IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7687 of 2005 Between: M.Subbamma, W/o. Nagireddy, Gurappagaripalle, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kadapa District at Kadapa. 2 The R.D.O., Rajampet, Kadapa District. 3 The M.R.O., Porumamilla, Kadapa District. 4 P.Gurivi Reddy, S/o. Gurivi Reddy, Kalasapadu Mandal, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in granting patta in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.44 cents comprised in Survey No.59/5 of Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was assigned the above-mentioned land by issuing a DKT patta on 26.06.1999. She ﬁled the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by grant of patta in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of the same land, while her patta was subsisting. Respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit, in which he inter alia stated that the petitioner was granted DKT patta on 26.06.1999; that show cause notice, dated 04.10.2004 was issued to the petitioner proposing to cancel the said patta; that the Village Secretary of Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal reported that the said notice could not be served on the petitioner as she was not residing at Rangasamudram Village, but residing at Kalluru Village, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District and that again, a second notice was issued on 05.01.2005 in order to provide another opportunity to the petitioner. It is further stated that as the second notice also could not be served on the petitioner in view of her absence in the Village, by proceedings, dated 05.12.2004, the assignment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the land was resumed. It is further stated that the said order sent to the petitioner’s address was returned unserved, as she was not residing in the Village. It is also stated that as the order of resumption has become ﬁnal as no appeal was ﬁled by the petitioner, the land was assigned to respondent No.4 thereafter. No reply aﬃdavit is ﬁled controverting the above- mentioned allegations. In view of the averments contained in the counter-aﬃdavit, which show that the petitioner’s patta was cancelled, the petitioner is not entitled to the prayer made in this writ petition. Unless the petitioner questions the order of cancellation before the appropriate forum and succeeds in getting the said order set aside, the assignment made in favour of respondent No.4 consequent on cancellation of the assignment made in favour of the petitioner cannot be disturbed. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th AUGUST, 2008. kvni