THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6012 of 2003 Date of Order:10.03.2011 Between: G.Mangamma ..Petitioner and The District Collector, Khammam and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6012 of 2003 ORDER :- The petitioner, who belongs to S.C.Community and who was assigned an extent of Ac.0-06 guntas of land in survey No.18/1 (old) and 18/2 (New) situated at Old Palwancha, Palawancha village and Mandal, Khammam District, filed the present writ petition stating that an extent of Ac.0-06 guntas is the petitioner’s ancestral property. She approached the Survey and Land Records Department for fixation of boundaries and accordingly, the survey authorities have conducted survey and fixed boundaries in respect of the entire survey No.18 on 21.06.1995. Thereafter, she requested the department to fix boundaries in respect of Ac.0-06 guntas of land and accordingly they have sub-divided the land and gave survey No.18/2 by issuing copy of the sketch plan and a copy of Survey Settlement (supplementary sethwar), dated 06.06.1996. While so, the 2nd respondent prepared panchanama, dated 31.08.2002, as per the instructions of the 1st respondent at the instance of the 3rd respondent in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-15 guntas in survey No.18/1. Before drawing the said panchanama and fixing the boundaries, the petitioner was not given any notice. Under the guise of the panchanama, the 3rd parties at the instance of the 3rd respondent are trying to evict the petitioner from the land. Then the petitioner filed W.P.No.19406 of 2002 which was disposed of on 04.10.2002 directing the 2nd respondent not to dispossess the petitioner except following the procedure prescribed by law and issuing notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know about the panchanama and filed the present writ petition to declare the said panchanama to the extent of including the land of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer stating that out of Ac.0-19 guntas in survey No.18 of Palwancha village, an extent of Ac.0-15 gunts of land, which was classified as Poramboke, has been alienated in favour of the 3rd respondent on payment of market value for construction of Venkateswara Nursing Home leaving a balance of Ac.0-04 guntas. On such alienation, a Supplementary Sethwar bearing No.H5/502/78, has been issued by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records to the extent of Ac.0-15 guntas in favour of the 3rd respondent and the said supplementary Sethwar has been implemented in the revenue records showing the 3rd respondent as pattadar during the year 1980 against survey No.18/2 to an extent of Acs.0-15 guntas. While so, the Tahsildar, Kothagudem assigned an extent of Acs.0-06 guntas in the year 1982 in favour of the petitioner in file No.A3/1417/82 and the petitioner’s name was appeared as pattadar to an extent of Acs.0-06 guntas against survey No.18/1 of Palwancha village. The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Khammam has issued supplementary sethwar in favour of the petitioner by proceedings No.H8/484/95, dated 03.08.1995, to an extent of Ac.0-06 guntas for survey No.18/2, whereas the total extent of the above sethwars issued by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Khammam comes to Acs.0-21 guntas for the one and the same survey No.18/2. In view of the same, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records has been addressed to clear of the discrepancy for the sethwars issued for survey No.18/2 and also the excess area. The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Khammam has informed through letter No.A8/323/2003, dated 12.09.2003, saying that as per the technical records the area of the survey No.18 is only Ac.0-19 guntas, out of which Ac.0-15 guntas for which sethwar was issued in favour of the 3rd respondent through letter No.H5/502/78 and incorporation was not made in the village map. During the year 1982 the then Tahsildar, Kothagudem assigned an extent of Ac.0-06 guntas. While so, the District Collector vide proceedings No.B2/3273/97, dated 07.08.1997, cancelled the alienation made in favour of the 3rd respondent as he has failed to construct the Nursing Home within the stipulated period. On such cancellation, the land alienated in favour of the 3rd respondent was resumed back to Government. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent filed W.P.No.6485 of 2001. On dismissal of the writ petition, he filed W.A.No.852 of 2001, which was allowed on 09.07.2001 on the ground that the 3rd respondent was not served with any notice and granted liberty to the 3rd respondent to submit explanation before the appropriate authority within a period of three weeks from the date of service of such notice, if necessary and giving opportunity of hearing to the 3rd respondent, the matter should be disposed of. Pursuant to the same, the District Collector, Khammam, in his proceedings No.E1/3493/2001, dated 10.01.2002, has directed to hand over the possession of the land already resumed from the 3rd respondent under cover of Panchanama. As per the orders of the District Collector, Khammam, the Mandal Revenue Inspector-I, Palwancha has handed over the physical possession of the land to the 3rd respondent on 31.08.2002, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The counter is conspicuously silent with regard to the resumption of the land from the possession of the petitioner or whether the petitioner is in possession of the property to an extent of Acs.0-06 guntas as per the Sethwar prepared on 03.08.1995. During the course of dictation of the order, reply has been filed by the petitioner stating that the petitioner’s father was owner of Ac.0- 15 guntas of land and taking advantage of his illiteracy, the authorities allotted Ac.0-15 guntas of land in favour of 3rd respondent and as he failed to commence the construction within three years from 1978, his allotment was cancelled. The land can be resumed back for violation of the conditions and in view of the resumption of the land, the 3rd respondent has no claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously contends that when the petitioner is in possession of Ac.0-06 guntas of land, even assuming that she was assigned an excess land to an extent of Ac.0- 02 guntas, before conducting the panchanama she should be given an opportunity so that she can protect her possession under the sethwar, dated 03.08.1995. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader contends that an extent of Ac.0-15 guntas of land, which was earlier alienated in favour of the 3rd respondent and which was resumed back, was re- delivered to the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contends that pursuant to the remand order and accepting the explanation submitted by the 3rd respondent, the Collector orders for redelivery of the property to the 3rd respondent, which was resumed. He also contends that though the property was re-delivered, in view of the interim orders granted by this Court, he could not make any constructions and there are other proceedings, which were initiated by the petitioner as well as the third parties, which we are not concerned in the writ petition. Suffice it to say, an extent of Ac.0-15 guntas of land have been alienated in favour of the 3rd respondent even prior to the assignment of the land in favour of the petitioner and the same was implemented by issuing a supplementary sethwar in the year 1980 to the extent of Ac.0-15 guntas and his name was recorded as pattadar in the revenue records in the year 1980 till date. When the entire extent of land is only Ac.0-19 guntas, assignment of the land to an extent of Ac.0-06 guntas in favour of the petitioner, is a mistake committed by the Tahsildar, Kothagudem. When the name of the petitioner was mentioned as pattadar to an extent of Ac.0-06 guntas in survey No.18/1, unless Ac.0- 02 guntas are resumed from the 3rd respondent to make the deficit, the petitioner cannot claim to be in possession of Ac.0-06 guntas of land, as admittedly the available extent is only Ac.0-04 guntas. Therefore, when Ac.0-15 guntas of land was resumed from the 3rd respondent and on allowing the writ appeal when the Collector was directed to re- delivery of the property, which was resumed from the 3rd respondent, the petitioner need not be given any notice while drafting a panchanama for re-delivery in favour of the 3rd respondent. Petitioner, if had any grievance to the shortfall of Ac.0-02 guntas, she has to approach the respondents for appropriate orders, but cannot question the panchanama effected for re-delivery of the property. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J March 10, 2011 Lmv