Petitioner challenged an order cancelling her husband's land assignment under Ex-service quota. Court set aside the order, holding it was passed without jurisdiction by the 4th respondent.
Impugned order dated 9.3.2009 setting aside D-Form Patta No:73/1405 is set aside and writ petition is allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO:16257 of 2011
DATED:23.02.2012
BETWEEN:
ANNEKA JAYAMMA.
…PETITIONER
AND
THE STATE OF A.P REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, & OTHERS
…RESPONDENTS.
THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO:16257 of 2011
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 4th respondent, dated 9.3.2009 whereunder the assignment in favour of the petitioner’s husband in respect of Ac.2.00 cents of land situated in S.No:731/3 and Ac.2.07 cents of land in S.No:731/4 of Mamilla Palli village, Chinthakomma Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R. District, was cancelled and the land was resumed to the Government, is arbitrary and illegal.
This Court while issuing notice before admission by order, dated 17.6.2011, directed that the respondents should not assign the lands in question to any third parties and that the petitioner’s possession should not be disturbed.
When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice that W.P.29094 of 2009 filed by the other assignee, whose assignment was also cancelled under the same order, dated 9.3.2009 was
allowed by this Court on 7.2.2011 thereby setting aside the impugned order on the ground that the competent authority to pass an order of cancellation of patta granted on misrepresentation of facts, was the District Collector. Thus the order of cancellation, dated 9.3.2009, passed by the 4th respondent was held to be without jurisdiction.
Admittedly, the land in question was assigned to the petitioner’s husband under the Ex-service Men Quota and the said assignment was cancelled on the very same ground of misrepresentation of facts. Therefore, as held in W.P.29094 of 2009 the District Collector alone was competent to pass such an order. In the result, the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent being without jurisdiction is liable to be set aside on that ground alone.
Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside so far as the D- Form Patta No:73/1405 granted to the petitioner’s husband is concerned and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
_______________ Justice G.Rohini.
Date:23.02.2012 Gurc.
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO:16257 of 2011
DATED:23.02.2012
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order cancelling the land assignment passed by the 4th respondent was without jurisdiction.
Whether the District Collector was the competent authority to cancel the patta on grounds of misrepresentation of facts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.29094 of 2009Applied¶17
Anneka Jayamma
State of A.P represented by its Principal Secretary
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
