CHERUKURI SRINIVASULU Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition No.6937 of 2007 is instituted by the petitioner challenging the order of 1st respondent/Joint Collector vide proceedings No.D.Dis.E2/2318/2005 dtd. 13/3/2007, by which the assignment made in his favour was cancelled as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.10282 of 2007, challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent/RDO vide proceedings No.D.Dis/539/2007 dtd. 1/5/2007 by which the pattadar passbook and title deed granted in favour of the petitioner for the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 cents in Survey No.389/1 of Pedagogulapalle Village, C.S. Puram Mandal, Prakasam District, was cancelled purported to be based on the order of the 1st respondent/ Joint Collector dated 13.03..2007, cancelling the assignment as illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice.

(2.) As these two writ petitions are dealing with the cancellation of the assignment made in favour of the petitioner and the consequential order of the cancelling passbook and title deed emanating from the same facts, both are disposed of by way of common order.

(3.) These writ petitions have been instituted by the petitioner represented by his mother as power of attorney holder. The petitioner claims to have been granted D-form patta through proceeding number F.Dis.No.38/1404 dtd. 30/6/1994 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.05.00 cents in Survey No.389/1 of Pedagogulapalle Village of C.S. Puram Mandal, Prakasam District, vide D.K.T patta No.39/1404. Since then, the petitioner brought the same under cultivation and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment. The petitioner's mother also claims to have been granted D-form patta in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.87 cents and Ac.3.29 cents in Survey Nos.389/2 and 387 respectively of the same village vide proceedings No. F.Dis.No.36/1404 dtd. 30/6/1994. That being so, in the year 2004, the petitioner was served caveat at the instance of the 4th respondent interalia claiming rights over the land which was assigned in favour of the petitioner and that it is also mentioned in the caveat that an attempt was made to dispossess her from lawful possession. On receipt of the said caveat, the petitioner and his mother filed OS No.243 of 2004 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Kanigiri, for permanent injunction and also filed I.A. No.1182 of 2004, seeking temporary injunction, restraining the defendants/respondents therein from interfering or causing obstruction for the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the schedule property i.e., land which was assigned in favour of the petitioner. The trial Court initially granted temporary injunction on 7/5/2005, however, as the unofficial respondents with aid of official respondents in the writ petition tried to disturb the petitioner's possession over the suit scheduled land, they were constrained to file O.S No.123 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukur, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein in interfering or obstructing the petitioner from peaceful possession and enjoyment, in which, both official respondents and as well as the unofficial respondents were made parties. The petitioner further stated that the 4th respondent who also claimed assignment, did not have any right over the subject land and that by tampering revenue records, her name was mutated as if she was granted assignment patta and that there was never any such assignment made. That being so, the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar visited the subject property on 21/3/2007 while petitioner was conducting agricultural operations and informed that the 1st respondent cancelled the assignment, thereby the petitioner was sought to be dispossessed. Upon collecting the copy of the order dtd. 13/3/2007, passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.6937 of 2007. Initially, the writ petition came to be dismissed by an order dtd. 18/7/2007, at the admission stage. Against which, petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.876 of 2007, wherein the division bench by order dtd. 22/1/2009 has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the same was passed despite the official respondents seeking time to file counter and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration upon the respondents filing counters.