O. Venkatarami Reddy, v. The District Collector,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.23302 OF 2004 ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is preferred by the petitioners seeking to declare the orders in Ref.No.B1/1041(3)/2004 dated 14.11.2004 passed by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer as illegal and arbitrary. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would show that the 1st petitioner was granted D-Form patta vide DKT No.28/96 dated 15.12.1985 assigning agricultural land admeasuring Acs.4.00 cents in survey No.798 of Munnelli Village, B.Koduru Mandal. Likewise, 2nd petitioner was also granted D-Form patta vide DKT No.44/96 dated 14.08.1987 assigning agricultural land admeasuring Acs.4.00 cents in survey No.799 of Munnelli Village, B.Koduru Mandal.

Since the date of assignment, the petitioners have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of their respective lands, their names were entered in revenue records and they were issued pattadar pass books and title deeds vide patta Nos.1143 and 228 respectively. It is further averred that while the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 27.09.2004 directing the petitioners to appear before him along with documents on 04.10.2000 in connection with a representation submitted by some villagers of Govindayapalli Village alleging tampering of records in survey No.795. In pursuance thereto, the petitioners appeared before the 2nd respondent and submitted all relevant documents.

revenue records without having any jurisdiction to do so. Questioning the same, present writ petition is filed. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment filed W.V.M.P.No.1178 of 2015 seeking to vacate the interim order passed by this Court on 15.12.2004 along with counter affidavit opposing the averments made in the writ petition. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order since he has no power to entertain an application suo motto. It is his argument that the suo motto power came to be incorporated in the Act by way of Section 5 (B) (2) in the year 2012, which has no retrospective effect. As seen from the counter affidavit, it is the case of the respondents that as against the order passed by the 2nd respondent on 14.11.2004, a revision has been preferred by S.Ramulu and S.Maddi Reddy before the Joint Collector on 18.12.2004. After due enquiry, the Joint Collector, Kadapa, vide Proceedings Ref.E3/3605/2004 dated 20.01.2005 and Ref.

D.Dis./E3/3604/2004 dated 16.03.2005 remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for conducting fresh enquiry after inspecting the lands with the assistance of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land records, Kadapa.

No reply was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent.

Thus, it is clear that as against the order passed by the 2nd respondent, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition, a revision came to be filed before the Joint Collector, Kadapa, who by his order dated 20.01.2005 set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for conducting fresh enquiry. In view of the same, the question of entertaining the writ petition would not arise.

Hence, the Writ Petition is closed granting liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedies available, if any, under law. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 19.01.2017 sur