IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9814 of 2000 Between: R.S.V.S.Ramaraju, S/o. Late Somaraju, R/o. Polavaram, Y.V.Lanka, Elamanchili, West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prinicipal Secretary to Revenue, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Board of Revenue Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Joint Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur Revenue Division, Kovvur, West Godavari District 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Attili Mandal, Attilli, West Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Certiorari to quash order, dated 25.09.1994, of respondent No.2. 2. Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. 3. The petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.2.40 cents of land in R.S.No.65/7B of Paluru Village. The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Paluru, ﬁled a petition on 27.05.1988 to set aside the said assignment on the ground that the said land was classiﬁed as cattle stand poramboke and that the same was not converted for the purpose of assignment. By his order, dated 08.11.1990, respondent No.4 cancelled the said assignment. The appeal ﬁled by the petitioner against the said order before respondent No.3 was dismissed, vide his order, dated 09.03.1992. The petitioner unsuccessfully ﬁled revision before respondent No.2 as the same was dismissed on 25.09.1994. Questioning the order of respondent No.2, the petitioner ﬁled this petition. 4. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was serving the Indian Army, at a far oﬀ place, he could not represent his case either in person or through his lawyer before respondent No.2 and he was denied the opportunity of personal hearing. He also submitted that the reasoning of the hierarchical authorities is incorrect. 5. I have carefully gone through the record. In his order, respondent No.2 stated that in spite of service of notice on the petitioner, he has neither appeared at the hearing on 17.09.1994 nor a request for adjournment was made on his behalf. He, therefore, proceeded to dispose of the case on merits. Since service of notice on the petitioner is not disputed, the contention of the petitioner that he was denied an opportunity of hearing has no basis. As the petitioner did not avail the opportunity given to him, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 committed violation of principles of natural justice in disposing of the revision petition. 6. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.2 reveals that the land was classiﬁed as cattle stand poramboke and the same was assigned to the petitioner on the basis of purported resolution, dated 18.02.1983. The records produced by the Sarpanch before respondent No.5 showed that the purported resolution converting the land was fabricated and the same did not ﬁnd a place in the Minutes book of the Gram Panchayat. Respondent No.2 also took into consideration the fact that while the petitioner made his application on 25.02.1983, the so called resolution for conversion was passed on 18.02.1983, by which time the petitioner has not even made his application. Respondent No.2 also relied on the letter sent by the Gram Panchayat, wherein it stated that the earlier resolution said to have been passed by it was a bogus one. The petitioner has not ﬁled any material for this Court to come to a diﬀerent conclusion from the one arrived at by respondent Nos.2 to 4 in canceling the assignment and aﬃrming the said cancellation. While exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is only concerned with the decision making process, but not with the merits of the decision. Having carefully considered the orders of respondent Nos.2 to 4, I do not ﬁnd any illegality therein warranting interference of this Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 5th September, 2008 v v