Judgment · High Court · 2005

The contention of the respondents is that petitioners are in fact not residing at Pedatummidi village and that they are all residents of the neighbouring District i.e. west Godavary District and that they managed to obtain pattas for the land by influencing the then revenue officials contrary to the rules relating to assignment, and have converted the land into a fish tank and had evaded service of notices, and failed to avail the opportunity of making a representation before the concerned authorities and hence cannot complain of lack of opportunity of being heard.

The file produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader shows that there is an endorsement on the notice addressed to the petitioners that the notices were affixed to a pole near the assigned land. The order of the Collector dated 23-2-2005 shows that notices sent to the petitioners to show cause why D-form pattas granted to them cannot be cancelled were returned unserved and that the fourth and third respondents filed a caveat in this Court.

The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that respondents after receiving information that petitioners were contemplating to initiate proceedings in this Court and obtain interim orders, had filed caveat in this Court and while sending the notices of the caveat to the petitioners, fourth respondent had also enclosed a show cause notice to them as to why the pattadar pass books issued to them should not be cancelled and that all those registered letters sent to Pedatummidi village were returned unserved and so it is clear that petitioners are not residing at Pedatummidi, and hence they cannot complain that no opportunity of being heard was given to them.

The caveat petition filed by the respondents is attached to the writ petition by registry. 4th respondent who sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the caveat signed it on 14-01-2005. It was also attested on the same day. But the Government Pleader affixed his signature thereto on 21-1-2005 and it was actually filed into Court on 28-1-2005. In para 3 of his affidavit 4th respondent as the 1st caveator stated as follows: “the norms of assignment procedure was not followed. The occupants were served with a notice in Form-I appended in A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers), Act 1977 (Act 9 of 77) directing them as to why the occupied assigned lands to others shall not be resumed to Government. But in fact the said occupants Smt. Rudraraju Syamala, Sri Kanumuru Venkata Satyanarayana Raju and others were granted assignment of schedule lands on “D” Form Pattas.” In para 4 he stated “the report of the Special team reveals that the respondents herein have obtained D-Form pattas for the schedule lands by illegal means with the connivance of Revenue Officials.” In para 7 he stated

the petitioners have issued show cause notices to the respondents vide No. Rc.C.3378/2004 dated -01- 2005 for evicting them from the above said lands. After receipt of the notices, the respondents are trying to file writ petitions against the Caveator and to got interim order. If the respondents succeed in their attempts, the purpose of assignment will be defeated and the caveators will sustain irreparable loss and hardship in their activity of distributing land to the land less poor.

Since notice in Form No.1 annexed to the caveat petition contains the signature of the 3rd respondent with date 19-1-2005, it is clear that the averment in para 7 of the affidavit of the 4th respondent filed in support of the caveat petition that notices were already issued to the petitioners cannot be true because by 14-1-2005, when he sworn to the affidavit, notice in Form No.1 was not even signed by the 3rd respondent. This apart in para 2 of his counter affidavit in this writ petition 4th respondent clearly alleged that all the petitioners received the notices issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar and that i n response to the said show cause notice they filed individual petitions by registered post and requested an opportunity of personal hearing.

When according to the allegation in para 2 of the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent in this petition, petitioners received notices sent to them by the third respondent and had sought for an opportunity of being heard, and when it is not stated as to which address the notices were sent by the 3rd respondent it has to be presumed that 3rd respondent served notices on the petitioners at Pedatummidi village only. The counter affidavit of the 4th respondent in this petition shows that both the Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer issued notices to the petitioners. Why two of his superior officers had to issue notices to the petitioners on the different dates for the same purpose of cancelling pattas is not explained by the 4th respondent in his affidavit.