THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1376 of 2014 Dated: 23.01.2014 Between:
A. Doraswamy Reddy .. Petitioner and The State of A.P., Rep. by its District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor and others.
.. Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. V. Jagapathi Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside letter in Roc.B/907/2013 dated 22.07.2013 of respondent No.2, addressed to respondent No.1, and to declare the action of respondent No.3 in seeking to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of 0.59 cents of land in Sy.No.68/11 of Komaragunta Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary.
At the hearing, Mr. V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner holds DKT patta in respect of the subject land and that respondent No.2 has sent a false report to respondent No.1, based on which the latter is likely to cancel the petitioner’s patta. He has invited the Court’s attention to report in Roc.B/19/2013 dated 23.12.2013 of respondent No.3, addressed to respondent No.2, and submitted that the said report reflects the true position with respect to the DKT patta granted to the petitioner. He has further submitted that having sent a favourable report, respondent No.3 has been highhandedly interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the subject property purportedly on the instructions received by his superior officers.
As regards the prayer for setting aside the report dated 22.07.2013 sent by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, the same is only an intra-departmental correspondence, the correctness or otherwise of which will not be examined by this Court. So far no decision adverse to the petitioner’s interest has been taken. As respondent No.1 is in seisin of the issue relating to the petitioner’s entitlement to the subject land, he shall hold an enquiry by considering the version of the petitioner as well as that of his subordinate officers and arrive at a decision. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the report submitted by respondent No.2. However, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the report dated 23.12.2013 of respondent No.3 also, while considering the report of respondent No.2, besides giving the petitioner an opportunity of submitting his objections to the report of respondent No.2 and hearing him personally. After completing this process, respondent No.1 shall adjudicate the issue and communicate his decision to the petitioner.
With respect to the grievance of the petitioner relating to the alleged interference by respondent No.3, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that she is instructed by respondent No.3 to state that he is not causing any such interference.
This submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is placed on record and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of, subject to the above directions.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.1639 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd January, 2014 IBL