ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

“........to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate direction or directions, to quash the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 10.03.2014 in Rc. No. E2/4081/2013 and to set aside the consequential proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 15.06.2014 in Rc. No. B45/2013 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Ch. Laxmi Narayana, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner has been allotted land measuring Ac. 4-00 cents in Sy. No. 70/2B/1 of Kallur Mandal, Kurnool in January, 1995 and he has paid the market value for the same also. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. He has filed a civil suit against the attempt of encroachment by the third party and obtained an interim order. Subsequently he was called to the office of the 3rd respondent and informed that the land was to be taken back. Therefore, he filed a writ petition and this Court directed that the petitioner should not be dispossessed except by due process of law. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to appear before the 3rd respondent and also the 2nd respondent, who have conduced some sort of an enquiry, but most of which was behind the back of the writ petitioner. It is very categorically asserted that the impugned order was passed without giving adequate opportunity to the writ petitioner and that the statements were recorded behind his back. D-Form patta granted to the petitioner was also cancelled relying upon the BSO 15 (18) and Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the documents annexed to the writ petition including the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition, wherein the possession of the petitioner etc. was admitted.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appeared for the official respondents also argued the matter at length and stated that the impugned order is correct in the circumstances of the case. He also points out that as fraud was discovered the cancellation is correct. It is pointed out that none of the revenue records established that a valid patta was in fact given to the writ petitioner. Therefore, it is urged that the action taken is correct. Learned Government Pleader relies upon the counter affidavit and makes his submission in line thereof.

6. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent also raised very similar grounds and argues the matter. He also relied upon the judgment reported in Munganda Venkataratnam v. Joint Collector and Another , 2006 (1) ALD 547 to submit that if fraud is perpetuated there is no question of limitation for the delay as urged by the writ petitioner is not at all correct.

7. This Court after examining the records notices that assignment of the land to the writ petitioner in 1995 is not really disputed. The payment of market value is also not disputed although it is urged that it is deliberately paid by the writ petitioner to cover up his illegality and to strengthen his case.

8. Apart from this, this Court notices that the writ petitioner has also filed the possession certificate dated 10.01.2012, which is issued by the Tahsildar which states that the petitioner is in possession of the property. The next document relied upon is the cou