of conditions of the grant for the reason that they had failed to bring the land under cultivation which was in violation of the grant, that the notices sent by registered post were returned with the endorsement ‘address is insufficient’, which, according to the respondent, implied that the assignees or their family members were not residing in the village, that a local publication was made in the Gram Panchayat office by affixing the list of assignees along with the particulars of lands assigned which were proposed for cancellation of ‘D’ Form pattas and that the contents of the notices were published by tom-tom and by publication in a daily news paper “Enadu city edition” dated 22.03.2001. The respondent would, however, admit that Smt.K.Ramaiah was the original assignee to whom original ‘D’ form patta was issued under political sufferers quota and that, pursuant to the permission, the 1st petitioner herein had purchased said land admeasuring Ac.1.20 cents from the original assignee through registered document for a valuable consideration and, thereafter, the 1st petitioner had sold an extent of 50 cents of the total purchased land to petitioners 2 and 3, for an extent of 25 cents each, under separate registered sale deeds. It is also stated that, subsequently, the land in question was sub-divided into Survey No.171/1 for 25 cents, 171/2 for 25 cents and 171/3 for 70 cents and that the names of the petitioners had been incorporated as pattadars in their respective portions. Para 4 of the said counter-affidavit makes interesting reading and is, therefore, extracted hereunder:
