IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16070 of 2000 Between: K. Jayasri … Petitioner AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan, Nizamabad District, & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue (Assignments) This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16070 of 2000 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 28.07.2000 of respondent No.1, whereby he cancelled the house site patta granted in favour of the petitioner. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) and perused the record. The petitioner was granted assignment of Ac.0.03 cents admeasuring 30’ x 40’ on 30.11.1985 by the then Tahsildar, Banswada. Respondent No.1 issued show cause notice dated 02.06.2000 in which it is stated that the assigned land is adjacent to the quarters of the police department, that the Deputy Superintendent of Police informed that allowing of a private structure adjacent to the police quarters may lead to security problems in future and that on verification of the assignment orders it was revealed that they were issued in the year 1985 and the petitioner failed to construct a house within six months as stipulated under Condition No.2 of the assigned land. After considering the explanation filed by the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed cancelling the assignment. Under the A.P. Board Standing Order 12 (3)(iii), the Tahsildar and the Deputy Tahsildar in independent charge and who are the assigning authorities shall be the authorities competent to order resumption in case of breach of the conditions of grant. Admittedly, respondent No.1 does not satisfy the description of either Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar. Therefore, he has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It is for the competent authority, namely, the Mandal Revenue Officer, (presently Tahsildar) to initiate appropriate action in the event either the petitioner violated the condition of the assignment or that the construction to be raised on the assigned land will affect the safety of the police department or both. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside with liberty to the Tahsildar, Bodhan to initiate appropriate action for resumption under the A.P. Board Standing Orders. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.20441 of 2000 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.07.2008 ES