A land assignment made to a party remains valid unless properly revoked, and subsequent assignments without cancellation of the first are invalid.

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 3^rd respondent at the instance of the 4^th respondent in interfering with the petitioner rights over the land in an extent of Ac.1.85 cents in Survey No.1274/13 of Rangasamudram village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

2. The petitioner then being serving soldier was assigned land in an extent of Ac.1.85 cents in Survey No.1274/13 of Rangasamudram village, Porumammilla Mandal, by granting D-Form Patta No.DKT/34/1418, dated 09.01.2009. The petitioner has been cultivating the said land as per the said assignment and was also issued pattadar pass book and title deed.

3. The 3^rd respondent tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner at the instance of the 4^th respondent. On enquiry it revealed that the 4^th respondent also claimed that the subject land was assigned in his favour, which was resisted by the petitioner. When he insisted the respondents 3 and 4 to produce the alleged assignment, proceedings in Form-I were produced, which is filed as Annexure-III. The said Form-I is not properly dated and it only refers to the issuance month and year i.e. December, 2009. Further, the 3^rd respondent has also addressed a letter, dated 14.04.2011 to the 2^nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer by intimating that thought the subject land has been assigned in favour of the petitioner, the same was again re-assigned in favour of the 4^th respondent under ex-serviceman quota and as both the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent are now granted pattas to the same extent of land, he requested to take action in this matter. As the petitioner was threatened with dispossession, the present writ petition came to be filed.

4. While issuing notice before admission, this Court has passed interim order on 25.07.2011, which reads as under:

“In the light of the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, evidencing the assignment of and his possession over the subject land, there shall be a direction to the respondent authorities not to interfere with his possession over the same except in accordance with the due procedure laid down by law.”

5. The respondents 1 to 3 have not filed counter-affidavit, however, the instructions, dated 19.11.2024, addressed by the 3^rd respondent Tahsildar to the learned Government Pleader for Revenue are placed on record.

6. The said instructions state that the petitioner, serving soldier then, was assigned government land in Survey No.1274/13 admeasuring Ac.1.85 cents vide DKT No.34/1418, dated 09.01.2009 and subsequently, passbook and title deed were issued, basing on which, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Likewise, upon the request of the 4^th respondent for assignment of patta for the land admeasuring Ac.1.85 cents in Survey No.1274/13 i.e., the same subject land, under ex-serviceman quota, on the recommendation of the M.R.I. and the V.R.O., patta was granted in his favour vide DKT No.30/1419, dated 29.06.2009. Therefore, the subject land was assigned twice in favour of the petitioner as serving soldier and the 4^th respondent as ex-serviceman. It is further stated that on verification of the records and the connected D.K.T. files, it is found that the second application made by the 4^th respondent was in suppression of the assignment already made in his favour with respect to land admeasuring Ac.3.50 cents in Survey No.1015/B, and further that the M.R.I. and the V.R.O., who processed the request and recorded the statement of 4^th respondent, have also not verified the aspect of granting assignment in favour of the petitioner for the very same land, which resulted in irregular assignment. The instructions further stated that the officers responsible for making such irregular assignment i.e., M.R.I. and V.R.O. have been subjected to disciplinary action and as the second assignment made in favour of the 4^th respondent found to be an irregular one, necessary actio