IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.13746 of 2005 Between: Gopati Subba Rao, D/o.Subbaramaiah, R/o.Regulachelika Village, C.S.Puram Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District. 3 The Mandal Revenue officer, C.S.Puram, Prakasam District. 4 Gangipogu Benjamin S/o. Thimmaiah, R/o. Iyalurivaripalle, Regulachelika Village, C.S.Puram Mandal, Prakasam District. (R4 is impleaded as per Court Order dated 25.11.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.11502 of 2006) .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in his proceedings Rc.E2-2311/2005 dated 9-6-2005 by rejecting to grant stay on the orders of 2nd respondent in his proceedings R.C.B/2927/ 2002 dated 3-3-2005 by canceling the assignment patta granted by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings F.Dis No.29/1404 dated 28-09-1994 for an extent of 4.00 cents of dry land comprised in Sy.No.7/1 situated at Regulachelika village, C.S.Puram Mandal, Prakasam District, without following any procedure and without initiating proceedings under any of the statutes as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and consequently grant stay of order of the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the appeal before the 1st respondent and pass such order are orders that the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT MR. K.L.N. SWAMY The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 09.06.2005 issued by the 1st respondent- Joint Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District, rejecting to grant stay of the operation of the order dated 03.03.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District, cancelling the assignment patta granted in favour of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer, C.S. Puram, in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.7/1 situated at Ragulachelika Village, C.S. Puram Mandal, Prakasam District. The brief facts of the case are that, initially, the land in an extent of Ac.5.15 cents in Sy.No.7/1 situated at Ragulachelika Village, C.S. Puram Mandal, Prakasam District, was assigned to one Gangipogu Thimmaiah, the father of the 4th respondent, by the then Tahsildar, Kanigiri, vide F.Dis.No.58/1375 dated 21.09.1965. The said Thimmaiah leased out the said land to the then Karanam (Village Administrative Officer) by name K. Subbarayudu, who unauthorizedly sold away the same to one Potluri Subramanyam for a valid consideration. Thereupon, the patta granted in favour of Thimmaiah was cancelled on the ground of violation of the conditions therein and the land was resumed to the Government, by the then Tahsildar, under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prevention of Transfer) Act, 1977. Later on, in the year 1994, considering the petitioner as a landless poor person, he was assigned the land to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject land’), out of the aforesaid land of Ac.5.15 cents, vide proceedings dated 28.09.1994 of the then Tahsildar, and D- Form Patta was issued in his favour, and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, it appears, one Gangipogu Prasad, who is the son of the deceased original assignee Gangipogu Thimmaiah, submitted an application to the Collector, Ongole, bringing to his notice the circumstances under which the land assigned to his father was sold out by the then Village Administrative Officer, the lessee, and the land was resumed to the Government, and requested to restore the said land to him. The said application was referred to the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, for necessary action. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent conducted an enquiry and found that the then M.R.O. failed to restore the land, which was resumed to Government, in favour of the original assignee or his legal heirs and assigned the subject land to the petitioner, without verifying the fact that he was having Ac.25.84 cents of land in Regulachelika Village. Having found the same, the 2nd respondent cancelled the patta granted in favour of the petitioner, by order dated 03.03.2005, and ordered for restoration of the subject land to the legal heirs of the deceased original assignee. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent- Joint Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District, and sought for interim stay of the operation of the order of the 2nd respondent, but the 1st respondent, while entertaining the revision petition, rejected to grant interim stay sought for, vide proceedings dated 09.06.2005, on the ground that the petitioner could not produce any prima facie evidence that he is eligible for assignment. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the official respondents supporting the action of the 1st respondent in not granting stay and that of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the patta granted in favour of the petitioner, and it is stated that pursuant to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, the subject land was restored to the legal heirs of the original assignee under a panchanama dated 25.05.2005 and pattadar passbook and title deed were issued to the 4th respondent. Respondent No.4 has been impleaded, on his filing W.P.M.P.No.11502 of 2006. He claims to be the son of the original assignee Gangipogu Thimmaiah and it is his case that the patta granted in favour of the petitioner was rightly cancelled by the 2nd respondent and, after such cancellation, the subject land was restored to him and his family members and since then they have been in possession of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, though the subject land was stated to have been restored to the 4th respondent under a panchanama, it is only a paper panchanama and the petitioner is continuing in possession of the subject land; whereas it is the contention of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that the 4th respondent has been put in possession of the subject land as early as on 25.05.2005. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the revision petition filed by the petitioner is stated to be pending before the 1st respondent and both the parties have asserted that they are in possession of the subject land, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision petition pending before him, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 18th June, 2009. IBL