In the High court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh At Hyderabad w.p.No. 20051 of 2009. Between:1. Guda Prabhakar Reddy 2.

Guda Ram Bhopal Reddy 3. Guda Ramchandra Reddy petitioners And 1. Tahsildar, Bachannapet mandal Warangal District. 2. The Additional Rev. Inspector Bachannapet mandal, Warangal Dist. 3. Karre Narayana Reddy , s/o Late Malla reddy. 4. Karre Ram Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy

Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No 3 & 4 I, T.Padmavathi w/o aged about years; occupation: Tahsildar, Bachannapet mandal , R/o Bachannapet village, Warangal District, having temporary came down to Hyderabad, do here by solemnly affirm and state on both as follows:1. I am the 3rd respondent in the writ petition as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case. I am swearing this affidavit on my behalf as well as a behalf of 4th respondent who is my subordinate and I am authorized to do so. 2. I Submit that I have read the affidavit of the petitioner filed in support of writ petition 3. I Submit the contention of the petitioner at writ petition Para -4 is correct. 4. I Submit it is true that the respondents 3&4 have filed an application under section 3(1) (a) (b) of AP Rights in land and pattedar pass Books Act 1971 as 23/11/2009 requesting the then Tahsildar to depute mandal Rev.Inspector to cause an inspection on the spot of the land measuring Ac 5-34 gts and Ac 3-23 gts covered by survey number 179, and 180 of

Lingampally village and to prepare up to date record of rights over the land said to have possessed by them. The then Tahsildar after receiving the said application, without issuing notice to the respondents in the application, directed the Additional Revenue Inspector Bachannapet ( Res No 4 herein ) detailed enquiry and report. The then Tahsildar ought to have verified the earlier orders passed in this regard. There up on the 4th respondent respected the spot i.e the survey number 179 and 180 of Lingampally without issuesing notice to the petitioners herein and reported the same along with a Panchanama. Later Sri Guda Prabhaker Reddy ( the petitioners no herein ) orally represented that the panchanama was conducted illegally without any notice. Immediately on consideration of the above facts , the then Tahsildar superatedteh report and panchanama conducted by the respondent no 4 and dropped the further proceedings on the above said application of respondent no 3 and 4 herein. 5. I Submit that on verification of record I found that the petitioners are the pattedars and possessors of the land covered by survey numbers 179 and 180 of Lingampally village. Previously also the application of respondent no 3 and 4 under section 32 of AP (T.A) Tenency act was rejected by the Then Tahsildar Bachannapet on 20/06/2008 in file no A/400/2007. The respondents 3 and 4 suppressingly all the above proceedings have filed the application the then Tahsildar without going through with earlier record. It is there fore prayed that the honorable court may be pleased set aside the report and panchanama conducted by Respondent number 4 in file no.B/696/2009 in the interest of justice. Hyderabad Date:

DEPONENT