WP/27915/2007 of Smt. Boyina Jyothi Vs The Distrrict Collector, Visakhapatnam District, on 28 December 2007

COMMON ORDER:

Since similar questions that arise for consideration in these writpetitions, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of commonorder.The petitioner in W.P.No.27915 of 2007 purchased the landadmeasuring Ac.4-00 cents in Sy.No.375/2 situated at KappullappalapaduVillage, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, throughregistered Sale Deed, dated 02-12-2002 from one Sri Goshetti Rajulu, an Ex-serviceman. The said land was assigned in favour of the vendor of thepetitioner vide D.R.No.237/1402, dated 29-11-1982, under Ex-servicemanquota. From the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession andenjoyment of the said land. While so, when respondents 2 and 3 hereinmade an attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment ofthe said land, the petitioner made a representation before the DistrictCollector, Visakapatnam, on 20-12-2007.

The petitioner in W.P.No.27916 of 2007 purchased the landadmeasuring Ac.5-00 cents in Sy.No.383/1 situated at KappullappalapaduVillage, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, throughregistered Sale Deed, dated 02-12-2002 from one Sri Thokada Tata, an Ex-serviceman. The said land was assigned in favour of the vendor of thepetitioner vide D.R.No.226/1402, dated 20-06-1993, under Ex-servicemanquota. From the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession andenjoyment of the said land. While so, when respondents 2 and 3 hereinmade an attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment ofthe said land, the petitioner made a representation before the DistrictCollector, Visakapatnam, on 20-12-2007.

Learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent as well as thelearned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 and 3submit that the vendors of the petitioners namely Goshetti Rajulu andThokada Tata along with two others filed W.P.No.4101 of 2005 before thisCourt seeking similar relief that the 2[nd] respondent herein was interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands. The District Collectoras well as the Mandal Revenue Officer are also parties to the said writpetition. After filing counter, the said writ petition was disposed of along withanother writ petition i.e., W.P.No.17166 of 2006. In the counter filed in theabove said writ petition, the alleged assignment made in favour of thevendors of the petitioners itself is disputed contending that no suchassignment was made in favour of the vendors of the petitioners and theassignment pattas granted in favour of the vendors of the petitioners areforged and not genuine. Accordingly, the said writ petition was disposed ofon 11-10-2007 directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bheemunipatnam, toconduct an enquiry after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners anddecide as to whether the proceedings relied on by the petitioners therein,relating to the assignment of the lands, are genuine or not and if they are notgenuine, the petitioners therein are not entitled for any relief.

Admittedly, W.P.No.4101 of 2005 was disposed of after filing counter. In fact, the petitioners cannot get better title than their vendors. Further, theso-called assignment itself is under enquiry. However, in W.P.No.4101 of2005 it was contended that the possession was already handed over toVUDA. Therefore, I am of the opinion that unless enquiry is completed, norelief can be granted to the petitioners. However, it is open for the petitionersto file objections before the 3[rd] respondent seeking permission to participatein the enquiry proceedings.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writpetitions are disposed of directing the 3[rd] respondent to decide the matter asdirected by this court in W.P.No.4101 of 2005, dated 11-10-2007, asexpeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in the enquiry, if theassignment proceedings are found to be genuine, the respondents shallrestore possession in favour of the vendors of the petitioners as well as thepetitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________

Prv