THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS.5143 AND 5194 OF 2006 Dated 29th July, 2010 WRIT PETITION NO.5143 OF 2006 Between: S.G.Dasappa …Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.P.Acharya Counsel for respondents 1 and 3: AGP for Revenue (Assignments) Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri K.Mallikarjuna Reddy for Sri P.Veera Reddy WRIT PETITION NO.5194 OF 2006 Between: S.G.Dasappa …Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.P.Acharya Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Revenue (Assignments) Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri K.Mallikarjuna Reddy For Sri P.Veera Reddy The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: As the subject matter of these two writ petitions is common, they are heard and being disposed of together. I have heard Sri T.P.Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and respondent No.1 in Writ Petition Nos.5143 and 5194 of 2006 respectively and Sri K.Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 2 in Writ Petition Nos.5143 and 5194 of 2006 respectively. Writ Petition No.5143 of 2006 This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 12.01.2006 in L.Dis.No. 45/06 (B) issued by respondent No.1. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are stated as under- The petitioner was granted house site patta on 28.05.1995 in respect of Plot No.6 in Survey No.420 admeasuring Ac.0.02 cents measuring 50 x 40 square links of Ramapuram Village, H/o Agali, Ananthapur District. The petitioner has constructed a house on a part of the site leaving open space towards southern side. The petitioner is residing along with his family in the said house. The Gram Panchayat allotted Assignment No.805 and tax is being paid. Respondent No.4 was granted house site patta in respect of Plot No.7 in the same survey number. She has erected a shed in her plot. As respondent No.4 was interfering with the petitioner’s possession of his plot and trying to make a construction in the open space on the southern side of his plot, the petitioner has filed O.S.No.152 of 2003 against respondent No.4 for permanent injunction in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira, Ananthapur District. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.1025 of 2003 for temporary injunction. An Advocate-Commissioner was appointed in the said suit and he along with Surveyor has visited the site, taken measurements and submitted a report stating that there is an open space in the petitioner’s plot. That suppressing the fact of pendency of the suit filed by the petitioner, respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.1 of 2004 against the petitioner for permanent injunction in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira and also filed I.A.No.14 of 2004 in the said suit for temporary injunction, in which the petitioner has filed a counter and contested the matter. After hearing both the sides, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira, allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner on 20.12.2005 and dismissed the application filed by respondent No.4 for injunction in her suit. Respondent No.4 evidently approached respondent No.1 seeking police protection and thereupon the latter issued the impugned proceedings directing respondent No.2 to provide police protection till completion of construction by respondent No.4. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein she has admitted the pendency of both the suits and dismissal of her application for injunction. Respondent No.4 did not deny the plea of the petitioner that the civil Court has granted injunction in his favour. Writ Petition No.5194 of 2006 The petitioner in Writ Petition No.5143 of 2006 filed Writ Petition No.5194 of 2006 feeling aggrieved by order dated 12.01.2006 in Rc.No. 43/06 (B) of respondent No.1, by which he has suspended house site patta granted to the petitioner over Plot No.6 of Survey No.420 of Ramapuram Village on a purported appeal filed by respondent No.2. From the facts in Writ Petition No.5143 of 2006 noted supra, it is clear that the house site patta was granted to the petitioner as far back as 28.05.1995. Respondent No.1 has entertained a purported appeal of respondent No.2 nearly 11 years after the grant of patta in favour of the petitioner and stayed operation of the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Agali, by which patta was granted to the petitioner. No counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.1 to defend his apparently indefensible action. In her counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, she has denied that she has filed the appeal at the instance of Smt. Sarvamangalamma (Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.5143 of 2006). She has stated that she was assigned house site patta on 28.09.1995 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Agali and that the said house site patta was assigned Plot No.8 admeasuring Ac.0.02 cents. She further stated that Plot No.6 allotted to the petitioner is different from the one on which he proposed the construction and as he tried to encroach upon her plot, she filed an appeal before respondent No.1, in which the latter has granted stay. In her affidavit, the petitioner has categorically alleged that having failed to get an order of injunction from the civil Court, respondent No.4 in W.P.No.5143 of 2006 approached respondent No.1 seeking police protection and not being satisfied with that, she has instigated respondent No.2 who has nothing to do with Plot No.6 to file an appeal before respondent No.1. The fact that the civil Court granted injunction in favour of the petitioner and dismissed the application for injunction filed by respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.5143 of 2006 is not in dispute. Indeed the petitioner has filed both the orders of the civil Court dated 20.12.2005 in support of his plea. Similarly, it is also not in dispute that respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.5194 of 2006 has nothing to do with the assignment of plot in favour of the petitioner. As noted, nearly 11 years after the patta was granted in favour of the petitioner, she filed the appeal on a specious plea that the petitioner has encroached into her plot and started raising construction. Respondent No.1 entertained the request of respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.5143 of 2006 and also the so called appeal filed by respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.5194 of 2006 and obliged both of them by directing the police to grant protection to respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.5143 of 2006 to raise construction and stayed the patta granted to the petitioner 11 years back in the appeal filed by respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.5194 of 2006. Respondent No.1 has not even made an attempt to defend his action by filing a counter- affidavit. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader is unable to point out any provision of law, under which respondent No.1 could exercise his power to pass the abovementioned two orders. From the uncontraverted facts noted above, it is clearly evident that the impugned order in Writ Petition No.5143 of 2006 is intended to clearly overreach the injunction order granted by the civil Court in favour of the petitioner. Similarly in the absence of any specific provision, respondent No.1 ought not to have entertained the so called appeal nearly 11 years after the grant of patta in favour of the petitioner from respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.5194 of 2006. Respondent No.1 does not appear to have even verified the locus standi of respondent No.2 to question the patta granted in favour of the petitioner and has not even given a notice to the petitioner before suspending the patta, which had far reaching consequences. I have no hesitation to hold that respondent No.1 has blatantly abused his official position and his actions are wholly subversive of rule of law. Being a public servant, respondent No.1 is bound to respect law and act within its bounds. These actions are far too in excess of the powers consecrated in him. The impugned orders are therefore quashed. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. The Principal Secretary, Revenue of the State of Andhra Pradesh, is directed to examine the conduct of the Officer concerned in issuing the impugned orders and initiate appropriate action against him in accordance with law. Respondent No.1 shall pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each in these two writ petitions to the petitioner as costs and the same shall be recovered from the Officer concerned, who passed the impugned orders. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Note: Copy to be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Dated 29th July, 2010 vrn