*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY +WRIT PETITION No. 26306 of 2005 % Dated: 05-09-2008 # Chepuri Venkateswarlu. Petitioner VERSUS $ The Joint Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District, & others. Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. M. Ravindranath Reddy ^Counsel for Respondents 1to3: AGP for Revenue. <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26306 of 2005 Between: Chepuri Venkateswwarlu … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy Counsel for respondents 1to3: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26306 of 2005 ORDER:- Order dated 15.11.2005 of respondent No.1, being one among many, passed over years concerning a small extent of Ac.1.70 cents, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The journey of litigation through two successive generations is replete with multitudinous events, which are confined in a brief chronology hereunder: The petitioner’s father Sri Ch. Peda Mallaiah (for short, ‘Mallaiah’) applied to the then Tahsildar for assignment of the abovementioned extent of land in Sy.No.238/1B of J.P.Cheruvu, Racherla Mandal, Prakasam District, obviously not knowing that the said land is not worth the time, money and eﬀorts that are required to be spent in future. As his ill-luck would have it, one Smt. Pagadala Venkatarangamma also made a competing claim over the same land. As the Tahsildar preferred Smt. Venkatarangamma to Mallaiah for granting assignment vide his proceedings dated 19.11.1971, Mallaiah ﬁled appeal before respondent No.1. After calling for a report and considering the same, respondent No.2 allowed the appeal by order dated 29.05.1974, wherein he held that Smt. Pagadala Venkatarangamma was not eligible for assignment and remanded the case to the Tahsildar for considering the claim of Mallaiah. Two successive revision petitions ﬁled before the District Revenue Oﬃcer and the Board of Revenue and revision petition ﬁled before the Government of Andhra Pradesh were dismissed by orders dated 22.09.1973, 03.09.1976 ad 18.09.1976 respectively. While rejection of the revision of Smt. Pagadala Venkatarangamma marked her exit from the scene, she evidently introduced another character to the litigation in Sri Bommu Venkatiah an Ex-serviceman, who claimed that he belongs to Scheduled Caste category and also landless poor. The said application was rejected by the Tahsildar on 12.05.1981. The said rejection order was challenged by him in appeal before respondent No.2, which ended in its dismissal on 20.08.1981. A revision petition ﬁled by him before respondent No.1 also met with the same fate on 19.07.1982. While the revision petition ﬁled by Sri Bommu Venkataiah was pending before the Commissioner, Land Revenue, Mallaiah was granted patta by the Tahsildar on 01.08.1982. The said grant was questioned by Sri Bommu Venkataiah in appeal ﬁled before respondent No.2, who by his order dated 29.08.1982 suspended order dated 01.08.1982 of the Tahsildar granting assignment to Mallaiah. In the revision petition ﬁled by Mallaiah against the said order, respondent No.1 stayed the said order of respondent No.2 by his order dated 11.10.1982. Sri Bommu Venkataiah ﬁled revision against the said order of respondent No.1. The Commissioner, Land Revenue heard both the revision petitions ﬁled by Sri Bommu Venkataiah i.e., the revision petition concerning rejection of assignment in his favour and another revision ﬁled questioning the interlocutory order of respondent No.1 dated 11.10.1982 and remanded the cases to respondent No.1 for fresh disposal. The revision petition ﬁled by Mallaiah against the said order yielded the same result as the Government also remitted the matter to respondent No.1. After remand, respondent No.1 by order dated 20.01.1986 disposed of both the revision petitions by holding that neither of the two persons was entitled for assignment. The said order was assailed by Mallaiah before the Commissioner, Land Revenue, who declined to grant stay. Mallaiah filed WP.No.1102 of 1986 in which order of respondent No.1 was stayed. With the failure of Sri Bommu Vekataiah to question the order of respondent No.1, whereby the latter rejected the former’s claim for assignment, Sri Bommu Venkataiah also disappeared from the scene, while Sri Mallaiah left this world by leaving the legacy of litigation to the petitioner and other legal heirs. Thus, the petitioner and other legal heirs of his father joined as parties in the revision petition before the Commissioner, Land Revenue. By order dated 05.05.1987, the Commissioner, Land Revenue, dismissed the revision petition by conﬁrming order dated 20.01.1986 of respondent No.1. The petitioner and other legal heirs questioned the said orders in WP.No.10892 of 1987 ﬁled in this Court. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court by a detailed order, wherein it was inter alia held that respondent No.1 committed a serious error in setting aside the assignment granted in favour of Sri Mallaiah. The learned Judge held that the validity of the assignment granted in favour of Mallaiah was not questioned in either of the two revision petitions decided by him, in that, the revision petition ﬁled by Sri Bommu Venkataiah was against the order rejecting his application for assignment in his favour, the other revision petition was ﬁled by Mallaiah against the order of respondent No.2 staying the order of assignment granted in his favour and that therefore there was no occasion for respondent No.1 to test the validity or otherwise of the assignment granted in favour of Mallaiah. On the above premises, this Court quashed the order of respondent No.1 as conﬁrmed by the Commissioner insofar as they set aside the assignment made in favour of Mallaiah, while leaving it open to the competent revenue authority to take up the issue of cancellation of the assignment independently, if so advised and take necessary action in due compliance with the principles of natural justice, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners therein to state their case. The said judgment of this Court having become ﬁnal, the assignment granted in favour of Mallaiah also become ﬁnal and changes were eﬀected in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in the name of the petitioner as the other legal heirs agreed for the petitioner possessing and enjoying the said land exclusively. About nine years after the disposal of WP.No.10892 of 1987, respondent No.4 entered the scene with a petition ﬁled before the Commissioner, Land Revenue questioning the assignment granted in favour of Mallaiah. The said petition was disposed of by the Commissioner by his order dated 06.05.2003 directing respondent No.1 to take action, if necessary, as per Rules, with reference to order dated 03.11.1992 passed in WP.No.10892 of 1987. The last nail in the coﬃn was hit with respondent No.1 passing order dated 15.11.2005 by cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner and holding that Mallaiah was not eligible for grant of assignment. This writ petition is filed against the said order. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.1 shows that respondent No.4 raised various grounds about the ineligibility of Mallaiah for granting of assignment. Respondent No.1 called for a report from the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer and based his order solely on his report dated 13.09.2004. From the discussion undertaken by respondent No.1 in his order, it is revealed that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer mentioned in his report that Mallaiah purchased Ac.1.20 cents on 17.01.1969 and his three sons were assigned the extents of Ac.1.01 cents, Ac.2.45 cents and Ac.2.46 cents respectively and that the said lands were sold by them subsequent to the assignment of land in Sy.No.238/1B. On the basis of the said report, respondent No.1 held that Sri Mallaiah was not eligible for grant of assignment as he sold away his own lands to third parties and obtained assignment by misrepresenting to the authorities. It is the speciﬁc case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 passed his order exclusively on the alleged report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, which was not supplied to him. The respondents have not produced before this Court the said report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer. On a close reading of the order of respondent No.1, it is evident that the purport of the report, as referred to by respondent No.1, was hard to decipher and at any rate the contents of the paragraph in which the said report has been discussed do not warrant the conclusion that Mallaiah sold away the extent of Ac.1.70 cents belonging to him in order to get the assignment. In this context, it is relevant to reproduce the said paragraph, which contains the discussion on the Mandal Revenue Officer’s report. “Further the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Giddalur to whom the matter was again referred vide this oﬃce Rc.E2.7440-2001, dated 13.09.2004 has reported that the following lands were held by Ch.P. Mallaiah and his family members vide his letter dated 17.10.2004. Name of land holder S.No. Extent Details of land acquired Chepuri Peda Mallaiah S/o. Rangaiah (Owner) 318/1 Dry Ac.1.20 Purchased through Doc.No.45, dt. 17.1.69 Chepuri Subbamma Wife -- -- -- Chepuri Venkata Rangaiah 1st son & Chepuri Veeramma (wife) 238/1A and 238/1C Ac.0.59 and 0.41 cents Assignment of land assigned vide R D S . 1 0 / DAR/80 dt.16.8.70 Chepuri Venkateswarlu (2nd son) 251/2 Ac.2.45 cents Assignment vide RDS.9/ DAR/80 dt. 16.08.70 Chepuri Venkata Ramana (3rd son) 251/3 Ac.2.46 cents Assignment vide RDS.7/ DARs/80 dt. 16.08.70. Chepuri Peda Venkata Ratnam (4th son) -- -- -- Chepuri China Venkata Ratnam (5th son) -- -- -- It was further reported that the above lands were sold by them subsequent to assignment of land in Sy.No.238/1B for the purpose of which the lands were sold by them to get Government land. At the time of grant of land, the family members have no lands. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Racherla has not followed the rules with regard to grant of land to the poorest of the poor persons as per law and rules in force.” The above-reproduced para is self-contradictory. In the ﬁrst sentence of the para below the table, it is stated that both the private and assigned lands mentioned in the table were sold by the family subsequent to the assignment of land of Ac.1.70 cents, which is the subject matter of the dispute, but in the very next sentence it is stated that at the time of grant of the assignment, the family members had no lands. This report, however, is understood by respondent No.1, as noted above, that having sold his own lands to third parties, Mallaiah obtained the assignment by misrepresenting to the authorities. It is thus clear that respondent No.1 cancelled the assignment on the basis of his purported understanding of a self-conﬂicting report of the Mandal Revenue Officer. Let me now test the tenability of reasoning of respondent No.1. The graveman of accusation against Mallaiah was that though he had his own land, he sold away and misrepresented to the authorities that he was eligible for grant of assignment. Before giving this ﬁnding, he failed to notice the contents of order dated 22.09.1973 passed by respondent No.2. In the said order, respondent No.2 reproduced the grounds of appeal taken by Mallaiah. In ground No.2, Mallaiah mentioned that he is a landless poor person owning Ac.1.20 cents of patta land. Thus, Mallaiah had himself come out with the claim that he was owning Ac.1.20 cents, but still he was a landless poor person. Thus, far from selling the land and misrepresenting that he had no land and therefore he was a landless poor person, Mallaiah fairly disclosed that he was owning Ac.1.20 cents of land. At this stage, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Board of Standing Orders. BSO 15 para 3 prescribed that only landless and poor persons, who directly engaged themselves in cultivation, shall be eligible for assignment according to the procedure prescribed in paragraph 11. Para 2(ii) of BSO 15 deﬁned landless poor person as one, who owns not more than Ac.2.50 cents of wet or Ac.5.00 of dry land and is also poor. Under Note No.1, the question whether a person is poor or not is left to the discretion of the assigning authorities and under Note No.2 the share of each member of a joint family as also the enjoyment of the income of the joint family will be taken into consideration for deciding whether or not he is a landless poor person. Minor sons, however, were not eligible for grant of lands as they cannot be expected to engage themselves in direct cultivation. Accepting the contents of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer’s report dated 13.09.2004 as they are, it is clear that Sri Mallaiah had ﬁve sons. His three sons, who are evidently majors, were assigned Ac.1.01 cents, Ac.2.45 cents and Ac.2.46 cents each respectively and two of his sons were not assigned any land. In view of Note No.2, the shares of each of the three sons have to be computed separately. After excluding the said shares, Mallaiah will be left with Ac.1.20 cents of dry land for himself, his wife and his two other sons. With the said land remaining, Mallaiah would still be a landless poor person and he will be eligible for assignment up to Ac.3.80 cents of dry land or Ac.1.90 cents of wetland. Therefore, there was no necessity for Mallaiah to sell away his land in order to misrepresent to the assigning authority that he was a landless poor person. As already noted above, Mallaiah had himself claimed in ground No.2 of his appeal before respondent No.2 that he was a landless poor person, who was owning only an extent of Ac.1.20 cents of patta land. Therefore, the entire assumption based on which respondent No.1 held that Mallaiah was not eligible for granting assignment, therefore he sold the extent of Ac.1.20 cents and misrepresented that he was a landless poor person is absolutely without any basis. Indeed, it is the speciﬁc case of the petitioner that his father never sold the said extent of the land and still the said land is available and he is in possession. He ﬁled an aﬃdavit on 23.06.2008, wherein he categorically denied the allegation that his father sold the said land. He enclosed along with his aﬃdavit the encumbrance certiﬁcates bearing Nos.263 and 273 of 2008 obtained from the oﬃce of the Sub- Registrar, Giddalur, Prakasam District showing ‘nil’ encumbrance in respect of the said property of Ac.1.20 cents. No counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled controverting the said material. Neither in the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, the contents of which have been referred to by respondent No.1 in his order, nor respondent No.1 in his order mentioned the date on which Mallaiah sold the property, and the persons to whom the property was sold. Respondent No.1 blindly followed the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, which ex facie is not only self-conflicting, but also failed to consider the ground realities. I have serious reservations against the manner in which the respondents have chased and persecuted the petitioner and his father for decades and at every stage they were subjected to litigation at the instance of one or the other person. BSO 15 para 18 is abused to the hilt. Though this Court observed as far back as 03.11.1992 that it was open to the revisional authorities to invoke their revisional powers, neither respondent No.1 nor the Commissioner, Land Revenue exercised such powers for more than nine years. It is indeed most unfortunate that the Commissioner should entertain an application ﬁled by respondent No.4 for the ﬁrst time after the successive litigations initiated by Smt. Pagadala Venkatarangamma and Sri Bommu Venkaiah reached ﬁnality. The Commissioner miserably failed to notice that respondent No.4 neither applied for assignment when Mallaiah applied nor questioned the assignment granted in favour of Mallaiah by ﬁling a regular appeal before respondent No.2 for more than 21 years after Mallaiah was granted assignment in the year 1982. Surely the purpose behind initiation of suo motu revisional powers under the provisions of BSO is not meant to harass hapless citizens who were assigned some marginal extents by dragging them into litigation and continuing it for years, while leaving the real culprits who go on land grabbing spree and facilitating to legalize their encroachments by coming out with regularization schemes. It is high time that the State and its executive apparatus spare the petty assignees from frivolous and needless litigation for successive generations and concentrate on recovering the lands from the big sharks whose sole motto is to grab the lands and make unjust enrichment there from. For all the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.11.2005 passed by respondent No.1 is quashed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.33808 of 2005 and 16929 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.09.2008 ES LR copies to be marked.