THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.7308 and 19435 of 2003 Dated:13.12.2010 Between: Md.Sarwar, and Beezanbee. ...Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Revenue (ASSN.V) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.7308 and 19435 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: As these two writ petitions arise out of the order of the first respondent vide Memo No.52391/Assn.V(2)/96-7, dated 20.03.2003, both the matters are being disposed of by this common order. Md.Sarwar, S/o.Jafar Saab, a resident of Pudur Village and Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, was assigned land admeasuring Acs.3.00 in survey No.378 and Ac.0.28 guntas in survey No.125/1 of Pudur Village. The assignment was made by the third respondent vide D.Dis.No.B/24/89 in 1989 in accordance with the Laoni Rules promulgated vide G.O.Ms.No.1405, dated 26.07.1950, and the instructions issued vide G.O.Ms.No.1724, dated 26.03.1959. Similarly, Beezanbee, W/o.Abdul Ghani, of the same Village was assigned land admeasuring Acs.5.00 in survey No.125/1 in 1989. They allegedly took possession of the land, and were in occupation of the same. In 1994, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad, sent proposals to the District Revenue Officer (DRO), Ranga Reddy District, for cancellation of the assignment. It was alleged that the assignees are not landless poor persons, and that the allotment of land by the third respondent was irregular. The DRO initiated action under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (Revenue Act). By order dated 27.06.1994 the assignment made in favour of the two assignees was cancelled. Both the petitioners filed revision petition before the Government. The Hon’ble Minister for Revenue passed orders on 06.07.1996 confirming the order of the DRO. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.16229 of 1996. This Court allowed the same on 23.08.1996 and remitted the matter to the Government for fresh consideration after giving reasonable opportunity. In obedience thereto, the petitioners were heard and by impugned order the cancellation of assignment by the DRO was confirmed. The third respondent filed counter affidavits in both the writ petitions separately. It is stated that Md.Sarwar’s father, Jafar Saab, is a landlord owning Acs.13.22 guntas, and therefore, he is not a landless poor person. It is also stated that Beezanbee’s husband is the Pattadar for Acs.15.11 guntas of land, and therefore, the irregular assignment was cancelled by the DRO. The counsel for the petitioners relies on V.Santha Kumari v District Revenue Officer[1] and submits that the cancellation of assignment after lapse of five years is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that Md.Sarwar cannot be considered as landlord merely because his father has the property. He further contends that the allegation that the husband of Beezanbee is a rich landlord is not correct. The Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) relies on Pidathala Shyam Rao v State[2] and submits that Section 166-B of the Revenue Act does not bar exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the DRO, especially, when the assignment was obtained by misrepresentation. She would also urge that the petitioners are not landless poor persons, and therefore, the assignment made in their favour is vitiated by misrepresentation. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the exercise of power by the DRO under Section 166-B of the Revenue Act is vitiated by irregularity or arbitrariness? The power is conferred on the Government or any Revenue Officer not below the rank of the Collector to call for record of a case or proceedings from a subordinate department and inspect it in order to satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and may make suitable order in that behalf. The exercise of power is only subject to condition that the revising authority has to summon and hear those persons who are likely to be affected by the orders to be modified or annulled by such exercise of the power. Therefore, it is not possible to read any restrictions in the exercise of power by the DRO. It is well settled that when the provision is silent as to the period within which the power has to be exercised, it has to be exercised within a reasonable time and what is the reasonable time would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case (see State of Gujarat v Patel Raghav Natha[3]). In a case where proposals are sent by the subordinate revenue officials that assignment is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, even the ratio in Patel Raghav Natha has no application. Fraud and misrepresentation vitiate everything and the Court is bound to divest any benefit obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. I n Pidathala Shyam Rao it was held that the exercise of power does not become unreasonable by mere lapse of time however long it is. Where no innocent third party interests have crept in and where the nature of fraud or misrepresentation is so glaring and patent crying out for judicial correction and where the assignee himself was a privy to the fraud played on the State, it becomes the duty of the authority to take action immediately the fraud is detected and discovered. The petitioners deny the allegation that they come from families which own considerable extent of land. This is a question of fact which cannot be decided. The revenue authorities, after verification of records, found that the petitioners are not landless poor persons and the finding must rest there. When the assignment is made to a person who is not a landless poor person, it is certainly irregular and a reasonable inference can always be drawn that assignee played a crucial role in obtaining the assignment concealing the factum of being a landlord or owner of the land. Therefore, the first respondent cannot be said to have committed any grave error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference. The Writ Petitions fail, and are accordingly dismissed with costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 13.12.2010 vs [1] 2003 (2) ALT 361 = 2003 (2) ALD 330 [2] 1984 (2) ALT 386 [3] AIR 1969 SC 1297