IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8651 of 2001 Between: 1 K.Sundara Rama Raju, S/o late Krishnam Raju, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 2 Velpuri Raj Kumar, S/o Lakshmi Narayana Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 3 Velpuri Venkata Rama Rao S/o Lakshmi Narayana Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District ... PETITIONER(S) AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District .....RESPONDENT 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 order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent vide his Proceedings Rc.No.99/2001/A, dt. 16-4-2001, cancelling the D.Form Pattas in respect of the lands in Sy.No.171/3 over an extent of Ac.0.70 cents of the 1st petitioner, Sy.No.171/1 over an extent of Ac.0.25 cents of the 2nd petitioner and Sy.No.171/2 over an extent of Ac.0.25 cents of the 3rd petitioner respectively of Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as without jurisdiction, highly arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, void, illegal and suﬀers from non application of mind. Counsel for the Petitioners: MRS.PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.8651 OF 2001 ORDER: It is indeed unfortunate that despite repeated adjournments there is no representation from the oﬃce of the Government Pleader for Assignment. When the matter came up yesterday, this Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner and, since there was no representation on behalf of the Government Pleader for Assignment, directed that the Writ Petition be listed under the caption ‘for judgment’. Today, in the forenoon, when the matter was called, neither was the Government Pleader for Assignment present nor was there any representation on his behalf. Though Smt.Pulipati Radhika, Learned Counsel for the petitioners was present the matter was still passed over to enable the Learned Government Pleader to be present. In the afternoon also neither is the learned Government Pleader for Assignment present nor is there any representation on his behalf. This Court is left with no choice but to proceed with the hearing of the Writ Petition which has been pending on the ﬁle of this Court for the past nearly 7 years. While huge back log of cases is, indeed, a cause of concern, the Court is handicapped by the lack of assistance from Law Oﬃcers representing the Government. Let alone assistance, in the case on hand, the learned Government Pleader has neither chosen to be present nor is there any representation on his behalf. Coming to the facts of the case on hand. The relief sought for in the Writ Petition is for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in proceedings dated 16.04.2001, cancelling the ‘D’ Form pattas in respect of the lands in Survey No.171/3 over an extent of 70 cents of land of the 1st petitioner, in Survey No.171/1 over an extent of 25 cents of land of the 2nd petitioner and in Survey No.171/2 over an extent of 25 cents of land of the 3rd petitioner in Yendada village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as without jurisdiction and arbitrary. The petitioners claim to be owners of the above mentioned extents of land. They contend that the Government had issued ‘D’ form patta in the year 1990 in favour of Smt. K.Ramaiah for an extent of Ac.1.20 cents in Survey No.171 of Yendada village as she was the wife of a political suﬀerer. They would submit that the District Collector, vide proceedings dated 04.12.1990, had issued a ‘D’ form patta in her favour, that later the Government had issued G.O.Rt.No.1794 dated 16.11.1994, permitting the assignee to sell away her land to enable her to meet her medical expenses at the fag end of her life and, pursuant to the said permission of the Government, the 1st petitioner had purchased the said land of an extent of Ac.1.20 cents from the assignee for valuable consideration under registered sale deed dated 15.12.1994, that, thereafter, she had sold away an extent of 50 cents out of the said land to petitioners 2 and 3 for an extent of 25 cents each, under two separate registered sale deeds dated 25.11.1995 and that she remained in possession and enjoyment of the remaining extent of land of 70 cents. The petitioners would further state that, subsequently, their names had been mutated in the revenue records in respect of their respective extents of the land in accordance with the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer dated 14.05.1999. They also claim to have been in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. While matters stood thus, the impugned proceedings dated 16.04.2001 were passed cancelling the ‘D’ Form pattas issued in their favour. The petitioners would contend that they were neither put on notice nor given an opportunity of being heard before such ‘D’ Form pattas were cancelled and that such cancellation was without application of mind. This Court, by order dated 26.04.2001, granted interim suspension of the impugned order. The said interim order continues to be in force till date. In the counter aﬃdavit, ﬁled on behalf of the Tahasildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, it is stated that show cause notices were issued to all the three petitioners with a direction to oﬀer their explanation as to why the land assigned to them should not be resumed for violation of conditions of the grant for the reason that they had failed to bring the land under cultivation which was in violation of the grant, that the notices sent by registered post were returned with the endorsement ‘address is insuﬃcient’, which, according to the respondent, implied that the assignees or their family members were not residing in the village, that a local publication was made in the Gram Panchayat oﬃce by aﬃxing the list of assignees along with the particulars of lands assigned which were proposed for cancellation of ‘D’ Form pattas and that the contents of the notices were published by tom-tom and by publication in a daily news paper “Enadu city edition” dated 22.03.2001. The respondent would, however, admit that Smt.K.Ramaiah was the original assignee to whom original ‘D’ form patta was issued under political suﬀerers quota and that, pursuant to the permission, the 1st petitioner herein had purchased said land admeasuring Ac.1.20 cents from the original assignee through registered document for a valuable consideration and, thereafter, the 1 st petitioner had sold an extent of 50 cents of the total purchased land to petitioners 2 and 3, for an extent of 25 cents each, under separate registered sale deeds. It is also stated that, subsequently, the land in question was sub-divided into Survey No.171/1 for 25 cents, 171/2 for 25 cents and 171/3 for 70 cents and that the names of the petitioners had been incorporated as pattadars in their respective portions. Para 4 of the said counter-aﬃdavit makes interesting reading and is, therefore, extracted hereunder: “In reply to Paras 7 to 9 it is respectfully submitted that the Writ Petitioners in response to the Show Cause notice or after receiving the cancellation proceedings of assignment which were issued erroneously from this oﬃce, they should have approached competent authority at District level or Mandal level or they should have approached the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Visakhapatnam by way of an appeal on the cancellation order of the respondent to seek redressal instead of approaching Hon’ble High Court. Without exhausting all the available remedies, the Writ Petitioners have unnecessarily approached the Hon’ble High Court, hence the Writ Petition deservers no consideration.” If, according to the respondent, the impugned proceedings had been erroneously issued, there is no justiﬁcation on his part in contending that the petitioners ought to have preferred an appeal seeking cancellation of the order or to have approached the competent authority at the District level or the Mandal level. If the order was erroneously issued, the respondent ought to have taken immediate steps to have the error rectiﬁed on his own accord and not to make the petitioners run from pillar to post. Now, as the respondent admits that the impugned order was erroneously issued, the respondent shall forthwith take eﬀective steps to have the error corrected and intimate his decision to the petitioners restoring their rights over the lands in question. The respondent shall communicate his order, rectifying his action in passing the erroneous order earlier, to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________ 14.11.2008 GS