L.VENKATA SUBBA REDDY Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

(2.) This Court has heard Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

(3.) Sri Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the petitioners are claiming rights in the property by virtue of the assignment of land in their favour. He points out that the first petitioner was granted a DKT Patta in May, 1994 for Ac.1.40 cents of land in Sy.No.142/7. The second petitioner was granted a patta in May, 1994 for an extent of Ac.1.40 cents in Sy.No.142/7 and the third petitioner's mother L.Veeramma was granted a patta in May 1993 for Ac.2.14 cents in Sy.No.139 of Kamakunta Village, B.Koduru Mandal of Kadapa District. According to the petitioners, the land was in cultivation. The mother of the third petitioner died in December, 2005 and thereafter the third petitioner succeeded to the property assigned. The first petitioner has also been given pattadar passbook after due enquiry before the writ petition is filed. The petitioners came to realize that the pattas granted to them were cancelled in December, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that before the impugned order was passed, no notice was given to the petitioners nor was any enquiry conducted before cancelling the patta. It is also pointed out that the pattas granted in 1993 and 1994 were purportedly cancelled in 2008 and this is contrary to the settled law on the subject which held that the patta should be cancelled within three years. It is also pointed out that the third petitioner's mother died in 2005 as can be seen from the death certificate filed, but the order passed in 2008 states that she was 'alive' which clearly shows that there is non-application of mind. Learned counsel also points out that the grounds for cancellation of patta as can be seen from the copy of the impugned order is that the petitioners are not in possession of the property and are residents of different villages. However, in the counter affidavit filed, improvements are brought in and different reasons are given for the cancellation. Learned counsel relies upon a Division Bench judgment of the A.P.High Court reported in Peela Pothi Naidu and others v. State of A.P., Irrigation and CAD Department and others,. and in particular para 43 and other paragraphs of this judgment, wherein the Bench considered the earlier Constitutional Bench judgment in the case of Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner(1978) 2 SCR 272, and held that subsequent improvements in the counter cannot be considered and the impugned order must be judged on the basis of the reasons as they existed in the original/impugned order only. Therefore, he submits that the reasons mentioned in the counter cannot be considered to be valid.