THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 18333 of 1997 Date: 16.11.2011 Between: G.Narasimha Reddy … Petitioner And The Special Commissioner, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 18333 of 1997 ORDER: The writ petitioner, who claims to be the Ex-serviceman, made a request for assignment of land out of Sy.No.284 of Tallaookal Village, Mahaboobabad Taluk. By proceedings dated 27.03.1981, the Tahsildar Mahaboobabad Taluk while assigning Ac.13.38 cents of land situated in Sy.No.284 and 444 of Tallaookal Village to the landless poor of the said village, reserved the remaining extent of Ac.5-00 out of Sy.No.284 for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, after conducting necessary enquiry and demarcation of the above said land situated in Sy.Nos.284 & 444, the possession of the Ac.5.00 of land which was reserved for him under the proceedings dated 27.03.1981 was delivered to him. It is claimed that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said Ac.5-00 of land and that his name has also been mutated in the revenue records. While so, the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, by order dated 07.09.1992 directed cancellation of the entries in the revenue records holding that the implementation of the name of the petitioner as pattadar was irregular. Though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, the same was dismissed. Hence the present writ petition questioning the cancellation order dated 7.9.1992 passed by the 2nd respondent as confirmed on appeal by the 1st respondent. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. A perusal of the order dated 07.09.1992 passed by the 2nd respondent shows that the petitioner submitted an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobabad requesting to provide protection to his assigned land alleging that the authorities were proposing to assign the said land to third parties. Pursuant thereto, having made the necessary enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted a report dated 31.07.1991 stating that though no assignment was made in favour of the petitioner, he managed to enter his name as pattadar in the revenue records on the basis of the order dated 27.03.1981. It was also reported that the physical possession of the land reserved for the petitioner under the proceedings dated 27.03.1981 was never handed over to the petitioner, however, the petitioner’s father-in-law by name Seetharama Reddy had occupied the said Government land un-authorizedly and raised a temporary fencing. On the basis of the said report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the order dated 7.9.1992 came to be passed by the 2nd respondent cancelling the irregular implementation of the name of the petitioner as pattadar against Sy.No.284 of Tallaookal village of Maripeda Mandal. Under the said order, the reservation of the land made in favour of the petitioner by the then Tahsildar, Mahaboobabad vide proceedings dated 27.03.1981 was also cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent-Special Commissioner of Land Revenue, A.P. Hyderabad. The said appeal was dismissed by the 1st respondent, holding that the entries in the Revenue records during Jamabandi year 1980-81 were wrongly made and similarly, the entries made in the village records were also not correct. It was found by the 1st respondent that the land in question was actually in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s father-in- law. Since the land was never assigned to the petitioner at any point of time, it was also held that the petitioner who was neither pattadar nor an enjoyer and therefore, the 2nd respondent had rightly directed cancellation of entries in the revenue records. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders which were passed without notice to the petitioner are arbitrary and illegal apart from being in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to make his representation even before the 2nd respondent. Despite notice, no counter affidavit is filed controverting the specific plea of the petitioner that the impugned orders were passed without notice to him. It is true that specific findings were recorded by both the respondents 1 and 2 that in pursuance of the order passed by the then Tahsildar dated 27.03.1981 the land in question was not assigned to the petitioner and the possession was not delivered to him. However, the petitioner disputes the said finding and it is contended that he is very much in possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that no notice was given to him before passing the impugned orders of cancellation. As noticed above, no counter affidavit is filed controverting the averments in the writ petition. The law is well-settled that in the absence of a counter-affidavit the uncontroverted averments in the writ petition shall be taken to have been admitted. Accordingly, the order passed by the 1st respondent-Appellate Authority vide proceedings No.BCW6/953/92 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 16.11.2011 KLP