B. Saraswathi, Ananthapur Dist v. Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Guntur Dist And 3 Others

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 18038 of 2017 O R D E R :

This Writ Petition is filed complaining interference of respondents 2 to 4 revenue officials in the construction activity of the petitioner in the house site in Plot No. 23, in an extent of Ac.0.02 1⁄2 cents in Survey Nos. 181-G1 & 181-E in P.C. Pyapili Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District. The case of the petitioner is that she is an agricultural labourer and she was granted house site patta on 26.03.2008. Immediately thereafter, due to her financial inability, she could not construct the house therein. It is stated that after securing money, she started making constructions, but however, on account of sudden death of her husband, she could not continue the construction work.

It is alleged that the respondent authorities with a mala fide intention, using political influence, have been trying to cancel the patta granted in her favour. A counter-affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar admitting granting of patta in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated that one Smt. B. Seshamma, W/o B. Pennaiah, resident of P.C. Pyapili Village, who was earlier issued another plot, which was occupied by the gram panchayat office, was also issued the same plot as the petitioner was not residing in the village and that she has not been making any construction since 2008. Grant of patta in favour of Seshamma was on account of oversight. However, as the petitioner was not residing in the village, Smt. Seshamma had taken possession of the house site and had objected the construction of house by the petitioner.

Seshamma and she was allocated another site in Survey No. 114. It is ultimately stated that as the petitioner was not aware of all these developments, she has rushed to this Court and at present, there is no intention on the part of the revenue officials either to interfere with the construction activity or to cancel the patta granted in her favour.

In view of what has been averred in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the 3rd respondent Tahsildar, the Writ Petition is disposed of, making it clear that the respondents shall not interfere with the right and possession of the petitioner over the house site granted in her favour. No costs.

Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand disposed of.

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 04th January 2018 ksld