D YELLAIAH Vs. R R DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an assignee of a house site granted by the then Tahsildar, East Taluk, Hyderabad. The said site was assigned to him in the year 1976. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that after the assignment, one S. Balareddy, who was the Sarpanch of the village assured the petitioner that he would arrange a loan under the weaker section housing scheme for construction of the house in the assigned land and so saying the original patta certificate was taken away by the Sarpanch. At the same time, the Sarpanch also obtained certain blank papers with the signature of the petitioner. The Sarpanch instead of arranging for the loan assured by him, quite fraudulently converted the blank paper with the signature of the petitioner as a representation addressed to the 2nd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer requesting the latter to cancel the patta issued to him earlier as he was not in need of the same and therefore he was returning the original patta certificate. At this stage itself, it is relevant to note that admittedly this representation purported to be that of the petitioner was handed over to the 2nd respondent by the Sarpanch, and not by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent acting on the said fraudulent document, cancelled the patta earlier issued to the petitioner and the same site was allotted in favour of the 3rd respondent, one Sridevi. There after wards, the petitioner came to know through some of the persons in the village that the patta of the land has been transferred in the name of some other person after cancelling the patta earlier granted in favour of the petitioner. It is claimed that the petitioner made several representations to the 2nd respondent for issuing the duplicate patta certificate. The 2nd respondent did not act on the representations promptly. Ultimately, the 2nd respondent by his proceedings dated 14.8.1992 informed the petitioner that duplicate patta certificate could not be issued to him (petitioner) inasmuch as the patta earlier granted to the petitioner was already cancelled and the site in question was allotted to the third respondent.

(2.) On service of notice, on behalf of the respondents, a counter is filed. In the counter it is admitted that the patta was granted to the petitioner in the year 1976 by the then Tahsildar of Hyderabad East Taluk. It is also admitted that the so called representation of the petitioner requesting the 2nd respondent to cancel the patta was submitted by the Sarpanch. However, it is claimed that acting on the representation of the petitioner and after a local enquiry by the Revenue Inspector of Social Welfare Office, patta was cancelled and the same site.was allotted in favour of the 3rd respondent Smt. Sridevi on 11.8.1980.

(3.) This case was finally heard by the Court on 12.9.1996 and 17.9.1996. At the request of the learned Government Pleader to produce the records of the Case, the case was adjourned. Even today, the learned Government Pleader was not in a position to place the records before the Court.