NANJALA SATYANARAYANA Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner purchased an extent of Ac. 6. 09 guntas of land in Survey No. 222 of Pallipadu Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District, through a sale deed, dated 15. 4. 1975, executed by one Sri Somayajula Seetharama Sastry and his mother. The land was an Inam, recorded in the name of one Sri Somayajula Yoganandam, the father of the vendor named above. The petitioner was issued Occupancy Right Certificate under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short 'the' Inams Act') on 30. 11. 987, after the purchase. Aggrieved thereby, one Sri Chellagundla Veeranarayana, claiming to be the trustee of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple of that village, filed an appeal before the District Collector under Section 24 of the Inams Act. The appeal was dismissed on 8. 10. 1988. Writ Petition No. 18934 of 1988, was filed against the said order.

(2.) BY the time Writ Petition No. 18934 of 1988 came up for hearing, certain developments have taken place. The petitioner approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Konijerla, 4th respondent herein, for issuance of Pattadar Pass Book in respect of the said land. A Pass Book was issued to him under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the ROR Act' ).

(3.) THE Joint Collector, Khammam, 1st respondent herein, initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 9 of the ROR Act against the petitioner, in relation to the Pattadar Pass Book issued to him. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice, directing him to explain, as to why the Pattadar Pass Book issued to him, shall not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted explanation and on a consideration of the entire material, the 1st respondent issued orders, dated 15. 7. 1996, cancelling the Pattadar Pass Book. This fact was brought to the notice of this Court when W. P. No. 18934 of 1988 was taken up for hearing. Taking note of the same, the writ petition was closed, leaving it open to the aggrieved party viz. , the petitioner, to challenge the order passed by the 1st respondent. Hence, this writ petition.