IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.7013 of 2000 Between: J.Adinarayana S/o. J.Hanumanth Reddy R/o. Ontikonda (V), H/o. Puletipalli (V), Chennekothapalli (M), Anantapur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. Revenue (ASSN-IV) Dept., Rep. by its Dy.Secretary to Govt., Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Spl. Commissioner of Land Revenue A.P., Hyderabad 3 Joint Collector Anantapur 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmavaram, Anantapur 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer Chennakottapalli (M), Anantapur 6 Chintha Konappa S/o. Adeppa R/o at Ontikonda (V), H/o. Puletipalli (V), Chennekothapalli (M), Anantapur Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of 1st Respondent passed on Memo No.31950/Assn.4(1)/97/3, dt: 24/1/2000 confirming the order of the RRs 2 to 4 passed in proceedings No.BCW1/4121/88 DT: 25/10/1996; A4/5411/87 dt: 4/8/1987 and RC(B)2000/86 dt: 6/7/1987 as illegal, arbitrary and confirming the order of the 5th Respondent in assinging the land in favour of the grand mother of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.7013 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner is a legatee, pursuant to the will said to have been executed by his grand mother J.Subbamma. The undisputed facts are that the land admeasuring Ac.5-28 cents in Sy.No.343-2 situated at Ontikonda Village, Chennekothapalli Mandal, Anantapur Distirct, was assigned in favour of one Chintha Adeppa by the then Tahsildar, Chinnakothapalli, in proceedings Ref.No.8A/74/67, dated 22- 09-1958. Thereafter, the said assignment was cancelled by the then Tahsildar, Chinnakothapalli, and the said land was reassigned in favour of one J.Subbamma, who is the grand mother of the petitioner, vide D.A.R.File No.260/92, dated 28-02-1983. Aggrieved by the said order, the original assignee Chintha Adeppa filed an appeal before the 4th respondent contending that though he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land and though he has not violated any terms and conditions of the assignment, the assignment was made in favour of the said Subbamma and therefore, the said action is illegal and unsustainable. It is further stated that there was no cancellation of the assignment. The 4th respondent, after hearing both sides and after considering the material available on record, found that no show- cause notice was issued to the original assignee and, therefore, cancellation of the assignment was illegal and accordingly, allowed the appeal through order dated 06-07-1987 in proceedings Rc.No.(B) 2000/86 setting aside the resumption order passed by the 5th respondent, dated 22-12-1982, as well as the subsequent assignment made in favour of Subbamma. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent initially rejected stay application, against which, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11280 of 1987 before this court and this court disposed of the said writ petition directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the revision, and ultimately the revision has been dismissed on 04-08-1987, against which, the petitioner filed further revision before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent through order in proceedings No.BCW1/4121/88, dated 25-10-1996, dismissed the revision. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the revisional authority has not issued any notice of hearing and, therefore, the order passed by the revisional authority is illegal and unsustainable. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to establish as to how the order of the 4th respondent is illegal and unsustainable. From a perusal of the order of the 4th respondent, it is to be seen that the 4th respondent set aside the resumption order passed by the 5th respondent as well as subsequent assignment made in favour of the grand mother of the petitioner on the ground that assignment made in favour of the original assignee was cancelled without giving any notice and that the original assignee was in possession and enjoyment of the said land. If that be so, the whole genesis for resuming the land in question was held to be illegal. Once the resumption of the land was held to be illegal, the grandmother of the petitioner will not get any right in respect of the land in question. Further, the order of the 4th respondent has been confirmed by the 3rd respondent as well as the 2nd respondent. I am of the opinion that the 4th respondent, after hearing both sides and after considering the material available on record, rightly allowed the appeal setting aside the resumption order passed by the 5th respondent as well as the subsequent assignment made in favour of the grand mother of the petitioner, as admittedly, no notice was issued to the original assignee and that the original assignee was in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Therefore, cancellation of DKT patta itself is held to be illegal. If that be so, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the 4th respondent. Further, the order of the 4th respondent was also confirmed by the 3rd respondent as well as the 2nd respondent. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 20-02-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSKM}