IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.4086 of 2008 Between: 1 Kunasayam Yasobu, S/o. Samayaiah 2 Kunasayam Gangamma, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, 3 Kurram Venkata Rao, S/o.Appanna 4 Kuna Pamu PadmaLeela W/o. Ramesh Kumar,' 5 Koli Suganamma, W/o. Bobge, 6 Vankayala Subba Rao, W/o. Surayya, 7 Kurikuri Ramakrishna, S/o. Ramanna, 8 Balley Devi, W/o.Venkata Rao, 9 Galley Kumari W/o. Krishna, 10 Kuruturi Surya Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, 11 Kunapaya Ratnakumari, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, 12 Kunapam Venkayamma, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, 13 Kunapam Vimala, W/o.Jaya Raju, 14 Kunapamu Mariyamma, W/o.Venkatrao, 15 Kunapamu Savitri, W/o. Mangaraju, 16 Sheik Muntaj Begum, W/o. Nural 17 Matangi Devakrupa, W/o. David Raju, 18 Chidipi Ratamma, W/o. Venkata Rao, 19 Kuna Pamu Symala, W/o.Subba Rao, 20 Kondpati Subbulu, S/o.Paddaiah, 21 Akula Suryakantam, W/o.Nagaraju, 22 Akula Venkayamma, W/o. Ankalayah, 23 Yurududla Kusuma W/o. Venkateswara Rao, 24 Kolli Rattaiah, S/o.Chandraiah, 25 Sadhanala Pap, W/o. Nageswara Rao, 26 Bale Satya Narayana, S/o. Satyam, 27 Kolli Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Venkata Ratnam,'' 28 Rapaka Varalamma W/o. Gangaraju, 29 Jagadala Venkata Raju, W/o. Rama Chandram 30 Mirchi Jayamma, W/o. Jahn,' (All are R/o Yadavolu Village, Devarapalli Mandal) ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Tahsildar, Devarapalli, West Godavari District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer,Kovvur, West Godavari District. 3 The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 4 Dandru Gangajalam, W/o.Antarvedi, R/o. Parimpudi Koyylagudem Mandal, W.G. Dist., .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ or mandamus declaring the action of the respondents making attempts dispossess the petitioners from their lands in Ac.10.51 cents and Ac.10.07 cents R.S.No.578 &623 situated at Yadavolu(V), Devarapalli (M), West Godavari District, in view of the proceedings dated 13/2/2008 of the 2nd respondent, is illegal, arbitrary, and violation of principles of natural justice and offends article 300 (A) of Constitution of India and consequently direct the resposndents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the lands of the petitioners and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NARAM.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.4086 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioners that they have been assigned various extents of lands in R.S.Nos.578 and 623 situated at Yadavolu Village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District and they have been cultivating the said lands. While so, the 1st respondent issued notices to the petitioners in R.O.C.No.96/05 (DT), dated 12-02-2008, asking them to appear before him along with explanation, if any, on 16-02-2008, as to why assignment pattas should not be cancelled on the ground that the petitioners are not the landless poor persons and they are not entitled for assignment. It is the case of the petitioners that they came to know the reason for issuing such a notice, which is evident from the report issued by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent in R.O.C.No.150/08 (L), dated 13- 02-2008, that there was a complaint about alleged illegal assignment and on enquiry, the 2nd respondent found that pattas have been assigned in favour of the persons, who are not landless poor and accordingly, directed the 1st respondent to issue notice and cancel the same. It is stated that the directions/instructions issued by the 2nd respondent are behind the back of the petitioners and, therefore, the 1st respondent cannot cancel D-Form Pattas basing on the instructions/directions issued by the superior officials. A perusal of the impugned notice, dated 12-02-2008, does not refer to any of the instructions/directions said to have been issued by the 2nd respondent or the 3rd respondent. It appears that the impugned notice has been issued independently for taking appropriate action. If that be so, it is for the petitioners to submit explanation to the said show-cause notice, in which case, the 1st respondent has to conduct enquiry independently uninfluenced by any of the directions/instructions issued by the 2nd respondent or the 3rd respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is stated that the petitioners made a representation before the 3rd respondent on 14-02-2008 marking copies to the 1st and 2nd respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to file another representation before the 1st respondent, in addition to the earlier representation said to have been filed on 14-02-2008, within one week from today. On filing such representation, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after conducting enquiry. Till final orders are passed, status-quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 28-02-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in two days (B/o) Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}