IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 291 of 2002 Between: Indugula Eswaramma, W/o.Sri.Tata Rao Chinnagantyada Village, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist Collector, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Commissionerr of Appeals, Chief Commissioner of Land Revenue, Nampally Road, Hyderabad. 5. The Government of A.P rep. By its Principal Secretary 6. I.Prasanna Kumar ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAMA MOHAN Counsel for respondents 1 to 5: AGP FOR REVENUE (ASSIGNMENTS) Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri Ravi Cheemalapati The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 16-04-1999 as conﬁrmed by order dated 13- 06-2001 passed by respondents 1 and 4 respectively. Heard Sri K.Rama Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) for respondents 1 to 5, Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned counsel for respondent No.6, and perused the record. The petitioner was granted a house site patta over an extent of 60 square yards in Survey No.129 of Vadlapudi Village on 01-02-1999. On a representation made by one T.Rama Rao that the petitioner obtained the said house site patta on suppression of the fact that her husband already had a house of his own, respondent No.1 issued show cause notice dated 10-03-1999, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the patta shall not be cancelled. The petitioner ﬁled detailed explanation dated 19-03-1999 and thereafter respondent No.1 passed order dated 16-04-1999 cancelling the house site patta granted in favour of the petitioner. Appeal ﬁled by the petitioner against the said order having been dismissed by respondent No.4 by order dated 13-06-2001, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition. The ground on which the show cause notice was issued proposing cancellation of the house site patta was that the petitioner’s husband already had a house of his own and that therefore the petitioner was not eligible for grant of house site patta. The petitioner ﬁled her explanation, which is extracted by respondent No.1 in his order, as under: “Her husband was a tailor and out petty earnings, she has been living with her husband ad two children. The villagers of Chinaganiyada on humanitarian grounds oﬀered an extent of lease than 0.02 cents exactly situated under High Power Tension Line and they obtained hand loans and with the help of the villagers they obtained hand loans and with the help of the villagers they constructed a small slabbed, tiled house consisting of three rooms. She further stated that her husband put up a small wooden bunk in S.No.129 where he has to run tailoring shop. In the year 1992 the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Gajuwaka instructed her husband to remove the buddy as the land was allotted to one Sri Jani Babu. Her husband was a patient and has to undergo two major operations, that they are forced to spend huge amounts for medical expenses, se borrowed some amount from one Sri Kalupaka Veerasamma, W/o Late Ramulu and the said Veerasamma occupied the entire house and allotted Smt Indugula Eswaramma and his family as a tenant in a room at Rs.250/- towards monthly rent. One Sri Gajula Satya Rao and Trinadha Swamy are also living in the other two rooms and this fact is known to everybody in the locality. The electricity bill and house tax were not transferred in the name of Kalupaka Veerasamma as she applied for the same land for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.508 and it is still under consideration. That her husband and herself approached the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Gajuwaka to provide the a house site patta as their tailoring shop was got removed in S.No.129. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Gajuwaka after due enquiry considering her family position and disability up to 60% has granted house site patta in S.No.129. It is also alleged that Sri Jani Babu and his family members bore grudge and harassing them to evict him from the land after canceling the patta. Finally she requested to kindly consider her diﬃculties and explanation to the show cause notice and allow her in the patta land given to her or otherwise her family members would be rendered houseless and thrown on to the streets with her family embers as they have no income to pull on as her husband is a physically handicapped person.” Having reproduced the petitioner’s explanation as above, respondent No.1 has not speciﬁcally dealt with the same. He has not dealt with the petitioner’s explanation that as her family failed to repay the heavy debts borrowed from one Kalupaka Veerasamma, W/o late Ramulu, the said Veerasamma occupied the entire house and allowed the petitioner to stay in the said house as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- and that two other persons by name Gajula Satya Rao and Trinadha Swamy were also living in the other two rooms and that the application ﬁled by Kalupaka Veerasamma for regularization of her occupation under G.O.Ms.No.508 was still pending consideration. Without giving any specific finding on the acceptability or otherwise of the said explanation, respondent No.1 proceeded on the premise that the petitioner suppressed the fact that her family already owned a house. If the petitioner’s explanation is accepted, the question of her suppressing any fact does not arise. Therefore, before coming to the said conclusion of alleged suppression, respondent No.1 ought to have considered the explanation of the petitioner with reference to the evidence placed by her before him. As he failed to undertake this exercise, I am of the view that his order suﬀers from a serious error. The further reason given by respondent No.1 that construction of a residential house abutting school building is impermissible is not supported by any provision of law. If the extent of 60 square yards is distinct from the land of 400 square yards, which was given for setting up DEPEP school, as is evident from the order of respondent No.1, I do not ﬁnd any objection for granting house site patta to the petitioner in respect of 60 square yards which does not form part of the land given for the construction of a school building. The appellate authority has also failed to consider the explanation of the petitioner and merely got carried away by the finding of respondent No.1. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The orders of respondents 1 and 4 are quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the issue with reference to the material submitted by the petitioner in support of her plea that the house standing in the name of her husband is taken over by Smt Veerasamma and is in her possession and that the petitioner is merely living as a tenant in the said house. If the petitioner is able to establish this plea before respondent No.1, grant of patta in her favour shall be treated as legal and valid and possession of the site shall be given to her. Respondent No.1 shall give the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and pass an appropriate order within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As far as the relief claimed against respondent No.6 is concerned, Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned counsel representing the said respondent, submitted that the house site given to the petitioner is distinct and diﬀerent from the land in occupation. In view of the same, no relief against respondent No.6 can be granted. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th November, 2008 vrn