MADHURA KRISHNARJUNA RAO Vs. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. He was assigned an extent of 5 acres of land in Sy. No. 1228 of Aswaraopet Village and Mandal, Khammam District, through proceedings dated 30-12-2011 by the Tahsildar, Aswaraopet, the 3rd respondent herein. A news item was published in the District Edition of a Telugu Daily, on 01-01-2012, alleging that the Government land worth Rs. 50 lakhs was assigned to the petitioners by the 3rd respondent in collusion with the Village Revenue Officer and Mandal Revenue Inspector. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palvancha, the 2nd respondent visited the place, and is said to have verified the record. He submitted a report to the District Collector, Khammam, the 1st respondent, pointing out certain irregularities. The 1st respondent issued a show cause notice dated 20-04-2012 to the petitioner, repeating the allegations contained in the report of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 20-05-2012. However, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 12-07-2012, directing cancellation of the patta issued in favour of the petitioner. He proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner did not submit his explanation, though show cause notice was issued. The order dated 12-07-2012 is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner submits that the patta was issued to him on the basis of the endorsements made by the respondents 1 and 2, after verification from the revenue officials of the Village and Mandal. He contends that though a detailed explanation was submitted on 20-05-2012, through registered post, the impugned order was passed on the assumption that no explanation was submitted. The petitioner contends that he developed the land by spending huge amount and has dug bore-well, etc.

(3.) This Court noticed that the 1st respondent acted in similar manner in more than one case, for cancellation of the pattas issued in favour of Ex-servicemen, and directed his appearance. The 1st respondent filed W.P.M.P. No. 30935 of 2012 to dispense with his presence. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the 1st respondent stated that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was received by the inward section of his office, long before the order was passed, but in view of the fact that the same was not put up, the explanation was not taken into account.