The petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman and claims to have been assigned the land in question under a DKT patta dated 29.06.1976 in an extent of Acs. 5.02 cents in Sy. No. 236/A2 of Rameswaram village, Proddatur MandaI, Kadapa District, has filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 29.12.2007, passed by the Joint Collector, Kadapa District, confirming the order dated 25.08.2005, passed by respondent No.2, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, which confirmed the order dated 24.04.2005, passed by respondent No.3, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, Proddatur, cancelling the said DKT patta on the ground that he never cultivated the land, and ordering initiation of proceedings for regularization of the land in question, in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner submitted detailed explanation to the show cause notice issued by respondent No.3, supported by documentary evidence to show that he has brought the land assigned to him under cultivation within three years and was in possession of the same, respondent No.3 without considering the same, has committed an error in cancelling the D-Form patta granted to the petitioner, after lapse of nearly 30 years. He further submitted that even respondent Nos. 2 and I, who are the appellate and revisional authorities, have committed a grave error in confirming the order of respondent No.3 in appeal and revision. He submitted that the cancellation of the patta granted to the petitioner is at the instance of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are inimical to the petitioner, is evident from the fact that .he petitioner filed suit against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for declaration of title over the property as they tried to encroach the property, and the notice for cancellation of the D-Form patta, has been issued by respondent No.3, based on the application made by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who claimed that they are in possession of the land in question and prayed for grant of patta in respect thereof. He submitted that respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are the sons of his brother are inimical to him, and at their instance cancelling the patta, and taking steps to assign the said land to them at market value, is illegal and arbitrary.

In support of his argument that cancellation of patta after long lapse of time by issuing show cause notice is bad, relied on the judgments of this Court in Sekhari Antna Kumari v. Dist. Collector, Visakhapatnam (1) 2002 (3) AL T 571 and Madamaneni Chimzaswamy (died) per LRs. v. Joint Collector, Chittoor (2) 2009 (1) ALT 424. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 confirming the order of respondent No.2, who confirmed the order of respondent No.3, cancelling the D-Form patta granted to the petitioner, be quashed and set aside, and the writ petition be allowed.

3. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 reiterating the counter averments submitted that the petitioner was never in possession and enjoyment of the land in question, much less cultivated the same, and it is evident from the fact that in the enquiry conducted by respondent No.3 as also in his deposition in 0.5. No. 474 of 2002, the petitioner admitted that he was out of town from 1960 to 1999. They submitted that since the petitioner did not produce any material to show that he developed the land and brought the land under cultivation, respondent No.3 issued notice, and after conducting enquiry and considering the material placed, passed orders for cancellation of the DKT patta, which was confirmed in appeal and revision by respondent Nos. 2 and 1, and no interference is called for therewith. He further submitted that the impugned orders having canceled the patta, directed assignment of the land in question to landless poor person as per BSO 15. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4