IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7641 of 2000 Between: T.Amruthamma, W/o T.Yerram Reddy, D/o J.Pedda Reddeppa Reddy, R/o Geddamvaripalle, Chowdepalle Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Land Revenue Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Chittoor. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ order ro direction, holding the action of the respondents in cancelling the patta of the land assigned to the petitioner in Sy.No.535/1 Ac.3-07 cents and Sy.No.528/4 Ac.1-98 cents of Gaddamvaripalle i Chowdepalli Mandal Chittoor District in his proc.No.BCW2/1169/97 dt: 29/2/2000 as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and further direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the assigned land in Sy.No. 535/1 Ac.3- 07 cents Sy.No.528/4 Ac. 1-98 cents of Gaddamvaripalli Mandal, Chittoor District Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.S.BHATT Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 7641 of 2000 ORDER: Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in cancelling the patta granted to him, of an extent of Ac.3.07 cents in Sy.No.535/1 and an extent of Ac.1.98 cents in Sy.No.528/4 of Gaddamvaripalli Village, Chowdepalli Mandal, Chittoor District, vide proceedings dated 29.02.2000, the petitioner has invoked this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the impugned order dated 29.02.2000, the first respondent noted that, though the petitioner was married to Sri Erram Reddy, she was residing at her parents’ place, that she was depending on the assigned lands for her livelihood, that she had been personally cultivating the said lands, that she had spent huge amounts in developing them and that she had filed documents like voter’s list, identity card, LIC policy documents, pattadar pass books and title deeds showing that she was residing in Gaddamvaripalli Village. In so far as the question of her mother having lands is concerned the petitioner stated that she would get 1/3rd share of the property after her mother’s demise, that too, if her mother did not decide to bequeath it to some one else and that, on the date of assignment, she was a landless poor person. The first respondent noted the contention of the department that the petitioner’s forefathers were Shivai jamadars and that the petitioner was a member of a big joint family consisting of more than 40 members who had been in possession of vast extents of lands since a long time. The first respondent also noted the petitioner’s admission that she was married, that her mother had property and that she had a share in it. The petitioner’s contention that she was separated from her husband and was living independently was disbelieved on the ground that it was not supported by any proof and that the documents filed by her did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was depending on this land for her livelihood nor did they establish her exclusive independent status. The petitioner was assigned land in the year 1987. Not only does the impugned order show that she had filed several documents, even, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner had filed material papers like voter’s list, voters identity card, LIC premium agreement, pattadar pass books and title deeds showing that she was a resident of Gaddamvaripalli Village. Except to state that the petitioner had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that she had separated from her husband, the first respondent has not assigned any reasons as to why the documents filed by the petitioner, along with her petition, did not merit acceptance. One such letter addressed to the petitioner by the Life Insurance Corporation of India dated 11.04.1985 would show that the petitioner’s address was shown as Gaddamvaripalli Village and not Chinnagottigallu Village where her husband is said to have been residing. Without considering the material on record, and examining each of these documents, the first respondent is not justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was not separated from her husband. The petitioner’s assertion that her mother is alive has also not been refuted by the respondents, in which event, the question of her inheriting from her mother’s property would depend on her mother deciding to bequeath the property on her. Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner’s mother is alive even as on date. As such, either on the date of assignment, or on the date of impugned order, the petitioner could not be held to have a share in the land belonging to her mother. While the petitioner could have been denied assignment of the lands on the ground that she was not residing in Gaddamvaripalli Village but was residing elsewhere, this conclusion could only have been arrived at by the first respondent after considering the various documents filed by the petitioner. Since this has not been done, the impugned order necessitates being set aside and the matter remanded to the first respondent for consideration afresh on merits. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the first respondent, who shall examine the question whether the petitioner was, or was not, a resident of Gaddamvaripalli Village as on the date of assignment. It is also open to the respondents to examine other issues to decide whether or not the petitioner was entitled for assignment on the date on which the land was assigned in her favour. Needless to state that the first respondent shall put the petitioner on notice, give her an opportunity of personal hearing, and, thereafter, pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:27.01.2009 usd