B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition questions the order of cancellation of assignment of land made in favour of Turka Chennaiah. Turka Chennaiah was assigned with a land of Ac. 1-93 cents in S. No. 492/7 of Gorentla village. The assignment was made in the year 1974. The dispute regarding the agreement to share the profits is not at all relevant. Suffice it to say that assignment was ordered in the name of T. Chennaiah and patta was issued consequent thereto. The assignment was granted under B. S. O. 15 (12) (3 ). The conditions enumerated are that the assignment is heritable but not alienable, that the land should be brought under cultivation within three years thereof and that the assignee and his family members alone shall be in possession of the same. Initially the order of cancellation was made. Against that order an appeal was preferred. The Appellate authority remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the primary authority. The primary authority confirmed the order. Against that order an appeal was filed before the appellate authority and the appellate authority again remanded the matter to the primary authority. The primary authority again confirmed the order of cancellation and it was continued even for the third time. It is the fourth round of litigation in which the Collector has recorded a finding holding that the petitioner is not the adopted son of late T. Chennaiah and that he is not entitled to be in possession of the property. The assignment was cancelled ordering resumption of the land by the Government. The revision to the 1st respondent also met the same fate and the result is this writ petition.

( 2 ) MR. V. V. S. Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner raises three-fold contention; (1) that the petitioner, though an adopted son, has got to be considered as natural son and as such he is one of the family members of state T. Chennaiah and as such he is entitled to continue in possession; (2) when the injunction suit filed by T. Chennaiah was decreed and when an appeal was filed against that decree and when Chennaiah died during the pendency of that appeal, the L. R. petition was filed by the petitioner to bring him on record as L. R. in the place of T. Chennaiah and since that L. R. petition was allowed, it is the conclusive proof diat the petitioner is the adopted son of late T. Chennaiah; and (3) even if the adoption is not proved, the learned Counsel contends, that in view of the fact that late T. Chennaiah has left behind him a Will executed in favour of the petitioner bequeathing the land in question and since T. Chennaiah died in the year 1989, the petitioner has stepped into his shoes and as transfer of the land under Section 2 (6) and Section 3 of Act 9 of 1977 does not attract testamentary disposition, his possession is authorised but not unauthorized.

( 3 ) IN so far as the faction of adoption is concerned, there is absolutely no proof on record. It is pertinent to note that factum of adoption has got to be proved followed by proper pleadings and evidence which are patently absent in this case. The finding of fact recorded by the authorities below that the petitioner is not the adopted son is based on valid material and mere is no infirmity or illegality to assail the same. As such, I confirm the finding that the petitioner is not the adopted son of late T. Chennaiah.

( 4 ) COMING to the next contention of Mr. V. V. S. Rao that the ordering of LR. petition in civil action tantamounts to accepting the petitioner as a legal heir, I am not accepting this argument for the reason that there was no contentious issue as to whether the petitioner was the adopted son of T. Chennaiah in the petition filed by the petitioner herein to prosecute the case as L. R. of late T. Chennaiah and the same was ordered in the ordinary course. There was no enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 C. P. C. as such the ordering of L. R. petition was only to facilitate the petitioner to defend the appeal brought against T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document