THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Writ Petition No.21777 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the first respondent in S.R.No.15/11(a)/88, dated 03-07-1999 insofar as the grant of ‘D’ Form Patta in his favour is cancelled treating the land assigned as “assessed waste”. 2. The petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.0.90 cents in S.No.106/4 and another extent of Ac.0.72 cents in S.No.106/7 of Pachallapalli Village, Kota Mandal, Nellore District, apart from certain other lands (which are not germane to this lis), by an order of assignment dated 20-09-1987. It appears that the third respondent filed an application under Section 11 (a) of the Estates Abolition Act for grant of a ryotwari patta for a total extent of Acs.3.88 cents spread over several survey numbers including an extent of Acs.1.62 cents in Sy.Nos.106/4 and 106/7 in respect of which the petitioner was granted an assignment as already stated. 3. By the order impugned, the first respondent, on an analysis of the claims of the third respondent, concluded that the third respondent was not entitled to grant of a ryotwari patta, as there was no evidence marshaled by the third respondent disclosing entitlement to the grant of ryotwari patta. The first respondent also recorded that the third respondent had filed the application for grant of a ryotwari patta in 1987 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the application and the delay was condoned on 08-06-1988. 4. In the circumstances, the first respondent recorded that the grant of ‘D’ Form patta in favour of the petitioner in 1987 (20-09-1987) during the pendency of an enquiry under Section 11 (a) of the Estate Abolition Act, was incompetent and accordingly cancelled the assignment in favour of the petitioner. This is the grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition. 5. It requires to be noticed that on 20-09-1987 there was no pending substantive claim of the third respondent for grant of a ryotwari patta before the Settlement Officer. What was pending wan an application for condonation of delay and till the delay was condoned, as recorded by the first respondent on 08-06-1988, there was no pending claim for grant of a ryotwari patta by the third respondent. In any event, after having rejected the third respondent’s claim for grant of ryotwari patta, the first respondent had no justification for canceling the assignment in favour of the petitioner. If the petitioner had violated the terms of the assignment, it is for the appropriate authority to consider and not the first respondent. On the aforesaid analysis, the impugned order is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. 6. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ G.RAGHURAM, J. Dated 13-02-2009. SKMR