THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4288 of 2004 ORDER: Originally, this writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the rights of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Acs.3.04 guntas covered by Survey No.367/A5 of Gollaguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District, as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, the petitioner filed WPMP.No.8460 of 2004 seeking amendment of the prayer in the writ petition. It was ordered by this Court on 09.09.2010. In the amended prayer, she questioned the order, dated 04.09.1999, passed by the first respondent – Tahsildar, Nalgonda, cancelling her pattadar passbook and title deed with regard to aforesaid land. The petitioner claims that she is owner and possessor of the land in question having been purchased from previous owner through a registered sale deed, dated 16.04.1993. It is stated that she was given pattadar passbook and title deed as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, in respect of aforesaid land and she is in continuous possession of the same. It is further stated that originally, one Mr.Shameer Akhtar purchased that land from previous owners, namely, Kathula Laxmamma, Kathula Vanaja, Kathula Venkatesham and Kathula Srinivasulu, and all the said original owners along with Sri Shameer Akhtar have jointly sold the aforesaid land and executed registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and she was put in possession of the land in question. It is the grievance of the petitioner that although she is a rightful owner and possessor of the land in question, respondents 1 and 2 are visiting the said land and interfering with her possession. She relies on a certificate, dated 10.07.1997, issued by the first respondent certifying that the land in question is classified as patta. Counter-affidavit is filed by the first respondent. In that counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is averred that the land to an extent of Acs.12.37 guntas covered by Survey No.367 situated at Gollaguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District, belongs to the third respondent - Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, which in turn, allotted the said piece of land to one Sri Kathula China Ramulu subject to certain conditions prior to 1954. It is further averred that as per the conditions, assignment made is heritable but not alienable and the allottee himself has to cultivate the land personally. It is further averred that in contravention of the Rules laid down in Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan and Gramdan Rules, 1965 (for short ‘the Rules’), legal heirs of the original allottee alienated the said land in favour of the third parties, as such, the third respondent Board initiated proceedings for eviction of the petitioner and thereby, issued a show cause notice, dated 25.12.1998, and passed final order, dated 12.03.1999, in proceedings bearing No.N/132/97/99, cancelling the assignment and directing the first respondent to take over possession of the land. It is further averred that pursuant to such order, the first respondent has taken possession of the land in question. It is further averred that suppressing the above said fact, having purchased the above said land in contravention of the conditions, the petitioner obtained pattadar passbook and title deed, as such, the first respondent issued order vide No.J/4687/98, dated 04.09.1999, cancelling the same. It is also averred that subsequent to cancellation of original allotment, the third respondent has decided to issue house-sites to needy persons and about 226 house plots were carved out in the said land and after selecting the beneficiaries, the first respondent issued house-site patta certificates to 168 needy persons belonging to weaker sections, as such, the allegation of the petitioner that there is interference with her possession of the land is not correct. The third respondent was impleaded in this writ petition vide order, dated 04.10.2004, passed in WPMP.No.19167 of 2004. In the counter-affidavit filed by it, it is stated that one late Paduri Chinna Ram Reddy and Seethamma were the original owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Acs.26.23 guntas covered by Survey Nos.364, 473 and 454 of Gollaguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. They have donated the said land in favour of the answering respondent by executing necessary documents. It is further stated that after possession was delivered, the said land was mutated in the name of the answering respondent in Khasra Pahani and allotted to the landless poor persons, namely, Kathula Peda Ramaiah, Kathula Chinna Ramulu, Kathula Narsimha, Kathula Venkaiah and B.Roshaiah under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965 and the Rules made thereunder. It is further stated that as they have violated the conditions of such grant and sold the land to third parties, proceedings were initiated and allotment was cancelled. It is further stated that subsequently, a layout plan was prepared and the land was carved into 226 house plots, out of which, 168 beneficiaries were granted house-site pattas. With regard to the certificate, dated 10.07.1997, issued by the first respondent, it is stated that such certificate was issued without notice to the answering respondent as such it cannot be relied on. It is also stated that as the possession of the land in question was taken over pursuant to the cancellation proceedings, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition. Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that though the land is classified as patta, it does not belong to the third respondent. It is also stated that earlier orders for cancellation were issued without any notice to the petitioner, as such, she cannot be deprived of the land, which was purchased by her. Even with regard to the impugned order cancelling her pattadar passbook and title deed, it is stated that no notice was issued to her before issuing such order. With reference to the above pleadings on record, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the revenue records, it is shown as patta land and as the same was purchased by the petitioner from previous owner, Shameer Akhtar, there is no reason or justification on the part of the respondents to interfere with her possession. It is also contended that in any event, pattadar passbook and title deed issued to the petitioner ought not to have been cancelled without issuing any notice to her. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent that the land in question is a Bhoodan Land, was donated to the third respondent and was mutated in the name of the third respondent in Khasra Pahani of 1954-55. It is further submitted that after the name of the third respondent was recorded as pattadar, the land was carved into house-sites and allotted to the landless poor persons with a specific condition of non-alienation. In spite of the same, the land in question was sold in contravention of the conditions of grant and also Rule 9 of the Rules. It is further submitted that in view of violation of conditions of grant, allotment itself was cancelled and subsequently, possession of the land was taken over by the respondents and a layout was prepared for allotting house sites to needy members of the weaker sections of the society. It is further submitted that allotments were already made for 168 beneficiaries out of total number of 226 house plots. It is also submitted that when the possession was already given to the beneficiaries, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition. Although it is the case of the petitioner that it is a private patta land and she is in possession of the same, from the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the land in question was originally classified as patta land but it was donated to the third respondent, name of which was mutated in the revenue records as owner, and subsequently, allotments were made to the landless poor persons with the specific condition of non-alienation. On the ground that the said allottees have sold the land to third parties in contravention of the conditions of grant, a specific order was passed cancelling such allotment and to take back possession of the land. It is the case of the respondents that consequent to cancellation order, dated 12.03.1999, possession was already taken and a layout was prepared for grant of house-sites to needy persons belonging to the weaker sections of the society. It is to be noticed from the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent in 2004 itself that the allotment made with regard to the land in question was already cancelled. In spite of the same, no steps have been taken by the petitioner to question such order. When the said order has become final, the allotment itself was cancelled and possession was taken back by the respondents and when it is stated that the said land was carved into house plots and allotted to 168 beneficiaries, no directions can be issued to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question by virtue of her purchase of it. With regard to issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed, it is only consequent to the purchase made by the petitioner from the third parties, who themselves were allotted the land in question by the original allottee i.e. the third respondent, as such, cancellation of said documents is only consequent to the cancellation of allotment. In any event, it is to be noticed that under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, there is a right of appeal and revision against the impugned order, to the competent appellate and revisional authorities. So far as the impugned order is concerned, while it is open to the petitioner to question such order before the appellate authority by filing statutory appeal as provided under the provisions of the said Act. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition for grant of relief to the petitioner as prayed for. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st OCTOBER, 2010. Note: issue c.c. in one week. kvni