NAMALA KOTAIAH Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR & ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 16.12.2003 passed by the first respondent cancelling the patta granted in favour of the petitioner on 27.10.1996 for an extent of Ac.1.30 cents of land in Sy.Nos.198/2A/8 and 198/2A/10 situated in Anchulavaripalem Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that at the instance of the 4th respondent-Ex-Sarpanch, who was inimical to the petitioner, the patta granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on irrelevant considerations. It is stated that the 4th respondent having failed in his efforts to get the patta granted in favour of the petitioner cancelled by the 2nd respondent, approached by filing the revision before the first respondent who passed the impugned order. The reasons recorded in brief by the 3rd respondent for cancellation of the patta granted in favour of the petitioner are that the land is required for the extension of burial ground and other public purposes and to that effect Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution in 1995 itself. Further, the petitioner-assignee has been managing the affairs of more than Ac.5.00 cents of land since 1995. He himself owns Ac.1.20 cents, in his father's name Ac.2.00 cents and in his mother-in-law's name Ac.2.31 cents of land. Cumulatively taken, petitioner owns more than Ac.5.00 cents of land, as such, he is not a landless poor person and ineligible for grant of patta. A further direction was given to evict the petitioner from the land.

(3.) Sri C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that neither before the 2nd respondent-R.D.O nor before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, the petitioner was made a party respondent and no enquiry as such was conducted and no opportunity was given. Further, the 4th respondent suppressed the fact of his suffering a judgment and decree dated 22.01.2001 of permanent injunction granted by the Principal Munisif Magistrate in O.S. No.403 of 1996 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The 4th respondent having failed in his attempt had approached the authorities and the impugned orders came to be passed without notice and without following due process of law.