PAVANI Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Assignment for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Counsel for respondent No.7.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that an extent of Acs.300.00 of land out of Acs.1200 -00 was deforested with a view to provide house sites to poor persons and also Non -gazetted Government Officers. The petitioner submitted an application to the then Tahsildar, Kavali, requesting to allot one plot from the layout approved by the Director of Town Planning, Hyderabad. Pursuant to the said application, the then Tahsildar, Kavali, assigned an extent of Ac.0 -10 cents of vacant land bearing plot No.1224 in the said layout on 25.05.1978 in favour of the petitioner and possession was also delivered to the petitioner on the same day. A thatched house was constructed on the said plot of land. In the cyclone of November, 1989, the thatched house collapsed. When the fourth respondent tried to interfere with the possession of the said land on 20.02.1990, the petitioner filed O.S.No.59 of 1990 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kavali against him for permanent injunction. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.254 of 1990 for grant of temporary injunction and the same was granted on 16.04.1990. When Advocate Commissioner was appointed in the said suit, she visited the suit property and submitted a report on 14.03.1990, wherein it was stated that a foundation stone was laid and pits were dug for laying foundations and the required material for construction of house were existing there. Thereafter, when the fourth respondent filed a counter stating that he has no interest in the land. However, the father of the fourth respondent, the fifth respondent herein, filed O.S.No.15 of 1992 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kavali against the petitioner and the fourth respondent claiming title in respect of Ac.0.051/2 cents of land on the ground that the third respondent granted him patta by proceedings in C.B.No.772/1990 dated 26.07.1991 and the said land was assigned a new number as Plot No.1224/B. Thus, the petitioner came to know of the cancellation of patta granted in his favour and assignment of the land of an extent of Ac.0 - 051/2 cents in favour of the fifth respondent. The petitioner submitted an application on 24.02.1992 to respondents 2 and 3 requesting them to provide certified copies of the documents of cancellation and on the same day, he filed an appeal before the first respondent against the orders of the second respondent dated 26.07.1991. A perusal of the proceedings of the second respondent indicates that an enquiry was conducted by the third respondent, who submitted a report to the second respondent stating that the petitioner never constructed a house and his whereabouts are not known and since he violated the conditions of grant of patta, he recommended for cancellation of patta and to issue patta to the fifth respondent. Basing on the said report, the second respondent cancelled the patta granted to the petitioner after publishing a notice to the petitioner in the District Gazette to show cause as to why his patta cannot be cancelled. The first respondent, to whom the appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order of the second respondent, confirmed the orders of the second respondent, by his order dated 28.02.2004. Challenging the said proceedings, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the present Writ Petition, the fifth respondent expired and respondents 6 to 11 came on record as the legal representatives of the deceased fifth respondent, by order of this Court dated 18.06.2012 in WPMP.No.22547 of 2008. Now the case is being contested by the seventh respondent.