IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 24585 of 2005 Between: Khader Hussain S/o. S.Meeram Saheb C/o. G.Hussain, D.No.17/390-2-2-1-1, N.V.R.Veedhi, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli, Chittoor District 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalli, Chittoor District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction or an order, or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not following due process of law for taking over the land belonging to the petitioner an extent of Ac.4.13 cents in Sy.No.536- 1B of Bandamida Kammapalli village of Madanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District for issuance of those lands as DKT lands to 3rd parties in the near future or thereafter, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to follow due process of law by giving opportunity to the petitioner herein before initiation of any such proceedings, for distribution to 3rd parties as DKT lands by the respondents the land belonging to the petitioner herein, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon`ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that the land to an extent of Ac.4.13 cents covered by Sy.No.536-1B of Bandamida Kammapalli Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, was originally assigned to one Sri Syed Kadar Saheb, from whom she purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 01.06.1968, and thereafter realizing that the assigned land was inalienable, she made an application in the year 1977 to the then Tahsildar, Madanapalle, for grant of DKT Patta in respect of the aforesaid land purchased by her. Subsequently, basing on the ‘no objection’ letter given by the original assignee, DKT patta in respect of the aforesaid land has been granted in her favour in the year 1978. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are trying to take over the aforesaid land without following the due process of law and also trying to issue DKT pattas in respect of the same in favour of third parties. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, it is stated that the subject land was assigned to the petitioner on 12.12.1968 and that from the date of assignment, the said land was lying waste. It is further stated that since the needs of the people are increased due to fast development of respondent Municipality, the Government lands are required for expansion of colonies, establishment of institutions etc., and that, therefore, the Revenue Department proceeded to cancel the DKT pattas and resume the lands to Government by invoking Condition 17 of the said pattas. It is further stated that vide proceedings A/2254/1993 dated 12.01.1994, the Mandal Revenue Officer cancelled the DKT patta of the subject land, after following due process of law, and resumed the said land to the Government. In the month of August, 2005, the subject land, along with other lands, was handed over to the Housing Department in order to provide house sites to weaker sections. It is also stated that the Housing Department allotted the plots to weaker sections and the allotees have laid foundation for about 23 houses and dug foundation pits in remaining plots. It is further averred that in respect of two houses, construction is raised upto pillar level. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings dated 12.01.1994 of the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalli, Chittoor District, canceling the DKT patta granted in respect of the subject land, was issued in the name of a wrong person, viz., K.S.Khader Saheb, s/o. Imam Saheb, while the name of the petitioner is Khader Hussain, s/o. Meeram Saheb, in whose favour DKT patta in respect of the subject land was granted. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue supported the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, the subject land was originally allotted to Sri Syed Khader Saheb, from whom she purchased the same and, thereafter, the then Tahsildar granted patta in her favour. But, in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the subject land was allotted to the petitioner and there is no reference as to the initial allotment made in favour of the original assignee i.e., Syed Khader Saheb. Be that as it may, a perusal of the counter- affidavit would specifically go to show that the DKT patta granted in respect of the subject land was cancelled referring to the proceedings dated 12.01.1994 purported to have been issued in the name of K.S.Khader Saheb, the original assignee, but not the proceedings issued in the name of the petitioner, and a copy of the said proceedings is also enclosed thereto, which establishes the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that the patta granted in favour of the petitioner is cancelled. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the proceedings dated 12.01.1994 issued by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside and, thus, the same is set aside, declaring that the petitioner is entitled for possession and enjoyment of the subject land till she is dispossessed as per law. However, it is made clear that if the respondent authorities require the subject land for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections, it is open to them to acquire the subject land in accordance with law and by paying compensation/ex-gratia as required under the law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 02.07.2009 v v