THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 27005 of 2001 Dated: 9-12-2010 Between: V.Lakshmi Kalyani …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Appeals, Office of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad and others …Respondents. Oral order: The petitioner was assigned on 30-9-1993 land of an extent of Ac. 2-03 guntas in Vennachedu Venkatapuram, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District in Sy.Nos. 419/68, 69 and 70. On 18-10-1995 a show-cause notice was issued by the 2nd respondent directing her to explain why the assignment should not be cancelled on account of her ineligibility for the assignment, alleging that the petitioner is not a landless poor; her family income is more than Rs.500/- per month from all sources; and that she is thus financially sound. In response, the petitioner submitted her explanation clearly and categorically stating that she has no other landed property except the assigned land and no other source of income and no movable or immovable property either. The 2nd respondent by an order dated 30- 1-1996, cancelled the assignment made in favour of the petitioner on 30-9-1993 on the ground that she failed to prove by any documentary evidence that her income is below Rs.500/- and had failed to submit the land holding certificate or income certificate in support of her contention. On the basis of such perverse reasoning, the 2nd respondent concluded that the petitioner is neither a landless poor person nor a person in economic distress and cancelled the assignment and directed the M.R.O. to take over possession of the assigned land along with the Mango garden therein. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent concurred with the perverse reasoning of the 2nd respondent and added another perverse reason thereto, i.e., that the petitioner belongs to the forward caste Vysya and is not a landless poor and also she is financially sound. How two worthies, who are State actors, identified the petitioner’s financial soundness from near vacuum is not comprehensible to this Court. The learned Govt. Pleader for Assignment is similarly perplexed at the oral hearing of the writ petition as to how the respondents were satisfied that the petitioner is financially sound and owns lands. Since the orders of the primary authority the 2nd respondent and of the appellate authority the 1st respondent dated 30-1-1996 and 11- 6-2001 are devoid of fundamental rationality and are clearly perverse, these orders must perish and are accordingly quashed. Since the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent have contravened minimum standards of rationality in the exercise of quasi-judicial authority, this Court considers it appropriate to allow the writ petition with costs of Rs.2,500/- payable by the State to the petitioner. The State is however at liberty to recover the amount of costs from the officers concerned, if satisfied that they have exercised quasi-judicial power without any regard to principles of rationality and employment of logical process of reasoning in the exercise of quasi-judicial power. The writ petition is allowed as above with costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 9th December, 2010. GRR