IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 20517 of 1999 Between: Guntaka Laxminarayana S/o.late Prabhu Lingam R/o.Gandhari, Gandhari Mandal, Kamareddy Division, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner Land Revenue Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector Nizamabad. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer Kamareddy Division, Nizamabad District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer Gandhari Mandal, Nizamabad District. .....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 issue a Writ, Order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in cancelling the assignement of market value of the house site by the Revenue Development Officer, Kamareddy and the orders passed by the Jiont Collector Nizamabad and the Commissioner Land Revenue, Hyderabad, conferming the said cancellation are arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently to declare the assignement of 02 Gts of land in Sy.No.1019 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gandhari in his Proceedings No.B/423/87 dt.21-06-1990 is vaild, and legal and to pass such other order or orders, which are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SERLA PANDARI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 20517 of 1999 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in cancelling the assignment of the land to an extent of Ac.0.02 guntas in S.No.1019 of Gandhari village and mandal, Kamareddy Division, Nizamabad District, made in favour of the petitioner on payment of market value, as arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioner, he had purchased a house site measuring 334 Sq.Yards in S.No.1017 situated at Gandhari village and mandal, Kamareddy Division, Nizamabad District from its previous owner Krishna Rao under a registered sale deed in the year 1980. He had also constructed a house over the said site. In the year 1987, when S.No.1019 was surveyed for the purpose of allotting the same to APSRTC, Police Housing Quarters and P.A.C.S. Ltd., Gandhari etc., it was discovered that an area of Ac.0.02 guntas in S.No.1019 was surrounded on three sides by S.No.1017. Therefore, the petitioner applied to the M.R.O. Gandhari for assignment of the said Ac.0.02 guntas of land in S.No.1019. The M.R.O. after due enquiry and taking into consideration the location of the land surrounded by S.No.1017, assigned the same in the name of the petitioner by his proceedings No.B/423/87 dated 20.6.1990 on the market value of Rs.165/-. On deposit of the said market value in the Government Treasury through challan No.334 dated 23.7.1990, the final patta certificate was issued in his favour alloting the said piece of land to him vide G.O.Ms.No.764 Revenue Department dated 26.8.1959. Subsequently, the R.D.O. Kamareddy cancelled the said assignment and ordered eviction of the petitioner. Against the said orders, the petitioner filed appeal before the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, who dismissed the said appeal on 8.4.1992. Against the said orders of dismissal, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue. The Commissioner, Land Revenue, Hyderabad in his proceedings No.B.C.W/1556/93 dismissed the appeal on 28.12.1996, which was not communicated to him and he came to know about the same in August, 1998 and, thereafter, obtained a copy of the said order and aggrieved by the said order of dismissal dated 28.12.1996, filed this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.3, wherein, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1980 SC 1285, it is stated that the assignement orders passed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer are without any authority, as the State is not bound by all the acts of its servants. Further, the then M.R.O. Gandhari relied upon G.O.Ms.No.1724 dated 28.6.1959 which pertains to the claims of the assignement of adjacent landholders. The said G.O. has no application to the lands for construction of houses. Since the order passed by the M.R.O. are without authority, the same was set aside by him and the same has been confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. An additional counter affidavit is also filed by respondent No.3 wherein it is stated that it is evident from the record of the M.R.O. that the M.R.I. has visited the land for inspection on 22.9.1992 and submitted his report stating that there is compound wall leading from south to north, measuring 45 feet, facing towards eastern side and there are structures, namely, a stair-case leading to terrace of the house and lavatory and extention of the terrace, leading from east to west, facing towards western side, measuring 40 feet, and, in view of the existing structures, specific instructions were sought whether he should take possession after demolition of the strucures to an extent of Ac.0.02 guntas. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that Gandhari is a remote village of the District and the petitioner has not encroached any land. When Ac.0.02 guntas of land was found to be not useful to anybody and, as Ac.0.02 guntas of land is surrounded by the land held by the petitioner on three sides, he had applied for allotment of the same in his favour on payment of market value. Even according to the Map furnished by the Revenue Divisional officer, Kamareddy, the land is in triangular shape and could not have been utilised by anybody including the Government for any purpose. Therefore, the order passed by the R.D.O. as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, is without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, liable to be set aside. On the contrary, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents strenuously contended that when there is no authority vested in the M.R.O. to allot the land in question on payment of market value, the question of regularising it does not arise. Therefore, the R.D.O. has rightly cancelled the assignement made in favour of the petitioner and the same is neither arbitrary nor illegal. Further, G.O.Ms.No. 1724 dated 26.8.1959 is with regard to the claims of assignments of adjacent lands. However, the said G.O. has no application to the lands for construction of houses. Therefore, the R.D.O. has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled of allotment of Ac.0.02 guntas and the same has been rightly upheld by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The fact that the then Mandal Revenue Officer assigned patta in the name of the petitioner to an exent of Ac.0.02 guntas of land in S.No.1019, which is abutting the house of the petitioner, is not in dispute. Further, the petitioner paid the market value and the same was accepted by the M.R.O. In a remote village like this, the Revenue Divisional Officer could have taken a pragmatic view of the matter, particularly, when the land in question is triangular in shape and cannot be put to any other use except by the petitioner, since he is the adjacent land owner. From the additional counter filed by the R.D.O. it is clear that a structure, namely, stair-case leading to the terrace of the house and lavatory and extension of the terrace leading from east to west, facing towards western side, measuring 40 feet, was present in the land in question. Further, there is no dispute even as to the payment of market value of the land in question nor there is any dispute that the consideration paid by the petitioner is less than what is required to be paid as per the market value. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that it may not be fair on the part of the respondents in cancelling the assignment of Ac.0.02 guntas made in favour of the petitioner and causing further damage by demolishing the structures thereon, after the said land was allotted on payment of market value. Therefore, the orders passed by the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer dated 6.8.1991, as confirmed by the Joint Collector vide orders dated 8.4.1992 as well as the Commissioner of Land Revenue vide orders dated 28.12.1996, are set aside and the Joint Collector, Nizamabad is directed to reconsider the matter on humanitarian grounds for regularising the land in question in favour of the petitioner, since he has already paid the market value. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 28-7-2009. MVB.