T NARASINGA RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ, order or direction, declaring the order of respondent No.2 in his proceedings No. D1/4436/92 dated 18-1-94, as illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice, and further to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct inspection of the land in question and then cancel the pattas granted in favour of respondent No.3-Association in Sy.No. 908 of Kukatpall village, if it is proved that the land in question is a tank bed land and overlapping Sy.No.80 of Moosapet Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is a resident of Moosapet Village and owns agricultural land under the ayacut known as 'Kamuni Cheruvu' situated in Survey No.80 of Moosapet village. Like him, there are about 100 other small farmers owning lands in Sy.No. 80 of Moosapet village, under the said ayacut and raising two paddy crops in a year. One Krishna Murthy and one Komaraiah claiming themselves as Secretary and President respectively of respondent No.3-Association are trying to knock away a portion of the tank bed area under the guise that Government had allotted to them Ac.17-17 guntas in Sy.No.908 of Kukatpally village which overlaps Sy.No.80 of Moosapet village. According to the petitioner, the land in question is notified as 'Sikkam' land and the respondent No.3-Association with the help of revenue officials was trying to grab the land illegally. The petitioner and respondent No.4 made a representation to respondent No.1 urging him to stop the illegal grabbing of land. Pursuant to the said application, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District was directed to conduct an enquiry and send his report. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report stating that the land in Sy.No.908 of Kukatpally village was not suitable for house-sites and the same cannot be assigned to anybody as it is a tank bed land. Basing on the enquiry report, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to propose some other land for the purpose of house-sites. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer alongwith the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar inspected some lands and reported that a portion of land in Sy.No. 908 which was at a high level including the hilly slopes, which was far away from the normal water spread area and that it would meet the requirement of respondent No.3-Association. It was further reported that the area covering 666 plots was not coming under submersion during rainy season and suggested to consider allotment of 350 plots in the high level area to respondent No.3-Association. It was also reported that though the entire high level area did not come under submergence, it was not advisable to allot the entire land as it would obstruct the passage of water from the kunta to Kamuni cheruvu, and requested that the opinion of the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, be taken. Accordingly, the respondent No.l sought the opinion of the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj. However, the petitioner submits that the Executive Engineer was influenced by respondent No.3 and favoured for grant of house-sites in its favour. The petitioner further submits that pattas were granted without any notice to the ryots of Kukatpally and Moosapet villages. Objecting to this the petitioner and others made representations to the District Collector to enquire into the matter.

(3.) The petitioner and 62 others filed WP No. 8346 of 1992 seeking directions to respondent No.1 to consider the objections raised by them in respect of the patta granted in favour of respondent No.3-Association in the tank bed area. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District submitted his report stating that allotment of house-sites in Sy.No.908 of Kukatpally village would affect the safety of the tank and its water, and therefore, suggested that pattas issued in the said survey number be cancelled as the plots fall under tank bed area. This Court by order dated 28-1-93 allowed the said writ petition and directed the respondent No.l to enquire into the matter and take appropriate steps. The Court further ordered that till a final decision is taken in the matter, status quo as to possession of the land in question has to be maintained by all concerned. As no enquiry was conducted and no action was taken, the petitioners filed Contempt Case No.509 of 1993. It appears that the said contempt case was allowed by a learned single Judge by imposing a fine of Rs.2,000/- as there was disobedience of the Court's order by respondent No.3-Association. The said order is challenged by respondent No.3- Association by filing Contempt Appeal No.15 of 1994. Instead of holding an enquiry as directed by this Court in WP No.8346 of 1992, the respondent No.2 passed an order dated 18-1-94, the operative portion of which reads as follows: