THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1677 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking Certiorari to call for the records relating to Proceedings in D.Dis.No.2206/96 E3 dated 17.1.2005 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The facts are not in dispute. According to the petitioners, D-Form pattas were issued in their favour assigning an extent of Ac.3-80 cents, Ac.7-51 cents, Ac.4-60 cents in Sy.Nos.2/2, 2/3 and 4/5 respectively of Nagulapally village in Munagapaka mandal, Visakhapatnam district. However, it appears, fourth respondent filed a complaint before the third respondent stating that the petitioners are not entitled for assignment of land since they are natives of Nagulapally village. Therefore, third respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioners on 19.10.1994 and though petitioners submitted their explanation, the pattas granted on 20.5.1986 were cancelled by order dated 29.3.1995 on the ground that the petitioners have misrepresented the facts. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent, after a detailed consideration of the matter, allowed the appeal on 18.1.1996 setting aside the order passed by the third respondent on 29.3.1995. Aggrieved thereby, fourth respondent carried the matter in revision before the first respondent. The first respondent allowed the revision filed by fourth respondent by setting aside the order passed by second respondent while upholding the order passed by the third respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for petitioners states that petitioners have not suppressed any information as recorded by third respondent. Apart from that, once D-Form pattas are issued and the petitioners were put in possession of the property, the question of canceling such D-Form pattas do not arise. The third respondent has no jurisdiction whatsoever under the Act. If any body is aggrieved by the pattas granted in favour of any third party, the only remedy available is to approach the first respondent under Board Standing Order No.15 para 12(3)(iii). Instead of doing that, third respondent has taken up the matter on his own and decided as if he is vested with such power to cancel the pattas granted in favour of petitioners. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, third respondent has no power whatsoever to take up on his own under BSO para 18 and it is only the first respondent who is empowered to do so. In this regard, the learned counsel drawn attention of the Court to the judgment in G.MUNILAKSHMAMMA v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AND OTHERS[1] and paragraph 12 of the said judgment, reads as under: “In the instant case, the patta is sought to be cancelled on the ground of suppression of material facts and misrepresentation of facts. On these grounds, in my view, the Collector has the power to cancel the patta under paragraph 18 of the Board Standing Order 15. The Mandal Revenue officer has no power to do so. For these reasons, the impugned notice dated September 30, 1990 is quashed as being without jurisdiction. However, this order will not preclude respondents 4 to 11 from applying to the collector or respondents 1 and 2 from taking action under paragraph 18 of the Board Standing Order 15 and pass appropriate orders, after giving notice to the petitioner, in accordance with law.” and submitted that the third respondent has no power whatsoever in view of the above judgment and therefore, the order passed by the third respondent as confirmed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside. Though the learned counsel appearing for fourth respondent supported the order passed by the first respondent, I am of the considered opinion that in the light of the above provision as well as the judgment of this Court referred above, the only option available was to file a petition before the first respondent for the purpose of cancellation of D-Form patta issued by third respondent and third respondent has no jurisdiction whatsoever. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 9.12.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1677 of 2005 9.12.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1677 of 2005 Date: 9th December, 2010 Between: Badisetti Sambasiva Rao and others. .. Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam and others. .. Respondents [1] 1991(1) ALT 617