IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19239 of 2008 Between: 1 G.Chandraiah S/o Hanmaiah Hanwada(V)&(M) Mahabubnagar District 2 G.Anjilaiah S/o.Chandraiah Hanwada(V)&(M) Mahabubnagar District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer Mahabubnagar District 2 Joint Collector Mahabubnagar 3 Divisional Forest Officer Mahabubnagar 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Principal Secretary Revenue Secretariat Hyderabad ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.K.BALAGOPAL Counsel for respondents 1, 2, 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondent No.3: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Certiorari to quash proceedings No.G/3146/2007 dated 14-08-2008 passed by respondent No.1. The petitioners were granted pattas to the extent of Acs.5.00 each in Survey No.781 of Hanwada Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District in the year 2004. Respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 19-03-2008, wherein he called upon the petitioners to submit their explanation along with documentary evidence to show that the lands assigned to them are not included in the reserve forest and that the pattas shall not be resumed in favour of the forest authorities. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioners ﬁled their explanations. However, respondent No.1 passed the impugned proceedings on 14-08- 2008, whereby he cancelled the assignments granted in favour of the petitioners and directed the Tahsildar, Hanwada to resume the land to the Government custody and handover the same to the forest officials. Sri K.Balagopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, raised the jurisdictional issue and that under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for short “the Act”), the Government or any Oﬃcer not lower in rank than a Collector and the Settlement Commissioner of Land Records may call for the records of the case or proceeding from his subordinate department and make suitable order, if he satisﬁed himself that the order or decision passed or the proceeding taken is irregular, illegal and improper. The learned counsel submitted that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to cancel the assignments granted in favour of the petitioners by exercising revisional power, which is vested only in respondent No.2. He also pointed out that respondent No.2, having issued a show cause notice and received the explanation, has not passed any order and the action of respondent No.1 in usurping the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 is illegal. The learned counsel invited the Court’s attention to letter dated 05-03-2008 addressed by the Divisional Forest Oﬃcer to the Tahsildar, Hanwada Mandal, wherein he requested the Tahsildar to demarcate the land in respect of which the pattas would have been granted to the petitioners outside the reserve forest area. As regards the jurisdiction of respondent No.1, I am of the view that under Section 166-B of the Act, it is only respondent No.2, who has jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Having issued a show cause notice and received explanation, respondent No.2, ought to have considered the explanations oﬀered by the petitioners, the survey report and passed an appropriate order. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the survey report, after considering the explanations submitted by the petitioners and giving them an opportunity of personal hearing. If it is found that the lands in respect of which pattas were granted to the petitioners fell outside the area of Acs.2290.30 guntas, which was notiﬁed as reserve forest and is in possession of the Forest Department, he shall pass appropriate orders, protecting the possession of the petitioners. Conversely, if it is found that the assigned lands are part of reserve forest, he shall be at liberty to resume the land and consider the claim of the petitioners for granting assignment of alternative lands in lieu of forest lands. Till respondent No.2 passes the order, as directed above, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the lands in respect of which they were granted assignments. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.25098 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th September, 2008 vrn