IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18612 of 2003 Between: Gurram Guravaiah, S/o. Nagaiah, R/o. Velagapadu Village, Kaligiri Mandal, Nellore Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nellore. 2 The Joint Collector, Nellore. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore Dist. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaligiri Mandal, Nellore Dist. 5 Menda Rangaiah, S/o. Subbarayudu, Kothuru Village, Kanigiri Mandal, Nellore District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR G.VENKAT REDDY FOR MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondent No.5: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 04-07-2003 passed by respondent No.2, whereby he conﬁrmed order dated 14-05-2001 passed by respondent No.3 cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner in respect of Acs.2.78 cents and Acs.2.08 cents in Survey Nos.519/1 and 519/2 respectively of Velagapadu Village, Kaligiri Mandal, Nellore District made by the Cooperative Joint Farming Society (for short “the Society”), Velagapadu. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. The petitioner was granted patta in respect of the above mentioned lands as a member of the Society founded by respondent No.1. The dispute arose when an extent of Acs.3.29 cents in Survey No.257/2 of Velagapadu Village, Kaligiri Mandal, Nellore District was leased out in favour respondent No.5 by the Society, as the said land admittedly belonged to one Pasupuleti Malakondaiah. At the instance of the said Malakondaiah, the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, ordered deletion of the said land from the Society and handover the same to the said Malakondaiah. Respondent No.5 ﬁled W.P.No.23234 of 1999 assailing the said order, which was disposed of by this Court on 09-11-1999 with the direction to allot suitable land to respondent No.5. In order to provide a suitable land, the pattas granted in favour of the petitioner were cancelled by respondent No.3. The said order was questioned by the petitioner in appeal before respondent No.2, which was dismissed by him and this order is questioned in this writ petition. A perusal of the order impugned in this writ petition shows that the enquiry conducted by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Kaligiri Mandal, Nellore District revealed that the petitioner was an employee and after his retirement, he is residing at Chennai, where his wife is working in Municipal Corporation. On this ground, the allotment was cancelled. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the ration card produced by the petitioner clearly shows that he is a resident of Velagapadu Village, where the lands earlier allotted to the petitioner are situate. The fact that the petitioner’s wife is an employee of Municipal Corporation, Chennai is not denied by the petitioner. Unless the petitioner pleaded that though she is an employee of Municipal Corporation, Chennai, they are living separately, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioner is residing in Chennai along with his wife. I do not, therefore, ﬁnd any error in the impugned order necessitating this Court’s interference. With respect to the direction given by respondent No.2 to take action to cancel white ration card, I am of the view that such a direction ought not to have been given by him in the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner. While hearing the appeal, respondent No.2 acts as a quasi judicial authority and he cannot invoke his administrative powers to give directions, which are administrative in nature, more so against the interests of the appellant in his own appeal. In this view of the matter, this part of the direction given by respondent No.2 is set aside. However, liberty is given to respondent No.3 to enquire into the eligibility of the petitioner to hold the white ration card and after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, he shall decide on the said issue. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th November, 2008 vrn