IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18024 of 2000 Between: V.Somla Naik. … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 17-8-2000 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he confirmed order, dated 25-10-1999, passed by the Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Anantapur, respondent No.2 herein. The facts, interesting as they are, are briefly stated hereunder:- The petitioner, a Railway Guard, was in possession of a house site patta bearing Plot No.276 in Survey Nos.399/2 and 400/2 of Thimmancherla village, Guntakal Mandal, by claiming that he was granted house site patta in the year 1985. His namesake one Angadi Somla Naik S/o. Umla Naik of Guntakal Mandal, respondent No.4 herein, sent a petition to respondent No.3, wherein he stated that he was granted assignment of the above mentioned house site in the year 1985; that he constructed a house thereon and while in one portion he was residing, the other portion of the house was given on rent to the petitioner; and that the petitioner was acting to the detriment of respondent No.4 by claiming that the house site patta was issued in his name and the property belongs to him. After holding an enquiry, respondent No.3 sent his report to respondent No.2, wherein he mentioned that in the D-Form patta produced by the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was mentioned; that at the time of assignment he was working as Railway Guard and, therefore, he is not eligible for grant of house site patta; that the D.A. file, which contains the entry regarding allotment of house site, is not available in his office, but on verification of the aquittance register it was revealed that the petitioner herein received the house site patta by affixing his signature; and that the family photo affixed against the signature tallies with that of respondent No.4. On the basis of the said report of respondent No.3, show cause notice dated 24-7-1998 was issued to the petitioner for cancellation of the house site patta. After receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner entered his appearance through his counsel Sri P.Guruprasad, who filed his vakalat on 10-9-1998. As neither the petitioner nor his counsel were present on several occasions, respondent No.2 finally posted the case to 11-10-1999 on which date also both the petitioner and his counsel were called absent and, hence, the petitioner was set ex parte. After recording the statement of respondent No.4, respondent No.2 had come to a conclusion that the assignment granted in favour of the petitioner was irregular as he being a Railway employee was not eligible for grant of a house site patta. Respondent No.2 also held that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was drawing Rs.6,000/- per annum and that he managed to get the assignment in his name without disclosing the fact of his employment and obtained patta by misleading the authorities. He, therefore, cancelled the house site patta and directed respondent No.3 to grant house site patta in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.1, who by order dated 17-8-2000, dismissed the same. Against the said order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have perused the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The petitioner mainly pleaded that he was not given an opportunity before passing the impugned order; and initiation of action to cancel the assignment after lapse of 30 years was illegal. As regards the first mentioned plea, it is evident from the order passed by respondent No.2 that on 10-9- 1998 Sri P.Guruprasad, counsel for the petitioner, filed his vakalt and subsequently the case was posted for hearing on 12-11-1998, 12-12-1998, 26-12-1998 and 25-1-1999. On 25-1-1999 when the petitioner was called absent, the case was adjourned to 27-2-1999. Thereafter it underwent several adjournments and was finally posted to 11-10-1999 on which date both the petitioner and his counsel was called absent. After setting the petitioner ex parte, respondent No.2 passed order dated 25-10-1999. From these facts, which are not controverted, I do not find any substance in the plea of the petitioner that he was denied reasonable opportunity of being heard. The petitioner failed to avail the repeated opportunities afforded to him by respondent No.2. Therefore, this plea is rejected. With regard to the plea of limitation, the same is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in M.Rami Reddy Vs. Special Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad – 2006(6) ALT 90 - wherein this Court held that for initiation of proceedings for cancellation of patta on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation, BSO does not prescribe any limitation and that when fraud is played on the State, it becomes the duty of the authorities to take action after its detection and, in such a case, the authorities are competent to withdraw the benefit at any point of time. In the instant case, respondent No.2 categorically found that the petitioner suppressed the fact that he was Railway Guard and was not eligible for grant of assignment of a house site patta and also that the petitioner affixed his signature on the photo of respondent No.4, which clearly suggests that he indulged in fraud and obtained the house site patta. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well-considered orders passed by respondents 2 and 1. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.22904 of 2000 is also dismissed and the interim stay of dispossession is vacated. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:23-07-2008 MNR