IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.524 of 2003 Between: 1. Arjuna Rao S/o Kistaiah, R/o. Narasimhapuram Village, Kollapur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 2. Shyamalamma W/o Balakishan Rao R/o. Narasimhapuram Village, Kollapur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Special Commissioner, Land Revenue, Govt. of A.P. Old Revenue Board Building, Nampalli Station Road, Hyderabad. 3. The District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar District at Mahabubnagar District Proper. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue notice, call for all the records and declare the orders passed by the 3rd respondent herein in file No.B1/8/94 (Old Nos.B1/11432/93 & B.1/11434/93) dated 20.04.1995, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in Proc.No.BCW4/1067/95 dt.28.06.1997 and as confirmed by the 1st respondent in Memorandum No.51450/Assn.4(2)/97 dt.23-11-2002 as illegal and void by issuing a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or Order or Direction and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.MAHIPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.524 OF 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 20.04.1995 passed by the 3rd respondent- District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar District, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent- Special Commissioner, Land Revenue, A.P., vide proceedings dated 28.06.1997, and by the 1st respondent- Government in memo dated 23.11.2002, and to quash the same. According to the petitioners, in the year 1971, they were not holding any land in their name and, therefore, they have applied to the then Tahsildar of Kollapur Taluk, Mahabubnagar District, for assignment of Government land in their favour, on the ground that they were landless poor persons. After due enquiry by the then Patwari and the Deputy Tahsildar, having found that the petitioners were landless poor persons, the 1st petitioner was assigned the land in an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.146 (subsequently re-numbered as Sy.No.146/2) of Narasimhapuram Village of then Kollapur Taluk (now Kollapur Mandal), Mahabubnagar District, and the 2nd petitioner, who is the divorced wife of the brother of the 1st petitioner, was assigned the land in an extent of Acres 4-10 gts. in the same Sy.No.146 of the same village (subsequently re-numbered as Sy.No.146/1), vide two different proceedings dated 28.03.1971 of the then Tahsildar of Kollapur. While so, it appears, during the year 1993, basing on the report of the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kollapur, stating that the 1st petitioner and the husband of the 2nd petitioner were having 1/3rd share each in the lands in Sy.Nos.8, 13, 18/A, 59/A, 67/A, 78, 80, 82, 127, 138, 130, 141, 112/A, totally admeasuring Ac.44-09 cents, situated in the limits of Narsimhapur Village and therefore they cannot be treated as landless poor persons and that the assignment made in their favour requires to be cancelled, the 3rd respondent- District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar District, issued show-cause notices dated 27.12.1993 to the petitioners requiring them to show cause as to why the assignment made in their favour should not be cancelled, in view of their owning landed property to an extent of 1/3rd share in the total area of Ac.44-09 gts. referred to above. The petitioners contend that, on receipt of the said show-cause notices, they engaged an advocate to represent their case and sought time for filing their explanation, but however, the 3rd respondent passed an ex- parte order dated 20.04.1995, cancelling the assignments made in their favour in the year 1971 and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kollapur, to resume the subject lands to Government and make necessary changes in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the 2nd respondent- Special Commissioner, Land Revenue, A.P., who dismissed the same vide proceedings dated 28.06.1997. Thereupon, the petitioners have carried the matter in a revision before the Government, which was also dismissed on 23.11.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that as on the date of assignment i.e. in the year 1971, the petitioners were landless poor persons and no land was held by them even as per the revenue records and, after due enquiry by the then Deputy Tahsildar, the petitioners were assigned the subject lands, and cancelling such assignments, after a long lapse of more than 22 years, is arbitrary and illegal. He further contended that when the land said to be owned by the father of the 1st petitioner was not recorded in the name of the petitioners in the revenue records, it cannot be said that the petitioners owned lands and that they were not landless poor persons. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance on various judgments, but they have no relevance to the facts of the present case. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has taken the Court through the respective orders passed by the respondents and supported the said orders. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned orders and other material made available on record. It is an admitted fact that the father of the 1st petitioner was owning land in an extent of Ac.44.09 cents, out of which the petitioners were said to be having 1/3rd share each, and, though patta was granted in his favour in the year 1975, he was enjoying the said land as a protected tenant right from the year 1950. Thus, by the time of assignment of Government land in favour of the petitioners i.e. by the year 1971, he was in possession of land of more than 44 acres. In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the authorities, the petitioners, who are the son and daughter-in-law respectively of such a landlord, cannot be considered as landless poor persons for assignment of Government land in their favour, and it must be deemed that the petitioners have obtained pattas by misrepresenting facts. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the authorities have not committed any error in cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioners in the year 1971. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 4th June, 2009. IBL