village from the 2° Respondent is that on perusal of the report submitted by the ‘Spl.Gr.Dy.Collector, land protection reveals that it suffers from certain infirmities as the entire record Se ‘on the subject matter appears to have not been examined and tampering for the subject survey number could not be established and found to be correct ‘and finally opinioned that the lands in question are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner and there is no other go except to rely on the facts rn on record i.e., as seen from the original SFA and MDR available in — which shows that the land in R.S.No.330A and land covered by the R.S.Nos.3308/1, 3308/2, 3308/3 and 3308/4 of Madhurawada Village are carved 2 ut from O.S.Nos.356, 358 and 359 and the land covered by R.S.No.330A is classified as A.W.D and the land covered by R.S.No.3308/1,2,3 and 4 are classified 2s Zeroythi lands and renumbered as S.Nos.368/2, 368/3, 369/1 and 369/2. ¥ submit that as per the written instructions of the 2 Respondent the 4” Respondent rejected the claim of the Petitioners holding that, the lands covered S.Nos.368/2, 368/3, 369/1 and 369/2 of Madhurawada Village in jsakhapatnam Rural Mandal are Government lands and the petitioners are not javing any right over the Governmeht lands in question and the public copies such 15 copies of MOR, Gilman Register, 10(1) Register and D.Dis.No.618/90/HA filed» the petitioner are fabricated documents.and there by the request of the titioner to delete the above survey number from assignment register of ladhurawada is here by rejected and the petitioner is liable for prosecution for is illegal and fradulental methods adopted for grabbing valuable Govt., Lands cordingly, thé representations of the petitioners dt.24.03.2007 ‘are disposed off Rc.No.5619/A/2008/dt07.04.2010 and he file the same in W.P.No.21031/09 to se of the case in favour of the Government. I submit that the petitioner has Contempt case in C.C.No.190/2010 against the 2"! and 4" Respondents. 7 om Scanned with CamScanner: "that the Hon'ble High Court in C.C,No.190/2010 dated 03.08.2010 directed to the 2" Respondent to consider and pass the orders on the reports Submitted by the 4” Respondent but the 2” Respondent could not consider the 2). 1 submi eport of the 4” Respondent and passed orders in Re.5065/2007/F2 dt.12.10.2010. 8). The then district Collector has written a Letter in D.O.R.C.No.5065/F2/2007 dated 12.11.2008. 02.08.2011 to the Commissioner & Director of Settlements, Hyderabad to requesting him to forward a copy of the Settlement Fair Adangal ‘maintained in the office of the State archives for taking further action in this Matter. 9). submit that meantime. the Settlement Fair Adangal is traced out in the record room of the F-Section at collectors office, as seen from that record the land in question is classified as Sarkar Punja and carved out from S.No.330B/2 but the 2° Tespondent not able to consider the S.F.A which was traced out in collectorate Fecord room as the then district collector wrote a D.O letter to supply the Settlement Fair Adangal to decide the classification of subject lands hence 2 respondent did not taken in to consideration of records which were traced at later stage before passing the order. 10). The proceedings in Rc.No.618/90/HAJdt.27.10.90 of the then Mandal Revenue officer are traced out in record room of Visakhapatnam (Rural) Tahsildar's office ‘and as seen from the assignment register, at the remarks column is noted as the assignment for the subject survey number is cancelled vide Rc.No.618/90/HA/dt.27.10.1990, but 2" respondent has not taken in to consideration as the said proceedings are not initiated under A.P Assigned lands act and they were issued on application filed by the present petitioner. The Gilman register is not available in this office but as seen from the Gilman Register ELLE ILI II ILE available at R.D.0.’s office the pages are mutilated hence it could not be taken into consideration. 11). The public copy of the MDR was given to the petitioner under RTI-Act. but in that record corrections and remarks are with red ink at remarks column but there is no such type of entries were made in M.D.R hence Spl.Gr.Dy.Collector, Land protection concluded that the MDR. was tampered beyond the S.No.346 and it ‘could not be taken into consideration. I submit that the then Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer has concluded that the M.0.R is a rough record which was “prepared by the settlement authorities before preparing Settlement Fair Adangal, the Corrections and remarks are made at the time of Survey Operations in the a wSncrir Scanned with CamScannerpa ee carried out in the S.F.A, because S.F.A is the permanent record to Gecide the nature and title of the land. I submit that 2 respondent did not rely on MDR were not the M.D.R, S.F.A. as his predecessor has already wrote a 0.0 letter to Commissioner & Director of Settlements for supply of S.F.A hence the records were traced out in record room could not be considered by the 2° Respondent. before passing the order. 12).The copies of the Settlement Fair Adangal has been received by the 2 Respondent in Re.No.A1/391/2011/dt.30.08.2011 from the Commissioner & Director of Settlements after passing order in R.C.No.5065/2007/F2/dt.12.10.2010, Fence it s submitted the writ petition had no locus standy to file the writ petition ith out exhausting the remedy available to him at District level. Ads Se For the reasons stated above, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble High Court 'may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Solemnly and sincerely affirmed a per whan: On this 4" June of 2012 and Signed his name in my presence. Before me Attester VERIFICATION 1, D. Peddi Raju, Son of Late Narasa’ Raju, aged 48 years, R/o jsakhapatnam, Occu: Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam istrict, do here by verify that the contents of paras 1 to 12 are true to the best. ‘of my knowledge, belief, information and as per records. Hence, verified on this e 4 June of 2012, rude FRG, YA faders IYDERABAD. ‘ViseXhapatiam (Rutal) Scanned with CamScanner