HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT Writ Petition No. 4947 of 2006 Date: 10.06.2014 Between:
Sri Raja Sagi Seetha Ramaraju …Petitioner And Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam and another.
…Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT Writ Petition No. 4947 of 2006 O R D E R:
Petitioner assails order No.150/2003/A dated 04.08.2003 alleged to have been passed by the 1st respondent.
Briefly stated, the case of petitioner is that through assignment dated 01.12.1994 the 1st respondent assigned agricultural land in an extent of Acs.4.96 cents in Sy.Nos. 157/1, 158/7, 116/4 of Kommadi Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
It is averred that through the impugned order, the 1st respondent without issuing notice or affording reasonable opportunity to petitioner admitted to take vacant possession of petition land. Hence, the writ petition.
This Court, through order dated 14.03.2006, granted status quo. The 1st respondent filed a petition to vacate the interim order dated 14.03.2006 and in the counter affidavit filed, the following circumstances are stated;
(a) that the assignment on which the petitioner relies upon is false and fabricated.
(b) the petitioner was and is not in possession of the petition land.
(c) the assignment was in fact made in favour of one Ompollu Kondal Rao and the assignment was cancelled in the year 2002 and possession was also taken in accordance with law from the assignee.
(d) the impugned proceedings is also forged and fabricated and the respondents are proposing to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner for trying to grab valuable Government land.
The petitioner, in spite of receipt of the vacate stay petition and the counter, is not in a possession to satisfactorily establish that there has been assignment in his favour and is in possession of the petition land and that the order impugned has been passed by the 1st respondent.
Learned counsel by drawing the attention of the Court to the submissions in the reply affidavit contends that the original record may be called for to verify the truth in the averments stated by the petitioner in the reply affidavit.
I am afraid to direct production of original record without the petitioner discharging the initial burden to prove his case, the respondents cannot also be called upon to prove a negative circumstance namely, the non-issuance of patta, non-issuance of proceedings etc. Since the petitioner has failed to prima facie, prove the existence of either assignment or enjoyment of petition land, I see no reason to either continue the status quo order granted on 14.03.2006 or grant any relief to the petitioner.
The interim order is vacated and the writ petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
S.V.Bhatt,J Date: 10.06.2014 KLP