IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8137 of 2009 Between: Moka Sattemma W/o.late Narasimha Swamy Residing at Dayyala Thippa Village, Hamlet of Losari Gutla Padu (L.G. Padu) Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapuram, W.G. District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G. District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authority in not supplying the copy of the order cancelling the patta granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in Survey No. 2001/2, admeasuring Ac.2.53 cents situated at Losari Gutla Padu (L.G.Padu) Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District and trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question, as being illegal, arbitrary, capricious and malafide. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRSYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner was assigned Acs.2.53 cents of land in Survey No.2001/2 of Gollavanithippa, Hamlet of Losari Gutlapadu Village, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, in 1983. Herself and two others approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.14154 of 2007 alleging that the respondents are interfering with the possession over the assigned land. On behalf of the respondents, it was represented that the assignment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled in 1996. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the remedies against the order of cancellation. The petitioner got issued a notice to the third respondent through her Advocate with a request to furnish the copy of the order of cancellation. This writ petition is filed alleging that the third respondent has not furnished a copy of the order of cancellation and it is complained that the petitioner is disabled from pursuing the remedies on account of the inaction on the part of the third respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Writ Petition No.14154 of 2007 filed by the petitioner and two others was dismissed on a representation made on behalf of the third respondent that the patta in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. As directed by this Court, the petitioner approached the third respondent with a request to furnish the copy of the order of cancellation. Even though a notice was got issued, the copy of the alleged cancellation order was not furnished. The inaction or refusal on the part of the third respondent in furnishing a copy of the order of cancellation of patta amounts to not only arbitrariness but also misrepresentation before this Court. The conduct of the third respondent is despicable. He cannot encroach into the rights of the petitioner, even while withholding the alleged order of cancellation. In a way, a serious doubt exists whether the patta was cancelled at all. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land in question, till they furnish the copy of the order of alleged cancellation. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 29th APRIL, 2009. kvni