IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.26387 of 2001 Between: Katasani Nagi Reddy ……PETITIONER(S) a n d Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, Khammam District and another ……RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.26387 of 2001 ORDER: The point that arises for determination in this Writ Petition is whether the Memo in L.DIS.No.G/2419/2000 dated 02.02.2001 of the first respondent i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, rejecting the application of the petitioner for issuing a Land Looser Certificate in favour of his son or showing him as a nominee to secure employment in the Heavy Water Plant at Manuguru is proper and if not what should be done. The respondents did not file any counter so far. The point arises in the following circumstances. The petitioner says that he owns an extent of Ac.6-15 gts of land in Sy.No.79/6 of Ammagaripally village and it was acquired along with other lands for the purpose of Heavy Water Plant at Manuguru and the compensation and other aspects were also settled in O.P.No.33/84 on the file of Sub-Court, Kothagudem. The petitioner says that as part of the arrangement for giving benefit to the land loosers in the above land acquisition, the Government promised to give employment either to the landholder or to his son. The further version of the petitioner is that initially he was given a Land Looser Certificate showing his brother’s son as a nominee for securing employment in the Heavy Water Plant. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said certificate was fraudulently obtained by his brother’s son misrepresenting that he is the adopted son of the petitioner. The petitioner’s further case is that bringing the above fraud to the notice of the authorities he again applied for a Land Looser Certificate through his application dated 07.10.2000 which was for duplicate and another application dated 26.12.2000 for giving the certificate in the name of his son, Katasani Laxmareddy. Here it should be mentioned that there is some confusion in the applications filed by the petitioner. In one application he requested for a duplicate of the Land Looser Certificate which was earlier given showing the name of his brother’s son as a nominee and in the latter application he sought the Land Looser Certificate in the name of his son, Katasani Laxmareddy, pleading that his brother’s son earlier obtained the Land Looser Certificate by playing fraud. This confusion in the above applications of the petitioner need not be treated as a minus point for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned memo dated 02.02.2001 of the first respondent i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, shows that he did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to prove the plea of fraud taken by him and instead he straightaway rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of Land Looser Certificate by showing his son, Katasani Laxmareddy, as a nominee stating that earlier he also obtained the certificate in the name of one Appireddy i.e. his brother’s son and that he did not give any explanation for seeking the present Land Looser Certificate in the name of his son. It is also mentioned in the said memo dated 02.02.2001 that the averments in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of his application for issuance of the Land Looser Certificate in the name of his son are not truthful also. The impugned order does not show on what basis the Revenue Divisional Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner went before him with a false case. The plea of the petitioner is that had he been given an opportunity he would have proved his case regarding the fraud played by his brother’s son and that he would have also placed all the correct facts before the Revenue Divisional Officer. With this plea the petitioner says that by giving him an opportunity to prove his case, the impugned order should be set aside and the first respondent should be directed to hold a proper enquiry into the matter and take a decision regarding the petitioner’s case after giving due notice to him. There is no representation for the respondents. However, having regard to the above plea of the petitioner and also the language used in the impugned memo, I am of the opinion that the impugned memo of the first respondent should be set aside and the matter should be sent back to the first respondent for a fresh enquiry and disposal of the application of the petitioner. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed and the first respondent i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, is directed to hold a fresh enquiry into the matter after giving due notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders and complete the exercise within four months from the date of receipt of this order. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 02nd December 2010 CVRK