IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18473 of 2000 Between: 1 Buddi Satyanarayana, S/o.Pydithalie, Resident of Gajularega Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District. 2 Buddi Satyavathi W/o.Kannayya, Resident of Gajularega Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District. 3 Buddi Atchamnaidu, W/o.Kannayya, Resident of Gajularega Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District. 4 Buddi Suryanarayana, S/o.Appadu, Resident of Gajularega Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District. 5 Budi Appalanaidu S/o.Satyanarayana, Resident of Gajularega Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District. 6 Budi Pydithalli, S/o.Satyanarayana, Resident of Gajularega Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District. 7 Budi Satyanarayana, S/o.Mutyalu, Resident of Gajularega Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector and Addl. District, Magistrate, Vizianagaram. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vizianagaram. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an Order, direction, or Writ, more particularly a Writ of Certiori, celling for records pertaining to Rc.No.3631/93/B3 dated:22.7.2000 on the ﬁle of the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Vizianagaram and quash the same by declaring the action of the respondents in cancelling the assignment of lands in Survey No.4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5, 4/6, 4/8, 4/9, 4/10, 4/11, 4/14 and 4/15 of Gajularega Village, Vizianagaram Mandal District, in the possession of the petitioner, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.I.MAAMU VANI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18473 of 2000 ORAL ORDER The petitioners in this case claim to be in possession of various extents of land in Gajularega Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District basing upon the pattas issued in the year 1979 to the 3rd and 4th petitioners and the fathers of the 1st and 2nd petitioners. They claim to have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands for over 30 years. It is alleged that while matters stood thus, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Vizianagarm, the 3 rd respondent in the writ petition, issued a show cause notice in the year 1990 proposing to cancel their assignment as the Joint Collector had reported that the lands assigned to the petitioners were not being cultivated. It is stated in the aﬃdavit that the petitioners gave a suitable reply to the said show cause notice bringing out the fact that the lands had been brought under cultivation within three years as per the condition stipulated in the pattas. However, the 3rd respondent cancelled the pattas issued to the petitioners by proceedings dated.27-12-1990. An appeal was preferred against the said order before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Vizianagaram, the 2 nd respondent in the writ petition. The 2nd respondent by order dated.30-04-1993 dismissed the said appeal, constraining the petitioners to approach the Joint Collector and District Magistrate, 1st respondent in the writ petition, by way of a Second Appeal. Aggrieved by the refusal of the said authority to grant a stay, the petitioners state that they approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.8685 of 1993. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated.03- 07-1993 directing the 1st respondent herein to dispose of the appeal, after going through the village accounts, particularly No.2 Adangals and 10(1) and 10(2) accounts and after ﬁnding out whether the lands were under cultivation or not during the relevant period. This Court also observed that undue importance should not be given to the situation as prevailing on the date of the Joint Collector’s inspection. The authorities were interdicted from dispossessing the petitioners from the lands pending the disposal of the appeal. The petitioners stated that the authorities were not in a position to produce the adangals for the years 1979,1980 and 1981. However, the 3rd respondent produced the adangals for the years 1983,1985,1986 to 1989, which showed that the subject lands were under cultivation by raising dry crops, such as groundnut and red gram. While the factual position stood thus, the 1st respondent instead of passing necessary orders on the basis of the material placed before him, once again relied upon the inspection made during the year 1990 and basing on the alleged absence of the petitioners and their counsel on various dates of hearing of the appeal, set them ex parte and dismissed the appeal by proceedings in R.C.No.3631/93/B3 dated.22-07-2000. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition. A counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the 3 rd respondent reﬂecting the factual position as narrated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioners and stating to the eﬀect that the authorities were not in a position to determine whether the subject lands were put under cultivation during the years 1979,1980 and 1981; in the absence of the adangals for the relevant period and upon the failure of the petitioners to produce proof of their having cultivated the lands during the said period, it is stated that the dismissal of their appeal is valid and justified. Heard Ms.I.Maamu Vani, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the 1st respondent erred in dismissing the petitioners’ appeal without deciding the same on merits. She submitted that the 1st respondent was bound to follow the order of this Court in W.P.No.8685 of 1993 and the order dated.22-07- 2000 passed by the 1st respondent shows a clear disregard for the directions of this Court in W.P.No.8685 of 1993. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, contended that as the adangals were not available for the relevant period the authorities were not in a position to ascertain the fact as to whether the lands were put under cultivation during the relevant period, all the more so, after the lapse of so many years. He would therefore contend that the order under challenge is lawful and justiﬁed, given the facts and circumstances of the case. In the light of the order dated.03-07-1993 passed by this court in W.P.No.8685 of 1993, the 1 st respondent was bound to decide the matter on the basis of the revenue records pertaining to the relevant period for establishing whether or not the subject lands were put under cultivation within the three year period stipulated under the patta conditions. This court also directed that the 1st respondent should not give undue importance to the inspection said to have been conducted in the year 1990. Once this is admitted to be the mandate for deciding the appeal, it is not open to the 1st respondent to fall back upon the inspection of 1990 on the ground that the adangals for the relevant period, i.e 1979 to 1981 were not available in the government records. All the more so, when the adangals for the later period from 1983 to 1989 established that the subject lands were under cultivation. On the basis of the adangal produced for the year 1982, being immediately after the 3rd year after the issuance of the pattas, which showed that the land was under cultivation, the 1st respondent ought to have given the beneﬁt of doubt to the petitioners and held that it must be construed that the lands were put under cultivation during the initial three years from the date of the grant. The order under challenge, relying upon the inspection of 1990 and disregarding the directions of this Court in the earlier writ petition, is therefore unsustainable. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order of the 1st respondent in proceedings bearing No. R.C.No.3631/93/B3 dated.22-07-2000 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J 16th September,2008 *T SNR