IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.28056 of 2013
BETWEEN Smt. Gunnam Leela Kumari.
AND ... PETITIONER State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. MANGENA SREERAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is directed against the order of cancellation of assignment of the petitioner by the Tahsildar, respondent No.3, under impugned proceedings dated 20.06.2013. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court on the allegation that the said proceedings is violative of principles of natural justice and as such, without availing alternate remedy, the present writ petition is filed.
2. On 27.09.2013, while directing the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents to file counter, by a reasoned order, the impugned proceedings was suspended by this Court. Later, counter affidavit was filed and a reply affidavit was also filed and the writ petition has been heard on 24.06.2014 and the orders were reserved in the matter. The writ petition is now being disposed of by this order.
3. Petitioner claims that she is a landless poor person and that one Muchatally Ganga Raju was assigned an extent of Ac.0.92 cents in R.S.No.65/1 of Gurvaidugem village, Jangareddygudem Mandal, West Godavari District. The said Ganga Raju, stated to be in need of money for medical treatment, approached the petitioner offering to sell the said land. Petitioner states that on verifying that the name of Ganga Raju is mutated in the revenue record and that he was in possession and enjoyment of the said land, petitioner purchased the said land from him on 20.04.1990 under an unregistered sale deed by paying full consideration and thereafter, petitioner was put in possession and has been enjoying the said land. It is stated that the then Mandal Revenue Officer having found that the said Ganga Raju was an assignee and had violated the conditions of assignment and consequently, cancelled the patta standing in the name of Ganga Raju and by the same proceedings, stated to have issued patta in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner states that, thereupon, she has also been issued pattadar passbook and has been cultivating the land. It is stated that on account of complaint by third parties, a notice dated 06.11.2012 was issued to the petitioner whereupon petitioner appeared before the third respondent and submitted documents including the patta granted in her favour. Petitioner states that, thereafter, she did not receive any further notice but was served with the impugned proceedings after about six months and hence, alleging that the said proceedings is passed without notice to her, the present writ petition is filed. Strong reliance is placed by the petitioner upon the patta stated to have been granted in her favour by the then MRO in ROC.No.791/95/C dated 29.09.1995. Copy thereof is also produced along with the writ petition.
4. Third respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is not the resident of the said village Guravaigudem but is resident of Chakradevarapalli village and she received the notice sent by the third respondent at her address over there. It is further stated that on physical inspection, it was found that the land is in possession of third parties. It is also stated that villagers of Guravaigudem filed a complaint in the grievance cell before the District Collector whereupon the third respondent was required to make enquiries and take necessary action. It is stated that thereupon the third respondent served notice dated 06.11.2012 to the petitioner and in the enquiry conducted, petitioner also appeared and submitted xerox copies of the D-form patta, as claimed by her. The third respondent, however, states that the petitioner did not file any other document to substantiate her claim, though she was informed that the said patta appears to be fake. The impugned proceedings also states that due verification of the records was made after the petitioner produced the xerox copy of the patta.
5. It is specifically stated in para 3 of the counter affidavit that the file number shown in the said patta does not belong to the file relating to assignment of house sites whereas it relates to assignment of land to one Sri Ayinamahanti Gopalakrishna S/o. Kalkimurthy in R.S.Nos.152, 153 and 93/1 of Ramacharlagudem in an extent of Ac.5.05 cents under Ex-Servicemen quota and the said assignment is found to have been granted on 07.04.2001. The official seal on the xerox copy was also found to be different than the official seal of third respondent’s office and the name of the MRO, which is shown in the xerox copy of the patta dated 29.09.1995 was also verified and it was found that the said MRO retired on 30.09.1995. It is, therefore, asserted that no such patta was granted to the petitioner as per the official records maintained by the third respondent and the xerox copy produced by the petitioner appears to be fake. Thus, the impugned proceedings declared that there is violation of conditions of assignment by the original assignee and the claim of the petitioner based on the xerox cop of the patta, produced by her, having been found to be fake on verification of record, it was concluded that the petitioner has no right over the said land.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a reply affidavit wherein it is stated that though there was an interim order in favour of the petitioner, which was communicated to the third respondent, the third respondent had already entrusted the said land to Tribal Welfare Department for construction of Post Metric Hostel for ST Girls.
Learned counsel alleged that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain, though assertion is made that petitioner is in possession of the land and cultivating the same in para 4 of the reply affidavit. In para 6, the petitioner contradicts herself by stating that ‘The 3rd Respondent filed the vacate application only to harass me and to cooperate the contractor who is constructing post metric hostel for S.T. girls by occupying my land.”
7. It is evident from the pleadings of the parties, as above, that the material averments in the counter affidavit with regard to verification of official records of the third respondent vis-à-vis xerox copy of the patta produced by the petitioner is not contraverted by the petitioner in the reply affidavit. It is also evident that the said order of resumption dated 20.06.2013 had already been carried out as specifically stated in the last para in the counter affidavit that the said land, after resumption, was handed over to the Tribal Welfare Department on 19.07.2013 for construction of Post Metric Hostel for ST Girls and the construction activity is already progressing on the land.
8. Since the issue with regard to the genuineness of the xerox copy of the patta, produced by the petitioner, was already gone into by the third respondent with reference to his records, the findings reached thereon, under the impugned proceedings, being the findings of fact, no interference under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is warranted with the said findings. Further, the impugned proceedings of resumption, having being implemented and the Tribal Welfare Department, being in possession of the said land where construction of ST Girls Hostel is under progress, no equitable consideration can also be shown to the petitioner.
The writ petition, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 25, 2014 DSK