Dara Devaiah v. l.ThestateofAndhraPradesh

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondent no.2 in issuing a impugned memo no.8/63812017, dt.31.08.2018 stopping the construction of house in respect of plot bearing no.92 in Latta land granted vide proceedings no. Bl742]2OOB, dt.20.06.2008 to petitloner wife, without following due process of law, as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently it is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the petitioner herein is the pattadar of plot be.a.ring no.92 in 100 Sq. Yards situated at Urkonda village and sy.no.401, 404 admeasuring mandal. IANO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavitfiledinSupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedbe pleasedtosuspendtheimpugnedmemono.8/638t2o17,dt.31.08.2017passedby the respondent no.i2 herein and pass such other order or orders rnay deem fit and proper in the circurnstances of the case pending disposal of Lhe ab6ve writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.RAGHUNATH Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTI CE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.3776 of 2O18 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "... to issue dn dppropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the noture of Writ of Mandamus declare the oction of the respondent No.2 in issuing an imPugned memo No'Bl6)812o17, dt11.o8.2o18 stopping the construction of house in respect of plot beoring No.g2 in Potta land gronted vide proceedings No.Bl742l2oo8, dt.2o.o6.2oo8 to my wife without following due process of law as being itlegol, orbitrory and violotion of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndio and consequently it is further prayed thot this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the petition herein is the pattador of plot bearing No.92 in 5y.No.4o1, 4o4 ddmedsuring 1oo Sq.Yords situaled oL Urkondaviltoge and mandol andposs.'." 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned, Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is landless poor and belongs to Scheduled Caste. The respondent authorities herein / !.:, 2 SK, J W.P.It,r.37?6 of 20IB after following due procedure, granted housr: site patta in favour of the wife of the petitioner vide proceedings No.Bl742l2OO8, dated 20.06.2008 in ptot No.92 admeasuLring to an extent of 100 Sq. yards ,situated at Urkonda Village and Mandal. Thereafter, the petitioner has macle an application to the Gram palchayat for house construction permission ald the sarne was granted on O2.O2.2008. While it being so, basing on the representation made by the Sarpanch of the Urkonda Village, tht-- respondent No.2 -Tahsildar passed i mpugned Memo Nc,.B/638/2017, dated 3t.OB.2Ot7 directing the revenue zruthorities not to a,llow the petitione r to raise the construction, for which the petitioner bought material such as sand, granite, cement etc.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while the construction was going on, the Gram Pan<:hayat has stopped the said construction The respondent No.2-Tahsildar is not acting independently and passed an impugned order by the j:: SK, J W.P.No.3776 of 2018 influence of vested people, who are politically connected with the ruling party in the Urkonda Village and trying to deprive the right of property of the petitioner, which was granted by the then Ta-hsildar for the poor people. The respondent No.2-Tahsildar herein without following due procedure of law or without glving any opportunity, has passed the impugned memo dated 31.O8-2017, hence, the petitioner fi1ed the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned memo dated 31.O8 .2017.-

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, basing on the counter afhdavit filed by the respondent No.2, submits that in the year, 2008, the Government acquired the land in Sy.Nos.401 and 404 situated at Urkonda Village and Mandal for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections' , In the Grama Sabha conducted on 19.06.2008, wherein it was rrnanimously resolved that the Plot Nos'9L, 92, 93, 94 and 88, in which Bore well was existing, have been I 4 SI! J \\'.P.No.37?6 of 20IB reserved fc,r civic arnenities, while cancelling ttie nalrles of the beneficiaries proposed earlier in the Grama Sabha. '[:lking advantage of earlier proposals on plot No.92, the petitioner has created false and ftrbricated house site Patta Certihcate and trying to occup), the said house site plot which is under custody of Urkonda Gram Panchayat. The house site patta granted in the name of the wife of 1he petitioner is not correct and deserves no consideration. The petitioner is trying to oc:<;upy the house sitr:, which was not issued by the office of the responderLt No.2-Tahsildar. Hence, he reqtrested to dismiss the writ petition as there is no rr:ason for considerin.g, the petitioner's case.

6. After hearing both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the c<>nsidered view that the petitioner is the landless poor, who belongs to schedu.led caste community, was issued house site patta in rhe name of his wife uide pror:eedings No.B /742 /t1008, dated 20.06.2008, land admr:asuring ,- iJ 5 SK, J W.P.No.3776 of 2018 to arr extent of 1OO Sq. Yards in Sy.Nos'4OL, 4O4 situated at Urkonda Village and Mandal. The petitioner has made an application dated O2.O7 -2008 for house construction permission and the same was granted by the Urkonda Gram Panchayat. While the construction of house was going on, the respondent No'2-Tahsildar passed the impugned Memo No.B/63812O17, dated

31.08.2017 stating that basing on the representation hled by the Sarpanch of Urkonda Village and other third party associations stated that the Plot Nos'91, 92, 93 and,94 are kept under control of Gram Panchayat for the public purpose. As per the note hle of the then Tahsildar, it was endorsed and given instructions dated

19.06.2008 that Plot Nos.91, 92, 93 and 94 are kept vacant for the use of village necessities.

7. In fact, in the impugned memo ,'dated

31.O8.2O17, the respond.ent No.2-Tahsildar nowhere mentioned that the patta certificate granted to the wife of the petitioner was fafse and fabricated. Now, in 4g \ \\ 6 SK..I W.P.N,r.3776 of 20lB counter, it is stated that the patta certificate granted to the wife of the petitioner is false, fabricat,:d and no reasons for consideration and the saine was not mentionr:rl in the impugned memo. (

8. The respondnets cannot improve their case by hling co'unter afhdavit which was not mentioned in impugned orders as held by the Hon,ble Supreme Court of India tn Mohinder Singh @ilt Vs The Chief Election Commissionerl . Therefore, the patta certificate granted to the pe,titioner cannot be cancelled ,*.ithoui following due process of law.

9. 'Ihe then Tahsildar of Urkonda ViJlage has issued the house site patta certificate to the eljgible poor persons including wife of the petitioner on 2Cr.06.2OOg. Once the ()ompetent Authority issued house site patta and Grarn Panchayat granted permission Ibr house construction, the respondent No.2 without issuing any notice and without following any procedure issued the y78 (7) scc 4o5 7 SK, J W.P.No.37?6 of 2018 impugned Memo No,B/638/2O17, dated 37.O8.2O17 and the same is liable to be set aside"

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the Memo No.B I 638 l2Ol7 , dated

31.O8.2O17 issued by the respondent No.2 and directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner with regard to the subject propert5r without following due procedure. If the respondents war.t to acquire the land of the petitioner, they have to fotlow due procedure as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. However, there sha1l be no order as to costs.

11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' . Witness \ruesoa Frve THE HON'BLE TH E ACTING CHIEF JUSTIC E SUJOY PAUL, on this Y, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SD/-fuOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER 'r . ,n" Principal Secretary' Department of Revenue' Secretariat' Hyderabad' i ffi$ffip+w**utt'u'*****"'r %SK. re ansana a'i HIGH COURT DATED:1 810212025 I I ORDER WP.No.3776 of 2018 ALLOWINGTHE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t '- "'n'C z- .t'rl' o t' B I YIlliF 2W z aI * - i "arc s9o ,{