IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.1185 & 1649 of 2009, 23052 & 23399 of 2008 WRIT PETITION No.1185 of 2009 Between: Kuppam Balasubrahmanyam S/o.Sri Subba Rayudu Presently R/o.Near Vegetable Market Mydukuru, Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet Kadapa District 4 The Tahsildar, B.Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.B/50/2007 dated 17.3.2008 issued by respondent No.4 herein as illegal, arbitrary,violative of principles of natural justice and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India as also the D-Form patta and issue a consequential direction setting aside the same and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.4.50 cents in SY.No.1 of Nagisettipalle Revenue village, B.Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION No.1649 of 2009 Between: 1 Chetikattu Ankamma W/o.Venkatreddy R/o.Chennampalli Village, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District. 2 Chetikattu Gurramma W/o.Subbareddy R/o.Chennampalli Village, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District. 3 Kuraku Lakshumma W/o.Pedda Venkataiah R/o.Chennampalli Village, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Tahsildar, B.Mattam Mandal, B.Mattam, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the respondent passed in his Proceedings No.B/50/2007 dated 17.03.2008 in so far as canceling the petitioners' assignments at serial No.2, 4 and 5 respectively to an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in Sy.No. 5/1, Ac.1.18 cents in Sy.No.5/2 and Ac.1.18 cents in Sy.No. 5/3 of Nagisettipalli Village in B.Mattam Mandal of Kadapa District as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, even without notice, highhanded and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the order passed by the respondent in his proceedings No.B/50/2007 dated 17.03.2008 in so far as cancellation of the Petitioners' assignments to an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in Sy.No. 5/1, Ac.1.18 cents in Sy.No.5/2 and Ac.1.18 cents in Sy.No.5/3 of Nagisettipalli Village in B.Mattam Mandal of Kadapa District. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO.23052 of 2008 Between: 1 Yerrampalli Mary Elizabeth W/o.Bala Sundaram R/o.Nagisettipalli village B.Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District 2 Yerramaplli Jyothy D/o.Balasundaram R/o.Nagisettipalli village B.Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District 3 Yerramaplli Kavitha W/o.Moshe R/o.Nagisettipalli village B.Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District ..... PETITIONERS AND The Tahsildar, B.Mattam Mandal, B.Mattam Kadapa District .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of the respondent passed in his proceedings No.B/50/2007 dated 17.3.2008 in so far as cancelling the petitioners assignments at serial No.32,33,34 respectively to an extent of 1.54 acres of land in Sy.No.96/8 of Nagisettipalli village, in B.Mattam Mandal of Kadapa district as illegal, unjust arbitrary, without jurisdiction even without notice highhanded and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set side the order passed by the respondent in his proceedings No.B/50/2007 dated 17.3.2008 in so for as cancellation of the petitioners assignments to an extent of 1.54 acres of land in Sy.No.96/6 Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.96/6 and Ac.0.38 cents in Sy.No.96/8 Nagisettipalli village, in B.Mattam mandal of Kadapa District and pass Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO.23399 of 2008 Between: 1 Anumala Lakshmi Narasamma, W/o. Guraiah, Hindu, R/o. H.No. 10/166, Siva Nagar, Badvel Town and Mandal, Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND The Tahsildar, B.Mattam Mandal, B.Mattam Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of the respondent passed in his proceedings No.B/50/2007 dated 17.3.2008 in so far as canceling the petitioner's assignment is concerned at serial No. 46 to an extent of 2.50 acres of land in Sy.No. 444 of Nagisettipalli Village in B.Mattam Mandal of Kadapa district as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, even without notice highhanded and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set side the order passed by the respondent in his proceedings No.B/50/2007 dated 17.3.2008 in so for as cancellation of the petitioner's assignment is concerned to an extent of 2.50 acres of land in Sy.No. 444 of Nagisettipalli Village in B.Mattam mandal of Kadapa District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: In this batch of writ petitions, order, dated 17.03.2008 passed by the Tahsildar, B.Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District, is challenged. Through the said order, the Tahsildar had cancelled the assignments made in favour of as many as 63 persons. It is stated that the Tahsildar conducted Grama Sabha on a representation made by the Sarpanch and the endorsement made by the Member of Legislative Assembly, Mydukur, to weed out bogus pattadars. A Grama Sabha is said to have been conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet also. Reference is made to the instructions issued by the District Collector, Kadapa, during Prajapatham held on 30.04.2007. After making reference to the said facts and furnishing the list, the Tahsildar passed an order directing cancellation of the pattas. The petitioners contend that they are very much residents of the Village and without issuing any notice, the then Tahsildar has cancelled their pattas in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court was rather surprised to see the manner in which the pattas of as many as 63 individuals were cancelled through a laconic order and accordingly, summoned the Tahsildar. He appeared before the Court and produced the record. Though it is mentioned that notice, dated 06.03.2008 is said to have been issued, it was not served even on a single individual. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were granted D-Form pattas several decades ago, for different extents of land of various survey numbers. The alleged show cause notice is to the effect that the land was not brought under cultivation and the assignee was directed to show cause as to why the land shall not be resumed to Government. On every notice, the uniform endorsement is to the effect that the assignee is not a resident of that Village and that his whereabouts are not known. The notices are said to have been displayed on the land. The whole exercise appears to have been to pass ex parte orders and resume the land to the Government, so that, it can be distributed to other individuals. The record does not disclose that the Tahsildar made any effort to know the whereabouts of the assignees. It is not even mentioned that any verification was made from the neighbours or the Sarpanch of the Village. It is just unimaginable that all the 63 assignees have disappeared from the Village without leaving any traces. The Tahsildar has acted in arbitrary, highhanded and capricious manner. His action is totally despicable and cannot be countenanced in law. He has virtually, become a pawn in the hands of the local politicians or superior authorities. He has abdicated all his powers and acted in a very irresponsible manner. This Court takes a serious exception to this and the Officer is warned that any such instance would prove to be very costly for him. The writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioners shall be entitled to remain in possession and it is left open to the authorities concerned to take necessary action in accordance with law, if any violation is noticed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 13th FEBRUARY, 2009. kvni