THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY + Writ Petition No.11606 of 2008 % -04-2009 Between: P.Nagur Sahib and another …Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Kadapa and others …Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri B. Sarvotham Reddy ^ Counsel for Respondents : G.P for Assignments < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.11606 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners state that they have been assigned Ac.4.50 cents of land each, in Sy.No.288 of Savikattepalle Village, S.A.K.N. Mandal, Kadapa District, on 04-12-1987. It is stated that they are cultivating the land ever since the date of assignment. The Revenue Divisional Officer, the 2nd respondent herein, cancelled he patta of the petitioners vide proceedings dated 30-07-2005. The petitioners filed W.P.No.18920 of 2005. The writ petition was allowed on 12-09-2005, and the matter was remitted to the Joint Collector, Kadapa, the 1st respondent herein, for fresh consideration and disposal. The 1st respondent called for the report from the Tahsildar, the 3rd respondent; issued notice to the petitioners, and through proceedings dated 05-12-2007 cancelled the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners, and directed resumption of the land. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioners contend that the findings recorded by the 1st respondent are self-contradictory, inasmuch as it was pointed out on the one hand, that the land was not brought under cultivation from three years, and on the other hand, it was mentioned that the pattas issued to the petitioners are not genuine. They further contend that the 1st respondent has proceeded mostly on surmises and assumptions, and the proper basis, for treating the pattas, as not genuine; was not indicated at all. The 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit, narrating the purport of the proceedings, that have ensued so far. It is stated that the petitioners were given ample opportunity to explain, and that the 1st respondent has taken into account the various aspects of the matter and arrived at just and proper conclusion. Heard Sri B.Sarvotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Assignments. The petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of Ac.4.50 cents of land, each, in Sy.No.288. The total extent of that survey number is 19 acres, and one more person, by name, L. Obulamma, is said to have been assigned five acres of land. At the instance of the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings for cancellation of the pattas. No appeal as such was preferred before him, and he has taken up the proceedings almost on suo motu basis. W.P.No.18920 of 2005 filed by the petitioners was allowed. Obviously on finding that the power to cancel DKT pattas is conferred upon the Joint Collector, under the Board Standing Orders, this Court remitted the matter to the 1st respondent. For all practical purposes, the proceedings before the 1st respondent are suo motu in nature. The reason is that no aggrieved party had specifically challenged the pattas, that existed in favour of the petitioners. After taking note of the factual matrix of the case, the 1st respondent proceeded to record his findings. The findings are reflected in two paragraphs. They read as under: “It is also noticed that both the parties have stated before the Mandal Revenue Officer that they have cultivated the land for some time and left uncultivated during recent years due to lack of timely rains and other personal reasons. But the Panchayat Secretary stated that the above land was never brought under cultivation right from the beginning except during the recent time, i.e., in the month of September or October when both the groups entered into clash with each other. So, it is evident that both the parties i.e., (1) Sri P.Nagur Saheb and Smt. P. Kasamma and another (2) Sri C. Lakshminarayana Reddy and Smt. L. Obulamma have not cultivated the land within the time limit of three years. Regarding genuineness of the D.K.T. Pattas (1) the date i.e., year of issuing of Pattas fabricated by Sri P. Nagur Saheb and Smt. P. Kasamma. No officer will put the date under his signature in different manner, i.e., 4/12 in D.K.T. Patta NO.225/97 which stands in the name of Smt. P. Kasamma and 4/12/87 in D.K.T.No.224/97, which stands in the name of Sri P. Nagur Saheb. It is clearly shows that the D.K.T. Pattas were fake and fabricated, and with these fabricated D.K.T. Pattas they have got Pattadar Passbooks from the Mandal Revenue Officer, S.A.K.N. Mandal with different patta numbers which were not tallied with 1B Register and there was no possession and enjoyment”. In the first paragraph extracted above, the allegation is that the petitioners and other assignees did not bring the land under cultivation within the time limit of three years. This proceeds on the assumption that there existed an assignment, and the assignees have violated the conditions of patta. The finding recorded in the second paragraph is that, the pattas themselves are not genuine. These two findings cannot co-exist. On the other hand, they bring about a clear contradiction in terms. The basis, on which the 1st respondent found that the pattas in favour of the petitioners are not genuine; is that, there is some inconsistency, as regards the method of writing dates underneath the signature of the concerned authority. By any standard, it is a very feeble ground. At one stage of the proceedings, the allegation was that, the pattas were signed by retired officials. That allegation was either given up, or taken beyond a point. If an officer has put the date, month and year, underneath his signature, in one form, and has chosen to put only date and month in another, the proceedings signed by him cannot be annulled. There is no rule or provision of law, which prescribes the method of putting signature in the proceedings. Further, mere inconsistency among certain proceedings, by itself, render all the others, invalid. It is only when, one of them, is found to be in accordance with the prescribed norms, that the other does not accord with it; can be held to be untenable. The 1st respondent has chosen to annul all the four assignments, on the sole ground that there was discrepancy in the method of writing the dates under the signature. Such an approach smacks of arbitrariness. At the same time, if the pattas relied upon by the petitioners are found to be not genuine, on a comparison with any official or authenticated material, the petitioners cannot be permitted to derive benefit out of the same. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. It is directed that the 1st respondent shall record specific reasons, on the basis of comparison of the D.K.T pattas, including their form and content, with other official records, vis-à-vis the land. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. -04-2009. KO