LAWS(APH)-2007-7-111

M NARSINGA RAO Vs. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER LAND REVENUE

Decided On July 13, 2007
M.NARSINGA RAO Appellant
V/S
SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, HYDERABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to quash the order dated 6.10.1997 issued by the 1st respondent-Special Commissioner (Land Revenue).

(2.) The petitioner, who is a landless poor person, asserts that he was assigned an extent of Ac.05.00 cents of land in S.No.300 situated in Kangarakala Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the year 1961. He personally brought the land under cultivation in the year 1976 and since then, he has been attending to agricultural operations in it. While so, on 24.3.1992, the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted proposals stating that the petitioner's father M. Chandraiah was originally assigned an extent of only Ac.2.38 gts of land, and later, Chandraiah managed to get for his minor son, who is the petitioner herein, an assignment of Ac.05.00 cents, and both of them got assignment certificates for an extent of Ac.02.38 guntas and Ac.05.00 cents situated in S.Nos.300/15 and 300/16 respectively and their names were recorded as pattadars in the year 1961-62 and recommended to the Joint Collector for cancellation of the extra land assigned in favour of Chandraiah and to assign the same in favour of M. Jangaiah, the 3rd respondent herein. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the Joint Collector accepted the recommendations/proposals made by the Revenue Divisional Officer and passed an order dated 1.10.1994 retaining an extent of only Ac.2.38 guntas in favour of Chandraiah and cancelling the petitioner's holding of an extent of Ac.05.00 cents. Now, the petitioner's grievance is that when he filed an appeal questioning the order, dated 1.10.1994, the 1st respondent-Special Commissioner (Land Revenue) dismissed it cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioner and reassigning it to the 3rd respondent.

(3.) In spite of the fact that notices are served on the respondents, they have not chosen to file counter-affidavit.