THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. No. 19084 of 2002 Dated. 23–12-2010 Between: Cherukuru Balakrishnaiah and another. …Petitioners Vs. The District Collector, Nellore and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 19084 of 2002 ORAL ORDER: The petitioners seek invalidation of the 2nd respondent’s order dated 31-01-2001 whereby and whereunder the ‘D-Form pattas issued to have been kept in abeyance. The 1st petitioner was assigned Ac.01-26 cents in survey No. 271/10 of Kandamuru village, Nellore Rural Mandal and District, by the proceedings dated 01-01-1997 of the 3rd respondent. The 2nd petitioner was similarly assigned land of an extent of Ac.0-50 cents and 0-05 cents in all Ac.0-55 cents in survey No. 271/12 and 14 respectively also in Kandamuru village by proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 01-01- 1997. Out of thin air and without any prior notice or opportunity to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent by the impugned proceedings dated 31-01-2001 kept a number of ‘D’ Form pattas (assignments), enumerated in the annexure to the impugned order, in abeyance, by stating ‘stayed until further orders’. The reason recorded is that the District Collector, Nellore on a representation of Polepalli China Penchalaiah and thirty others of Kandamur village issued instructions for urgent action for survey of lands in survey Nos. 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 431, 432 and 433 of Kandamur village, locally called Thakkillapati Chelu and Vullamitta Chelu, for survey and distribution among (150) Scheduled Caste families in the village. Under what authority of law the 2nd respondent granted stay of grant of ‘D-Form’ pattas issued to the petitioners in the year 1997 and how such an order was passed even without notice and opportunity to the petitioners, is apparent neither from the order impugned nor from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents by the 3rd respondent. It is also surprising that while the order impugned is of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the 2nd respondent has not chosen to respond. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the order impugned dated 31-01-2001 has been passed by the 2nd respondent without any notice and opportunity to the petitioners and without any assertion either in the order or in the counter affidavit as to the authority and power under which the order has been passed, this court is compelled to infer that the order impugned is perverse, fundamentally misconceived and constitutes an arbitrary exercise of a non-existent jurisdiction. As the petitioners were forced to litigate on account of the arbitrary exercise of a non-existent power by the 2nd respondent, this Court considers it appropriate to impose costs of Rs.2,500-00 (Rupees two thousand five hundred only), payable by the respondents to the petitioners. The costs shall be paid by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If no such payment is made, the petitioners may recover the said amount from the respondents in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed as above with costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 23-12-2010 Pvks/*