THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.20329/2002 Date of Order: 24-2-2011 Between: Bathula Subba Rao …Petitioner and 1. The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasham District and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.20329/2002 Oral Order: The petitioner who was allotted house site to an extent of Ac.0-02 cents in S.No.452/2B situated at Pernamitta village filed the present writ petition challenging the proceedings in RC No.B/733/00 dt. 17-1-2001 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Santhanuthalapadu cancelling the house site patta granted to him by the then Tahsildar, Ongole and ordering resumption of land. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner stated that after assignment, he constructed hut and lived in it till 1996 and when the same was collapsed during the cyclone, he could not reconstruct the house. It appears pursuant to the proceedings of the District Collector dt. 23-12-2000, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued notice dt. 2-1-2001 calling for explanation from the petitioner as to why house site should not be resumed. As he was away from the village, the petitioner could not give explanation to the notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. On coming to know of the impugned order of the Mandal Revenue Officer cancelling the allotment of house site on the ground that petitioner failed to submit explanation, the petitioner gave an appeal memo to the second respondent on 29-1-2001 and the same was numbered as RCD No.2157/2001 and the said appeal is pending. On coming to know that the impugned order was passed at the instance of the District Collector, and the second respondent before whom appeal filed by the petitioner is pending is not interested to decide the appeal, he filed the present writ petition challenging the resumption order. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer while admitting the assignment of land ad-measuring Ac.0-02 cents in S.No.452/2B situated at Pernamitta village to the petitioner for construction of a house vide proceedings DK. No.19/86 (fasli) dt. 3-10- 1976 stated that one M. Narayanamma, w/o Nagabhushanam has encroached the said land. As the petitioner did not construct any house in the land as per the provisions of the Assignment, the then Mandal Revenue Officer issued possession certificate in favour of Narayanmma on 1-10-1983, who constructed a house with asbestos sheets and residing therein. When the petitioner submitted an application to the Collector on 12-10-2000 alleging that one Nagabhushanam and his wife constructed a house in the plot allotted to him and requested him to order delivery of possession after evicting them, the District Collector vide his letter dt. 16-10-2000 forwarded the said representation to the Mandal Revenue Officer to cause enquiry and take necessary action. The Mandal Revenue Officer after obtaining statements from Narayanamma and the petitioner, submitted a report dt. 27-10-2000 to the District Collector stating that the petitioner having been issued DK patta has not constructed any house contrary to the terms and conditions of DK patta; Narayanamma encroached the land and constructed a house therein, and thereafter she was also issued possession certificate and requesting the Collector to cancel the assignment made in favour of the petitioner while recommending for resumption of the land. Pursuant to the said report, the District Collector in his letter dt. 23-12-2000 directed the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer to take necessary action for resumption of land as per BSO No.15(12)(3)(d)(iii) by following due procedure of law. Pursuant to the order of the District Collector dt. 23-12-2000 the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a show cause notice dt.2-1-2001 to the petitioner calling for his objections as to why the assignment made in his favour should not be cancelled for violation of the conditions of assignment and the same was served on the petitioner on the same day. Since the petitioner has not submitted his explanation within the time stipulated, by following due procedure, the impugned order has been passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The petitioner has not filed any appeal against the impugned orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, but made a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer bringing to his notice that the possession certificated granted to Narayanamma is bad. The Revenue Divisional Officer after following due procedure, cancelled the possession certificate issued to M. Narayanamma by proceedings dt. 25-2-2001. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, Narayanamma filed OS No.230/2001 before the Junior Civil Judge, Ongole and obtained order of status quo with a direction not to evict her from the schedule land until disposal of the suit. Against the impugned orders of Mandal Revenue Officer, the petitioner has not availed the effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Sec. 4(a) and revision before the Joint Collector under Sec. 4(b) of the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short “the Land Transfer Regulation Act”). A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that the suit filed by Narayanamma impleading the petitioner and the revenue officials was dismissed on 30-11-2009 by the 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, observing that the site to which Smt. Narayanamma was granted possession certificate in S.No.452 (plot No.65) of Pernamitta village is different from the site to which the petitioner was granted house site patta in S.No.452/2B, and therefore, the contention of the Mandal Revenue Officer that Narayanamma was issued possession certificate to the very same site, to which the petitioner was granted house site patta is misleading and incorrect statement. The petitioner submitted a representation to the District Collector seeking protection as Narayanmma was forcibly trying to put up some constructions in his site. In the light of the judgment, Narayanamma had no right or title in S.No.452/2B, for which the petitioner was granted house site patta. Even she has put up any temporary constructions in a part of his site, the petitioner is entitled to take necessary protection and see that the constructions are removed by seeking necessary direction form the revenue officials. To receive a copy of the judgment and decree in OS No.230/2001, WPMP No.8852/2010 was filed by the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the house site patta granted to the petitioner is different than the possession claimed by Narayanamma as per the judgment of the Civil Court in OS No.230/01. Even before the stipulated time calling explanation is expired, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued the impugned proceedings resuming the land, which is not proper and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside restoring the land to the petitioner. This court do not find any merit in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason, in the impugned order, it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner has not constructed the dwelling house till October,2000 and violated the conditions of grant and the second beneficiary, Narayanamma, who started construction of her house in the allotted plot resulting the first petitioner to file a petition against grant of possession certificate in favour of Narayanamma as irregular, which clearly shows that the petitioner has admitted that in land allotted to him, Narayanamma has made some construction. It is nowhere pleaded that the land allotted to the petitioner is different than the site allotted to Narayanamma, but taking the clue from the judgment of the civil court, the petitioner altogether came with a different stand in the reply affidavit as well as additional affidavit that Narayanamma who filed the civil suit questioning the orders cancelling the possession certificate issued to her is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Land Transfer Regulation Act. Even the said finding recorded will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner when he has not pleaded that the land allotted to the petitioner is different than the land allotted to the Narayanmma. When it was categorically asserted in the counter- affidavit that the show cause notice was served on the petitioner on the same day ie., 2-1-200, the said fact has not been denied in the reply affidavit. Therefore, it cannot complain violation of principles of natural justice, and the petitioner has no right in the property which is resumed by following due procedure and he cannot take a different plea than the plea taken in the reply affidavit. In view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to construct the house and violated the conditions of the assignment and failed to offer explanation to the show cause notice, the impugned order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.24-2-2011 kmr