IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 2570 of 2001 BETWEEN: 1 H.Pedda Ganganna S/o H.Subbanna Major, R/o Tadiparthi, Tadiparthi Mandal, Anantapur District. 2 H.Nagesu S/o Naganna, Major, R/o Tadiparthi, Tadiparthi Mandal, Anantapur District. 3 H.Ganganna S/oH.Subanna, Major, R/o Tadiparthi, Tadiparthi Mandal, Anantapur District. 4 H.Naganna S/o H.Narayana,Major, R/o Tadiparthi, Tadiparthi Mandal, Anantapur District. 5 H.Venkatesu S/o Subanna,Major, R/o Tadiparthi, Tadiparthi Mandal, Anantapur District. 6 Eswaraiah S/o Srivaramaiah,Major, R/o Tadiparthi, Tadiparthi Mandal, Anantapur District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its District Collector, Anantapur District. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur. 3 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Mandal Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur District. ...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 issue any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction preferably a writ in the Nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in illegally attempting to dispossess the petitioners in respect of their house sites, pursuant to the Pattas granted vide Proceedings No. H.S.Dis.2/1400 dt: 12.5.91 duly allotting plot Nos.1,2,3,4,5,&7 respectively in Survey No.347/C2, admeasuring 2 cents each, situated at Tadipatri, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapur District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners in respect of their houses Sites, for which pattas were granted vide Proceedings No.H.S.Dis.2/1400 dt: 12.5.91 bearing plots No.1,2,3,4,5,&7 respectively in SurveyNo.347/C2, admeasuring 2 cents each, situated at Tadipatri, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapur District, and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners in this writ petition challenge the action of the respondents in attempting to dispossess them from the house sites allotted to them pursuant to the pattas granted in their favour vide proceedings dated 12.05.1991. The said pattas are said to be in relation to individual extents of 2 cents each in the land in Sy.No.374/C2, Tadipatri, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapur District. The petitioners also sought a consequential direction to the respondents not to dispossess them from the subject house sites. 2. The petitioners claim that they were assigned the subject house sites, duly recognizing the fact that they were landless poor. They further claim that they were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject house sites having raised thatched huts thereupon. It is alleged that the revenue authorities threatened to dispossess them and apprehending that such action would be initiated, the petitioners approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 3. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Anantapur Division, Anantapur District, the second respondent herein, admitting to the fact that the subject house sites were assigned to the petitioners under the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Tadipatri dated 12.05.1991. It is alleged that the petitioners did not occupy the sites allotted to them and construct huts/houses therein, as per the condition of their allotment. It is denied that the petitioners actually raised thatched huts in the subject sites and were residing there since 1991. It is further stated that the police authorities sought alienation of a suitable Government land in Tadipatri Town for construction of their oﬃce building and the subject land was identiﬁed by the MRO, Tadipatri, being vacant. As the petitioners and other assignees had violated the conditions of the allotment and had not occupied and utilized the subject sites, it was recommended that the allotment in their favour should be cancelled. Basing on the said report of the MRO, Tadipatri, the RDO, Anantapur, caused issuance of show cause notices in Ref.No.D2/1217/2000 dated 05.10.2000 calling upon the assignees, including the petitioners herein, to appear before him on 23.10.2000 and thereafter on 13.11.2000. It is stated that neither the petitioners nor the other assignees appeared before the RDO, Anantapur and accordingly, the said Oﬃcer vide proceedings in Ref.No.D2/1217/2000 dated 02.01.2001 cancelled the allotment made by the MRO, Tadipatri under his proceedings dated 12.05.1991. It is also stated that the District Collector, Anantapur by proceedings dated 12.02.2001 ordered handing over of the possession of the subject sites to the police department and in pursuance of the said orders the land, including the house sites allotted to the petitioners, was handed over to the police department. 4. In the light of the averments made in the pleadings with regard to the service of notice to the petitioners, the record pertaining to the case was called for. It is found therein that the show cause notices dated 05.10.2000 were directed to be served through the MRO, Tadipatri. By way of the said show cause notices, the RDO required the addressees to present their cases before him on 23.10.2000 with regard to the proposed cancellation of the house site pattas granted under proceedings dated 12.05.1991. However, the letter addressed by the MRO, Tadipatri to the RDO, Anantapur, in Rc.No.590/2000/B dated 19.10.2000 states to the eﬀect that the show cause notices dated 05.10.2000 issued to 13 assignees could not be served on them as they were not residing in Tadipatri Town and accordingly, the contents of the show cause notices were made known by beat of Tom Tom in the vicinity of the assigned sites and further, the copies of the notices were also aﬃxed in the assigned sites. It appears that the RDO vide his proceedings dated 02.11.2000 again instructed the MRO, Tadipatri to cause service of notice to the assignees calling upon them to appear before him on 13.11.2000. Thereafter, the MRO, Tadipatri, addressed letter dated 18.11.2000 to the Collector, Anantapur informing the Oﬃcer of the fact that the assignees were not residing in Tadipatri. 5. In view of the material available in the record, it is clear that suﬃcient steps were taken by the authorities to put the petitioners on notice with regard to the proposed cancellation of the house site pattas granted to them earlier. The very fact that the petitioners failed to respond in spite of notiﬁcation through tom tom in the vicinity of the assigned sites clearly indicates that there is some truth in the averment made in the counter that the petitioners did not occupy and reside in the assigned house sites. The counter aﬃdavit also demonstrates the fact that the petitioners were not in possession of the subject house sites and the possession of the same has already been handed over to the police department. Signiﬁcant to note, there is no rebuttal of this factual averment by the petitioners, through a reply. 6. In the light of the facts emerging above, it is manifest that the grievance sought to be canvassed by the petitioners in the present case has no legal foundation. The action of the respondent authorities in canceling the house site pattas allotted to the petitioners is found to be borne out by the facts and appears to be strictly in accordance with the provisions laid down by law. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J November 5, 2008 DSK