IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12098 of 2001 Between: Konda Kanthamma, W/o. Venkata Rami Reddy, R/o. Rajupalem, B.Kodur Mandal, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Cuddapah. 2 The Joint Collector, Cuddapah. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Cuddapah District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, B.Kodur Mandal, Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or writ one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Rajampet, Cuddapah District in Proc.Ref.No.Dis.B/2869/95, dt. 20.6.98 and orders in Ref.No.Dis.3378/98, dt. 28.5.2001 of the Joint Collector, in conﬁrmin the orders of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer Rajampet, Cuddapah. In cancelling the DKT.No.7286, over an extent of 5.00 acres in Sy.No.694/1 of Munelli Village, B.Kodur Mandal, Cuddapah District, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12098 of 2001 ORDER: Questioning the action of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Rajampet in proceedings dated 20.6.1998, and the order of the Joint Collector, Cuddapah dated 28.5.2001 conﬁrming the order of the R.D.O. in canceling the DKT patta and resuming the land assigned to the petitioner over an extent of Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.694/1 of Munnelli Village, B.Kodur Mandal, Cuddapah, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner, a lady, claims to be a landless poor person and to have brought Ac.5-00 of land assigned to her under cultivation after spending huge amounts. It is her case that due to village factions some of the local people, enimically disposed to her, made false complaints resulting, eventually, in a show cause notice being issued to her on 28.9.1996 calling upon her to show cause as to why pattas should not be granted for the reason that (a) the land was not brought under cultivation within three years; (b) her husband owned AC.10-00 of land and patta was obtained by her without disclosing this fact and (c) the land is needed for a burial ground. The petitioner submitted her explanation and, thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed. Smt.N.Shoba, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would vehemently contend that the impugned order was in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as the petitioner’s explanation was not taken note of. Learned Counsel would submit that the petitioner, having cultivated the land spending huge sums of money, cannot be deprived of her assignment after a long lapse of time on untenable grounds. It is necessary to note that, in reply to the show cause notice issued by the Joint Collector dated 28.9.1996, the petitioner in her explanation while contending that she was a landless poor person, that she had spent huge amounts to bring the land under cultivation and to raise crops thereon, and that persons, enimically disposed towards her, had ﬁled the petitions, merely contended that the grounds raised in the show cause notice could be answered if a regular notice containing the allegations was issued. She made a request that the proceedings be dropped. The R.D.O. in his order dated 20.6.1998, noted that the M.R.O. had reported that Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.694/1 of Munnelli Village was assigned in favour of the petitioner as DKT patta, that the assignee has not cultivated the land from the date of assignment, that the assignee’s husband had also got an extent of Ac.10-00 through his ancestors, besides which he managed to get an extent of Ac.20-00 of land assigned by showing diﬀerent names of persons who were none other than his family members, that the villagers had represented that the said DKT pattas be cancelled as it was needed for a public purpose and could be transferred for the purposes of a burial ground/cattle stand poramboke/dhobikha and that the M.R.O. had recommended cancellation of the DKT patta. The R.D.O. observed that the petitioner herein had not produced any evidence in support of her having cultivated the land in question within the stipulated period of 3 years from the date of assignment. The R.D.O. inspected the land and noted that it was adjacent to the village, that there were no traces of cultivation at any point of time and that it was also required for the communal need of the village and, in such circumstances, the assignment was to be cancelled. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Joint Collector who, in his order dated 28.5.2001, observed that the petitioner’s explanation was not found convincing, that she had failed to ﬁle any concrete evidence to establish her active cultivation within the stipulated period of three years from the date of assignment, that her husband was in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.10-00 of patta lands acquired through ancestral property as on the date of assignment, that the decre in O.S.No.67 of 1991 was between the parties and did not preclude proceedings being taken by the R.D.O. in respect of the assigned land in question and that the lands had been assigned overlooking the communal needs of the village. It is evident that the petitioner was put on notice to which she submitted her explanation wherein, without meeting any of the grounds on which she was asked to show cause, she merely sought further opportunity on the ground that notice was issued basing on the allegations made by persons enimically disposed towards her. Even before this Court it is not pleaded that the aforesaid conclusions drawn by the R.D.O, of her husband owning Ac.10-00 of land of ancestral property and that she had not brought the land under cultivation within 3 years of assignment, were not correct. Both the authorities have also recorded a ﬁnding that the land is required for the public purpose of a burial ground to meet the communal needs of the village. Viewed from any angle, the action of the respondents in cancelling the assignment cannot be faulted. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________ 14-11-2008 asp