THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.12000 of 2008 Dated:22.10.2009 Between: Major V.Shashidhar Kumar. .. Petitioner. And The Collector, Ranga Reddy District, And others. .. Respondents. ORDER: It appears, the petitioner, a clerk (a civilian) in Army service, had applied for assignment of the land as an army personnel and he was issued with a patta certificate on 12.04.1993 in respect of the land to an extent Ac.4.20 gts. in Sy.No.72 of Majeedpur village, Shamirpet Mandal. According to the petitioner, he was put in possession of the said land on 19.04.1993 under a valid panchanama conducted by the Tahsildar, Shamirpet, however, as he was away from 1994 to 2007 on account of service exigencies, he could not secure the Patta Pass Books and title deeds in respect of the subject land assigned to him. While that being so, it is the grievance of the petitioner that, without issuing any notice to him and without affording him an opportunity, the respondents assigned the subject land to weaker sections under Indiramma Housing Scheme by way of pattas to 142 persons and some of them have raised structures also therein. Initially, respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, but, as the same is found incoherent, additional counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.1, stating that the land in question was assigned on 09.04.1993, but not on 19.04.1993 as alleged by the petitioner, whereas the possession was handed over by the 3rd respondent under panchanama on 12.03.1993 i.e., prior to the grant of assignment which leads to suspicion on the authenticity of the said panchanama. It is stated that the petitioner himself admitted that he was away on duty from 1994 to 2007 and was never in physical possession of the land in question nor has cultivated the said land ever since the date of assignment. The total land in Sy.No.72 is Ac.10.03 gts., out of which, an extent of Ac.5.03 gts. is recorded as Government land in Sy.No.72/1 and the remaining land i.e., Ac.5.00 gts. in Sy.No.72/2 is recorded in the name of one Syed Jaffar Hussain (since the name of Syed Jaffar Hussain has been recorded as pattadar and occupant of the land, his land is in lawful custody and he continues to enjoy the same). As the land in question is recorded as ‘Government land’, the then Tahsildar, Shamirpet, during the crash programme taken up by the Government under Indiramma Scheme, issued house site patta certificate to 142 eligible beneficiaries of Mazidpur village. On perusal of the revenue records i.e., pahanies from the year 1993 to till date, it is evident that the subject land is recorded as Government land and the cultivation of the said land either by the petitioner or his family members has never been recorded. It is further stated that during the same year of issuance of assignment patta certificate i.e., 1993, the Mandal Revenue Officer enquired into the matter on the representation of the villagers and recorded his findings that Form-E notice was not published in the village before assignment, that the said assignment was not approved by the Assignment Review Committee and that the assignee has not put the land to use and, as such, addressed a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division on 06.09.1993 proposing for cancellation of the assignment. It is also stated that under Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 26 of the A.P.Rights in land and pattadar pass books Rules, 1989, a title deed or pass book shall be given only to those persons who are in actual possession of the land, but in the instant case, as the petitioner is not in actual possession of the land and the same is borne by record, Pattadar Pass Book and Title deeds cannot be issued to him. It is further stated that since the land in question is recorded as the Government land in the records and is found vacant, the 3rd respondent, in good faith, issued house site patta certificates in respect of the land in question to 142 beneficiaries, under Indiramma Scheme. Subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the beneficiaries, who were said to be allotted the subject land under Indiramma Housing Scheme, are impleaded as party respondents. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents made available on record. Assignment of the subject land in favour of the petitioner is not in dispute, but, according to the official respondents, the petitioner is not eligible for assignment, that he is not in physical possession of the subject land, that the assignment is not implemented in the revenue records and his name is not recorded either as pattadar or occupant of the subject land. An enquiry is also stated to have been conducted by the 3rd respondent into the complaints received against the petitioner and a report thereto is submitted to the 2nd respondent proposing to cancel the assignment made in favour of the petitioner, but however, no further action was taken. Admittedly, the petitioner was away from the subject land from 1994 to 2007, on account of his official duties. In such circumstances, the authorities ought to have taken steps for cancellation of the assignment granted in favour of the petitioner, by following due process of law, and then made allotments in favour of the beneficiaries. But however, such course of action has not been followed by the authorities and the beneficiaries were allotted the subject land, without issuing any notice to the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, the official respondents are directed to issue notice to the petitioner, as per law, for cancellation of the patta certificate granted in his favour and, after considering his explanation, if any, they shall take appropriate action as per law. If the petitioner is found eligible for assignment, his case may be recommended for grant of ex-gratia/compensation or for providing alternative land, as per law. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. However, this order shall not be understood as if the pattas granted in favour of the beneficiaries has been cancelled or disturbed. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 22.10.2009 v v