IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 322 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 12117 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court.) Between: G.Ramulu, ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Joint Collector, Nizamabad. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad. 3 K.Bikshapathi S/o.Siddaiah Kotagally area, Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MRK.M.MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.322 OF 2002 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) This writ appeal is filed by the third respondent in the writ petition, W.P.No.12117 of 1998, aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2001 passed by a learned single Judge allowing the writ petition. The grievance of the writ petitioner (third respondent in this appeal), before the learned Judge was with regard to the order dated 28.03.1998 passed by the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, in Case No.D3/3681/96 confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, dated 24.06.1989 in File No.B2/2062/89. The case of the writ petitioner was that he was assigned an extent of 100 square yards of land at Kanteswar village of Nizamabad District in the year 1979 and that he had erected a thatched hut therein. It was his further case that he shifted his residence to Nizamabad town in the year 1987 to look after his ailing mother and taking advantage of his absence, the third respondent (appellant in this appeal) occupied the plot illegally. The record reveals that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the writ petitioner after following the due procedure. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was not in possession of the assigned land and had shifted his residence to Nizamabad town. After cancellation of the assignment in favour of the writ petitioner, it appears that the third respondent/appellant’s application dated 03.01.1989 was processed and the subject land was allotted to him. A reading of the impugned proceedings passed by the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, would reflect that the Mandal Revenue Officer enquired into the request for allotment made by the third respondent/appellant and it was found that the subject land was vacant since it’s allotment and as nobody was in possession of the subject plot, the same was proposed for allotment in favour of the third respondent/appellant. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, issued Show Cause Notice dated 04.04.1989 to the writ petitioner proposing cancellation of the allotment and the record reveals that the Village Assistant, Nizamabad, certified that, when he visited the subject land, the writ petitioner was not residing there and there was no hut in existence. Therefore, he affixed the notice upon the plot. Thereafter, after observing the due procedure, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, cancelled the allotment of the subject land in favour of the writ petitioner, by proceedings dated 24.06.1989, which was confirmed in appeal by the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, in the first instance by order 27.06.1991. However, in view of the order of this Court in W.P.No.14164 of 1991 setting aside the same, the Joint Collector heard the matter afresh after giving adequate opportunity to both the parties and passed the impugned proceedings. It is also evident from the record that the writ petitioner has been residing at Kotagalli Street of Nizamabad town since 5 or 6 years. In view of the concurrent findings on fact arrived at by the authorities, the interference by this Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. The order of the learned single Judge was based on a report of the Mandal Revenue Officer that was called for after the institution of the writ petition. The finding of the learned Judge relying thereupon that some construction was made by the writ petitioner in the subject land cannot be sustained in the light of the detailed enquiry initiated by the authorities below and the finding of facts recorded in the proceedings. Further, the learned Judge erred in enlarging the scope of his certiorari jurisdiction by calling for additional material at that stage of the proceedings. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 26.12.2001 in W.P.No.12117 of 1998. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 10th June, 2009. VGSR