IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.15435 of 2005 Between: Joogunta Penchalaiah. … Petitioner And The District Collector, Nellore, Nellore District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri A.V.V.S.N.Murthy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue (Assignments). This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in making attempts to dispossess the petitioner from an extent of Ac.2.65 cents of dry land comprised in Survey No.893 of Budamgunta village, Kavali Mandal, Nellore District, covered by D-Form Patta No.968/95, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Heard Sri A.V.V.S.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments). In his affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner claimed that he was granted DKT Patta for an extent of Ac.2.65 cents of dry land in the above mentioned village on 14-2-1986 by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavali Mandal, Nellore District; that at that time the land was not fit for cultivation; and that by investing huge amounts and putting in hard work, the land was made fit for cultivation and is being cultivated. Alleging that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavali, was proclaiming that the said land was assigned to landless poor persons and that he would be forcibly dispossessed, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter-affidavit filed along with the vacate stay application it is alleged that the petitioner is not a resident of Budamgunta village and no application was filed by him for grant of a patta. He denied grant of D- Form patta in favour of the petitioner and termed the copy of the purported patta filed by the petitioner as a fabricated one. He maintained that the records revealed that the last proceedings granting D-Form Patta was during Fasli 1395 (967/95) and that no entries were found in the D-Register showing grant of any patta in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated that the land is a Gunta Poramboke and grant of pattas is prohibited in respect of such land. It is further stated that pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued on 30-11-2003 by the then Mandal Revenue Officer because the son- in-law of the petitioner, Sri Marupudi Krishna Murthy, was closely associated with the said Mandal Revenue Offier-Sri K.Ravindra Babu and the former managed with the latter to get a pattadar passbook; that a detailed report in the matter was submitted to the District Collector, Nellore, vide: proceedings dated 25-7-2005, against the then Mandal Revenue Officer and Grama Panchayat Secretary; and that action is being initiated for cancellation of pattadar passbook by following due procedure. It is also stated that the said land is proposed for construction of houses under Rajiv Gruha Kalpa Scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not issued any notice to the petitioner before initiating appropriate action for his dispossession. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. Though the respondents made serious accusation of fabricating patta against the petitioner, no reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting the said allegation. The petitioner also failed to deny the allegation that his son-in-law was a close associate of the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavali, and, hence, in order to help the petitioner, the said Officer issued pattadar passbook. In the absence of denial of these allegations, they deserve to be accepted as correct. Once the patta is found to be fabricated, no right would be vested in the petitioner. Admittedly, the land belongs to the Government and the respondents wanted to utilize the same for a public purpose. The petitioner, who claimed his right on a fabricated document, is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 15-7-2005 passed in WPMP No.19597 of 2005 is vacated and the WPMP is dismissed. ----------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 23-6-2008 MNR