IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 113 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27-9-2000 in WP NO : 15007 OF 1992 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Battini Sarojini ..... APPELLANT AND Vannela Mariyamma & Ors. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.MIRZA IMAMULLA BAIG Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : MR.K.MANIKYALA RAO The Division Bench of this Court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO. 1 1 3 OF 2001 J U D G M E N T : ( Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 27-9-2000 in WP.No.15007 of 1992 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby he allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 24-10-1992 passed by respondent No.3 cancelling patta in respect of 0-04 ½ cents of land situated in survey No.20 of Bhadrachalam. 2. The dispute between the appellant and respondent No.1 relates to 0-4 ½ cents of land in the above mentioned survey number. Respondent No.1 was assigned the said extent for house site by proceedings dated 9-8-1977. Within one year of the said assignment she was again assigned another extent of Ac:0-05 cents for the same purpose namely for constructing a house. The mother of the appellant namely, respondent No.5 in the writ petition approached respondent No.3 with the complaint that the extent of 0-04 ½ cents belonging to her family was illegally assigned to the respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 after calling for the report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam and on perusal of the connected records gave a show cause notice to respondent No.1 as to why assignment in respect of the said land of 0-04 ½ cents shall not be cancelled. Respondent No.1 filed WP.No.10382 of 1992 which was disposed of by this court with a direction to the respondent No.3 to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and till then respondent No.1 shall not be dispossessed. Thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1, respondent No.3 cancelled the patta in respect of the above mentioned extent of 0-04 ½ cents. The same was questioned by respondent No.1 in WP.No.15007 of 1992. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge mainly on the ground that the appellant and her mother have not filed any document to show that the land in respect of which patta was given to respondent No.1 belonged to them. 3. Heard Sri Mirza Safiulla Baig, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Manikyala Rao for respondent No.1 and perused the record. 4. In his order, respondent No.3 gave a finding that an individual cannot be assigned two house plots and that respondent No.1 got two patttas in Bhadrachalam town by misrepresentation of facts. He also observed that the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam reveals that the land in question is a patta land standing in the name of Reddi Pakeer as per revenue records. The learned Judge has not taken into consideration and has not given a specific finding as to whether the findings of respondent No.3 in his order impugned in the writ petition that the land in dispute was a pattta land standing in the name of Reddi Pakeer was correct or not. If it is ultimately found that respondent No.1 got assignment of the said land without disclosing the fact that it was a private patta land, such an assignment cannot be sustained as it impinges on the property right of a citizen. 5. Therefore, the interest of justice would be met by directing respondent No.3 to decide the dispute afresh instead of driving the appellant to file a civil suit. Irrespective of whether a person is entitled to obtain two house sites within the extent of Ac:0-10 cents or not, if it is found that the extent of 0-04 ½ cents in survey No.20 belongs to the appellant’s family, the patta granted to respondent No.1 cannot be sustained. Therefore, respondent No.3 is directed to issue notice to both the parties namely the appellant and respondent No.1 and decide the issue whether the land of 0-04 ½ cents in survey No.20 of Bhadrachalam was a private patta land belonging to the family of the appellant. If it is found that it is a private patta land, he shall pass a detailed order by cancelling the patta granted to respondent No.1. Conversely, if it is found that the family of the appellant is not concerned with the said land, the assignment granted to respondent No.1 shall not be interfered with unless such an assignment is prohibited by law existing at the time of assignment. 6. Subject to the above observations, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI . ______________________________ JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY. 04/2/2009. I s L NB: Furnish CC in two days B/o. I s L ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies