THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.12700 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition arises under a peculiar set of facts. The petitioner is the daughter of Sri J.Bhujanga Reddy. The 5th respondent and Bhujanga Reddy are said to have jointly purchased an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas of land in survey No.142 of Pothireddypalli Village, Sanga Reddy Mandal, Medak District. However, it emerged that part of it is Government land. It appears that Bhujanga Reddy made efforts, and ultimately, the entire land of Ac.0.10 guntas was assigned in favour of the petitioner, vide proceedings, dated 29.01.1992, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sanga Reddy, the 2nd respondent. The 5th respondent submitted a representation before the Joint Collector, Medak, the 1st respondent, stating that, though Ac.0.10 guntas of land is purchased by himself and father of the petitioner, patta was obtained clandestinely by the petitioner alone, for the entire land. Acting on the same, the 1st respondent issued notice to the petitioner and heard both the parties. Through his order, dated 24.07.2006, the 1st respondent cancelled the assignment in favour of the petitioner and directed the 2nd respondent to resume the entire land for future needs of the Government. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. The petitioner contends that she has constructed a poultry shed in part of the land assigned to her and is eking out her livelihood by raising vegetable garden. She states that the representation made by the 5th respondent is not referable to any provision of law and, at any rate, could not have constituted the basis for cancellation of the patta. The 5th respondent filed a counter-affidavit. He too raises an objection for cancellation of patta, but wants that the assignment be made equally in favour of himself and the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the 5th respondent. Patta was granted in favour of the petitioner, way back in the year 1992, over an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas of land. The basis for the 1st respondent to initiate proceedings against the petitioner was a representation made by the 5th respondent. In clear terms, he stated that himself and the father of the petitioner purchased Ac.0.10 guntas of land, not being aware of the fact that it is Government land, and in the process of seeking regularization of their possession, the father of the petitioner got the entire assigned land in faovur of his daughter. Strictly speaking, such a dispute did not fall into the scope of powers of the 1st respondent. In stead of requiring the 5th respondent to work out his remedies in a civil Court, against the father of the petitioner, the 1st respondent proceeded to verify the extents held by the father of the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 5th respondent, on the other hand, and directed cancellation of the assignment. The findings recorded, vis-à-vis the petitioner, are vague and untenable. Further, he did not mention the provision, under which the assignment was cancelled. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. It is not disputed that the father of the petitioner and the 5th respondent purchased this very land, in equal shares, not being aware of its actual nature. The petitioner cannot enjoy the benefit of the entire land, though she alone was assigned it. Across the Bar, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 5th respondent, on the other hand, agreed that their clients are prepared to share it equally. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the Tahsildar, Sanga Reddy, 2nd respondent, shall issue fresh orders of assignment in favour of the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 5th respondent, on the other hand, granting patta over the land, that was originally assigned to the petitioner. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.05.02.2010. GJ