JUDGMENT : The 1st respondent had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.32826 of 2012, contending that the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4.52 cents in Sy.No.239/4A and 239/4B of Nelatur Village, Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District, belonging to him, was taken over for the purposes of Development of Environmental Belt to a Power Station, without acquiring the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or payment of compensation. 2. This contention of the 1st respondent was denied, by the appellant, herein on the ground that the said land was government land, which was marked as a dotted land in the revenue records and as such, the question of payment of compensation, to the 1st respondent, would not arise. 3. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, after considering the submissions made on both sides had held that the 1st respondent was the owner of the land in view of the issuance of pattadar passbook and title deeds issued to him and consequently the 1st respondent was entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A direction was also given to the respondents therein to initiate the process of acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. The appellants herein, being aggrieved by the said order dated 22.07.2013, have approached this Court, by way of the present appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1st respondent had passed away and respondents 3 to 6 herein were impleaded as legal heirs of 1st respondent by an order dated 30.07.2024. 5. The contention of the appellants is that the land was marked as ‘Dotted Land’ in the Revenue Register and that would automatically mean that the land is ‘Government Land’. It is contended that mere issuance of pattadar pass book or title deed by mistake would not confer any right or title on the 1st respondent herein. 6. 5. The contention of the appellants is that the land was marked as ‘Dotted Land’ in the Revenue Register and that would automatically mean that the land is ‘Government Land’. It is contended that mere issuance of pattadar pass book or title deed by mistake would not confer any right or title on the 1st respondent herein. 6. Sri A. V. Sivaiah, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 would contend that a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Vinjamuri Raja Gopalachary and Others vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, 2016 (2) ALD 236 had given certain guidelines whereunder dotted lands would have to be treated as private lands where the private persons were in possession and their names were also entered in the revenue records. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge had also held that mere classification of the land as ‘Dotted Land’ in the revenue resurvey register is not sufficient to support a claim that the lands are not patta lands and reliance is placed on the Judgment followed by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal. 7. A perusal of the record placed before us shows that the 1st respondent had been issued pattadar pass book and title deed showing him as the owner and possessor of the aforesaid Ac.4.52 cents of land. The name of the petitioner was also mutated in the revenue records by assigning KhataNo.86 for his land. The only ground on which the appellants dispute the title of the 1st respondent was that dots have been placed against the entry in relation to this land. 8. Even though there was some ambiguity about the nature and title of the land against which dots have been placed in the revenue registers, the same has now been clarified by a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Vinjamuri Raja Gopalachary?s case. 8. Even though there was some ambiguity about the nature and title of the land against which dots have been placed in the revenue registers, the same has now been clarified by a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Vinjamuri Raja Gopalachary?s case. The guidelines set out in Vinjamuri Raja Gopalachary and Others vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad are as follows: (i) The authorities mentioned in the guidelines, which are obliged to prepare lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d), to be sent to the registering authorities under the provisions of Registration Act, shall clearly indicate the relevant clause under which each property is classified. (ii) Insofar as clause (a) is concerned, the concerned District Collectors shall also indicate the statute under which a transaction and its registration is prohibited. Further in respect of the properties covered under clause (b), they shall clearly indicate which of the Governments own the property. (iii) Insofar as paragraphs (3) and (4) in the Guidelines, covering properties under clause (c) and (d) are concerned, the authorities contemplated therein shall also forward to the registering authorities, along with lists, the extracts of registers/gazette if the property is covered by either endowment or wakf, and declarations/orders made under the provisions of Ceiling Acts if the property is covered under clause (d). (iv) The authorities forwarding the lists of properties/lands to the registering authority shall also upload the same to the website of both the Governments, namely igrs.ap.gov.in of the State of Andhra Pradesh and registration.telangana.gov.in of the State of Telangana. If there is any change in the website, the State Governments shall indicate the same to all concerned, may be by issuing a press note or an advertisement in prominent daily news papers. (v) No notification, contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 22A, is necessary with respect to the properties falling under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A. (vi) The properties covered under clause (e) of Section 22-A shall be notified in the official gazette of the State Governments and shall be forwarded, along with the list of properties, and a copy of the relevant notification/gazette, to the concerned registering authorities under the provisions of RegistrationAct and shall also place the said notification/gazette on the aforementioned websites of both the State Governments. The Registering authorities shall make available a copy of the Notification/Gazette on an application made by an aggrieved party. (vii) The registering authorities would be justified in refusing registration of documents in respect of the properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of subsection (1) of Section 22-A provided the authorities contemplated under the guidelines, as aforementioned, have communicated the lists of properties prohibited under these clauses. (viii) The concerned authorities, which are obliged to furnish the lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, and the concerned Registering Officers shall follow the guidelines scrupulously. (ix) It is open to the parties to a document, if the relevant property/land finds place in the list of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, to apply for its deletion from the list or modification thereof, to the concerned authorities as provided for in the guidelines. The concerned authorities are obliged to consider the request in proper perspective and pass appropriate order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the application and make its copy available to the concerned party. (x) The redressal mechanism under Section 22-A(4) shall be before the Committees to be constituted by respective State Governments as directed in paragraph-35.1 above. The State Governments shall constitute such committees within eight weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. (xi) Apart from the redressal mechanism, it is also open to an aggrieved person to approach appropriate forum including Civil Court for either seeking appropriate declaration or deletion of his property/land from the list of prohibited properties or for any other appropriate relief. (xii) The directions issued by learned single Judges in six judgments referred to above or any other judgments dealing with the provisions of Section 22-A, if are inconsistent with the observations made or directions issued in this judgment, it is made clear that the observations made and directions issued in this judgment shall prevail and would be binding on the parties including the registering authorities under the Registration Act or Government officials or the officials under the Endowments Act, Wakf Act and Ceiling Acts. (xiii) If the party concerned seeks extracts of the list/register/gazette of properties covered by clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A (1), received by the registering officer on the basis of which he refused registration, it shall be furnished within 10 days from the date of an application made by the aggrieved party. (xiv) Registering officer shall not act and refuse registration of a document in respect of any property furnished to him directly by any authority/officer other than the officers/authorities mentioned in the Guidelines. (xv) Mere registration of a document shall not confer title on the vendee/alienee, if the property is otherwise covered by clauses (a) to (e), but did not find place in the lists furnished by the concerned authorities to the registering officers. In such cases, the only remedy available to the authorities under clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A is to approach appropriate forums for appropriate relief. 9. In view of the aforesaid guidelines, the State had also enacted The Andhra Pradesh Dotted Lands (Updation in Re-settlement Register)Act, 2017. Section 4(3) of the said Act, which would be applicable to the present case reads as follows: “The entry in Column No. (16) of Re-Settlement Register in respect of Dotted Lands which are not covered under sub-section (1) and (2) and are in possession of any person shall be replaced and updated by making an entry in the name of the person, in terms of the orders issued under Section 7 or Section 8 as the case may be”. 10. In view of the fact that the revenue records themselves demonstrated the possession of the 1st respondent over the said land, nothing further would be required for making necessary entries under the said register. 11. Accordingly, the respondents 3 to 6, as legal heirs of 1st respondent, would be entitled to approach the District Level Committee for updation of the entries, in the re-settlement register, in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.4.52 cents and necessary order shall be passed by the District Level Committee, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. It may also be cautioned that the name of the 1st respondent, had already been included earlier in the records and the same shall be kept in mind before any orders are passed. 12. It may also be cautioned that the name of the 1st respondent, had already been included earlier in the records and the same shall be kept in mind before any orders are passed. 12. Upon necessary orders being passed for entry of names of respondents 3 to 6, as legal heirs of 1st respondent, in the revenue records, the respondents shall take up steps for initiating acquisition of the said land under the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of orders being passed in relation to the rectification of the revenue records. For the purposes of implementation of this order, the District Level Committee, SPSR Nellore District is suo moto impleaded as respondent No.7 in this appeal. 13. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.