Telangana High Court
WP/439/2003 of K.NAGESWARA RAO AND 3 ORS Vs M.R.O. MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DIST. on 29 December 2011
Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION Nos.439, 583 AND 777 of 2003 Dated: 29.12.2011 IN WRIT PETITION No.439 of 2003 Between : K.Nageswara Rao and 3 others … Petitioners And The Mandal Revenue Officer … Respondent IN WRIT PETITION No.583 of 2003 Between : Ch.Kanaka Raju and
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIWRIT PETITION Nos.439, 583 AND 777 of 2003
Dated: 29.12.2011IN WRIT PETITION No.439 of 2003Between :K.Nageswara Rao and 3 others… PetitionersAndThe Mandal Revenue Officer… RespondentIN WRIT PETITION No.583 of 2003Between :Ch.Kanaka Raju and 47 others… PetitionersAndThe Mandal Revenue Officer… RespondentIN WRIT PETITION No.777 of 2003Between :M.Papa Rao and 25 others… PetitionersAndThe Mandal Revenue Officer… Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIWRIT PETITION Nos.439, 583 AND 777 OF 2003
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioners in all these writ petitions were assigned smallextents of land situated in different survey numbers of Kanur Village,Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District.
These writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the action of theMandal Revenue Officer, Machilipatnam, dated 24.12.2002 incanceling the D-form pattas issued to the petitioners vide proceedingsdated 24.12.2002.
Admittedly show-cause notices were issued and in response tothe same the petitioners submitted their explanations. Thereafter theimpugned proceedings came to be issued canceling the D-form pattason the ground that the petitioners had violated the conditions ofassignment and converted the assigned lands into fish tanks.
The orders of cancellation are assailed by the petitionersprimarily on the ground that the respondents failed to make anyenquiry and no specific finding was recorded as to the allegedviolations.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it iscontended that the impugned orders have been rightly passed in thefacts and circumstances of the case. It is also contended that thepetitioners cannot maintain the writ petitions without exhausting thealternative remedy of appeal available under the A.P. Assigned Lands(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
At the outset, it is to be noticed that whereas in the show-causenotices it was alleged that the assigned lands were converted into fish tanks contrary to CRZ notification, the impugned orders ofcancellation came to be issued on a different ground namely that thepetitioners had violated the conditions of assignment.
It is also relevant to note that while issuing rule nisi, this Courtby order dated 7.1.2003 granted interim suspension of the impugnedproceedings and the same has been in operation all through.
In the facts and circumstances noticed above, I am of theopinion that the matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly, theimpugned orders of cancellation are hereby set aside and all the WritPetitions are disposed of with a direction to the Mandal RevenueOfficer to issue fresh show-cause notices to the petitioners and passappropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously aspossible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date ofreceipt of this order. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on todaywith regard to the possession of the lands in question shall bemaintained. No costs.
___________
G. ROHINI, J
Date: 29.12.2011Note:- CC in 3 days. (B/O) Ivd