THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 11330 of 2004 Dated: 16.09.2010 Between: P.Sarala, Hanamkonda, Warangal. … Petitioner And The District Collector, Warangal District and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 11330 of 2004 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the cancellation of the assignment of house site granted to the petitioner vide proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 24.02.2004 as confirmed on appeal by the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 14.06.2004 is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner herein was allotted a house site admeasuring 100 square yards situated in Sy.No.184 of Waddepally Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District vide proceedings of the 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Warangal dated 04.04.1994 under a special scheme to encourage social amity by inter-caste marriages. The petitioner was put in possession of the said plot immediately. It is claimed that having constructed a house with prior sanction of the Municipal Authorities, the petitioner has been staying therein which was assigned house No.2-4- 1324. The petitioner has also been paying taxes regularly to the local authorities. While so, some third parties, styling themselves as members of Pochamma Temple Committee, attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.S.No.709 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal for permanent injunction and by order dated 31.12.2001 in I.A.No.104 of 2000 temporary injunction was granted in her favour. In the meanwhile, by proceedings dated 21.06.2002, the 3rd respondent cancelled the assignment made in favour of the petitioner and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanamkonda to hand over possession to the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11451 of 2002, which was dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, which was allowed by order dated 30.08.2003 and the matter was remanded back to the 3rd respondent for fresh enquiry. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon her to show cause as to why the house site patta certificate should not be cancelled alleging that she failed to construct a house within the stipulated period. It is also stated that as the land in question which is situated adjacent to Pochamma temple, is required by the people belonging to Gokulnagar, Gandhinagar and other colonies for the purpose of worship at the time of Bonalu, the same has to be spared in public interest. Though, the petitioner submitted her reply dated 03.02.2004, requesting to drop the proceedings, by order dated 24.02.2004 the allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had contravened the conditions of assignment. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same was also dismissed by order dated 14.06.2004. Hence, the present writ petition. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the orders passed by both the respondents 2 and 3 are arbitrary and illegal since both the authorities failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner got the house constructed within the stipulated time. It is also contended that as per condition No.10 of patta no specific time limit was prescribed for construction of house and therefore, cancellation of patta on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make use of the land within the time stipulated was arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the original record placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader. As could be seen from the record, the house site was assigned to the petitioner subject to certain conditions making it clear that in the event of breach of the conditions or in the event of the grantee leaving the house unoccupied for a period of one year, the house site would be resumed. The conditions of assignment laid down in G.O.Ms.No.840 Revenue (ASN-I) Department dated 04.12.1999 and the conditions enclosed to the allotment made in favour of the petitioner make it clear that the petitioner should make use of the plot within a year for private dwelling house only. It is alleged that whereas the land was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1994, the petitioner failed to construct a house till 2002 for a period of more than seven years and the devotees of the Pochamma temple started using the land for communal purpose. The 3rd respondent in his order stated that when he inspected the site in question on 25.12.2003, it was found vacant. The record also shows that the devotees of the temple made a representation stating that they have been using the said land, which is left vacant, for congregations. In the circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that she had constructed a house and staying therein cannot be accepted. The record also includes the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat under which the petitioner’s application for construction of a building was returned on certain objections. The petitioner could not produce any material even before the 2nd respondent to show that she had constructed any house over the plot in question. Such a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the respondents 2 and 3 cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is true that the 3rd respondent while cancelling the allotment observed that the said piece of land is also necessary for communal use by the devotees of Pochamma temple. However, apparently the cancellation was not on the ground that it was required for public purpose, but it was only on the ground that the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions of assignment. In the circumstances, interference by this Court is not warranted. However, keeping in view that the petitioner was allotted the land in question as an incentive under a scheme, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for allotment of an alternative land and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date:16.09.2010 KLP