HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.846 OF 2008 DATE:21-12-2010 BETWEEN Venna Venkata Ratnam …Petitioner AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District & another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.846 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed to revise the order of Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Gudivada, dated 4.02.2008 passed in I.A.No.277 of 2007 in A.S.No.5 of 2007. The petitioner-plaintiff was assigned with the suit schedule property on 26.3.2001 by issuing a patta and later, by notice in R.D.S.No.356/2002, dated 6.5.2002 the said patta granted in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff was ordered to be cancelled stating that the said land is required for public purpose i.e. to discharge water through the bode. Questioning the same, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the said notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada-first respondent herein is void and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. On dismissal of the suit, she filed the above appeal. Pending the appeal, she filed the impugned I.A. seeking appointment of a Commissioner stating that prior to the grant of patta, she has been residing with her family in the said land, that there is a bode to the South of her house, but the said bode has not been using by the ryots either to draw water for irrigation purpose or to discharge the drainage water from their lands. Therefore, she sought for appointment of Commissioner to note down the physical features of the land and the existence of bode to the South of the suit schedule property and its usage. A counter was filed by the respondents stating that the patta granted in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff was cancelled mainly for extension of drinking water pipeline which is useful to entire Pamarru people. Prior to granting of patta, petitioner had purchased 122 sq.yds. of house site under a document No.918/2001 and in addition to that, the petitioner’s husband is working as a watchman in Government Junior College, Pamarru. The suit schedule property is a “cart-track poramboke” which is objectionable encroachment and is prohibited from granting patta as per Board Standing Order No.15, and that a person who is holding house-site is not eligible for assignment of house site as per Board Standing Order No.21. Under these circumstances, the impugned notice was issued canceling the patta granted in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, as to whether the cancellation of patta is valid or not alone is the subject-matter of dispute in the suit. In view of the same, the appointment of Commissioner to note down the physical features of the land and the existence of bode to the South of the house of the petitioner is immaterial. Hence, the dismissal of the impugned I.A. by the lower Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 21, 2010 Tsr.