HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10633 of 2011 Date: April 26, 2011 Between: J. Ramamurty … Petitioner And 1. The Tahsildar, B.N. Kandriga Mandal, Chittoor District & 4 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10633 of 2011 O R D E R: The writ petitioner appears to be an Ex-Serviceman. He was granted patta over land of an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Survey No.357/2, Ac.1.42 cents in Survey No.357/3 and Ac.0.65 cents in Survey No.357/4, Ac.1.42 cents in Survey No.358/2 of Gajulapellur village, B.N. Kandriga Mandal of Chittoor District under DKT patta No.63/4/1407 dated 11-11-1997. The total extent of land came to Acs.4.99 cents. On the ground that the writ petitioner has not brought it under cultivation, which is the condition precedent on which the patta has been granted, the Mandal Revenue Officer has cancelled the patta through his proceedings dated 12.3.2006. The writ petitioner contested this fact by pointing out that the same Mandal Revenue Officer has given him a pattadar passbook evidencing the fact that he has brought the land under cultivation and subsequent thereto he has been recording the details of cultivation in the revenue records. 2. Be that as it may, the writ petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, who, by his orders dated 25th February 2008 allowed the appeal and set aside the proceedings dated 12.3.2006 of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The Revenue Divisional officer, Tirupati, also directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to restore the possession of the petitioner of the lands stood originally assigned to him. The 4th and 5th respondents herein have carried the matter by way of revision before the Joint Collector, as they were assigned this very land pursuant to the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 12th March 2006. Therefore, according to them the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 25th February 2008 have adversely impacted them. Entertaining the claim of the revision petitioners, the Joint Collector passed orders on 17th July 2010 on the ground that during the special survey of assigned lands and ceiling lands in B.N. Kandriga Mandal, it was noticed that the lands assigned to the writ petitioner originally were found lying waste and they were covered by thorny bushes and hence it was considered that the writ petitioner has not made any attempt to cultivate the same. 3. As per Board Standing Order 15, paragraph 11, land can be assigned to the Ex-Serviceman, who volunteers to take up cultivation. In view of the finding of fact that the writ petitioner made no attempt to cultivate the land, the Joint Collector found justification in the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer in cancelling the patta by his proceedings dated 12th March 2006. Therefore, the Joint Collector reversed the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, allowing the appeal of the petitioner herein on 25th February 2008. 4. It is the assertion of the petitioner that he has brought the land under cultivation, whereas the revenue establishment of the State would controvert the same. It is the assertion of respondents 4 and 5 herein that they are cultivating the land now after they were assigned this very land. They assert that by hard labour they brought the land under cultivation by clearing all the boulders and bushes and when they are taking steps to further improve the land, the present writ petition has been instituted. 5. If the petitioner is eligible to be assigned land being an Ex- Serviceman, his request for such assignment cannot be either neglected or rejected. However, every assignee should bring the land under cultivation within a reasonable period of time of such assignment. It is therefore appropriate to direct the Joint Collector to consider the feasibility of assigning any other land in favour of the petitioner instead of disturbing the land already assigned in favour of respondents 4 and 5 herein. Let an appropriate decision in the matter be taken within a period of six months and communicate the same to the petitioner, inasmuch as the issue as to whether the writ petitioner has actually brought the land assigned to him originally under cultivation or not cannot be satisfactorily resolved in a writ proceeding. 6. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of after hearing the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) and Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: April 26, 2011. BSB