IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 22561 of 1999 Between: P. Rama Prasad, S/o Bhaskara Rao, R/o uppaluru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer/ subCollector , Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. 2 Jampuna Venkata Ratnam, s/o Raghavaiah, Vyavasaya Karmika Sangam, Uppaluru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna Dist, (RR 2& 3 are impleaded as per court order Dt: 28-2-01 in WPMP.No.1330/01) 3 Aanne Vishweswara Rao, S/o Bala Ramaiah, Vyavasaya Karmika Sangam, Uppaluru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna Dist, (RR 2& 3 are impleaded as per court order Dt: 28-2-01 in WPMP.No.1330/01) .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of writ of Mandamus restraining the respondent from interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of land of an extent of Ac. 0-78 cents in RS.No.2/1 and Ac.0-18 cents in R.S.No.2/4 of Uppaluru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna Dist after declaring the impinged order of respondent in his proceedings R.c. A2/3257/97 Dt:5-10-99 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction malaﬁde, opposed to principles of natural justice and null and void. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOVVA.CHANDRASHEKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.22561 OF 1999 ORDER: The order under challenge in this writ petition is the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 05.10.1999 whereby the land assigned to the petitioner in two pieces i.e. in R.S.No.2/1 measuring 78 cents, and R.S.No.2/4 measuring 18 cents, in Uppaluru village in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the B-form pattas issued by the then Tehasildar in respect of the above land were also cancelled. While the case has a chequered history, it is unnecessary for us to examine in detail the factual backdrop as it would suﬃce for the purpose of this writ petition if the show-cause notice dated 14.08.1999, based on which the impugned order was passed, is referred to. Under the show-cause notice dated 14.08.1999 the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the lands assigned to him in the aforesaid two bits should not be cancelled on the ground that (1) the assessee was a benami and the real beneﬁciary was a diﬀerent person; (2) that the land was required for a communal purpose. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply thereto on 03.09.1999 stating that he had brought the lands into cultivation step-by-step, levelling the ground and then cultivating the land by spending a huge amount, that the lands were handed over to him in the year 1982 and he had spent huge amounts and had undergone huge stress and strain for reclaiming the land and bringing the land under cultivation, that he was the real beneﬁciary of the land and that the land was being cultivated by his father-in-law on his behalf. The petitioner also stated that the entire action taken against him was at the behest of disgruntled elements who had raised objections for the assignment. Curiously, the 1 st respondent after extracting, in brief, the contents of the reply submitted by the petitioner, rejected the contentions raised therein holding, “The reply oﬀered to the Show Cause Notice is not convincing as it is fairly evident that the assignee has settled in New Delhi and the real beneﬁciary is somebody else. The land is also required for Government Purpose”. Sri M.Chandrasekhara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would place reliance on the Board’s Standing Order No.15 (12) (3) (d) wherein, among the conditions to which an assignee is subjected to, is that cultivation should be by the assignee or members of his family or with hired labour under the supervision of himself or a member of his family. Learned Counsel would submit that, since the expression “family” has not been deﬁned under the Board Standing Orders, it would bring within its fold the petitioner’s father-in- law also and it cannot be said that, on the land being cultivated on the petitioner’s behalf by his father-in-law, the conditions of assignment were violated or that the petitioner was a benami of his brother-in-law. Learned Counsel would contend that there is no requirement in law that the assignee should be present in the village throughout the year nor is it among the grounds mentioned for cancellation of assignment. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, would contend that, it is only after the 1st respondent had caused enquiry in the village, did he arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner had settled in New Delhi, that the real beneﬁciary was somebody else and that such a ﬁnding, based on the fact ﬁnding enquiry of the 1st respondent, did not necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sri N. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, would place emphasis on the fact that the land was required for a communal purpose. Learned Counsel would submit that once the land is required for a communal purpose, which is meant for the beneﬁt of the villagers in general, the 1st respondent was justiﬁed in cancelling the assignment even it be on a different ground. The fact of the petitioner being assigned the land in the year 1982 is not in dispute nor is it in dispute that the land has been cultivated. The entire controversy revolves around whether it is the petitioner’s brother-in-law who is the beneﬁciary or is it the petitioner. On what basis the 1st respondent has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had settled in New Delhi and that the real beneﬁciary was somebody else, is not known. Let alone furnishing copies of the statements, recorded during his enquiry, to the petitioner, the 1 st respondent does not even refer to any such evidence gathered by him in the impugned order. Except to state that it is evident that the petitioner had settled in New Delhi, and that the real beneﬁciary was somebody else, there is no evidence on record to justify such a conclusion. The 1st respondent has not even considered the scope of Board Standing Order 15 (12) (3) (d) in this regard. The 1st respondent further concludes that the land is required for Government purpose. Whether that would mean that it is required for a communal purpose, and whether being required for a communal purpose would justify cancellation of the assignment, are again matters which have not been dealt with by the 1st respondent in the impugned order. The order, to say the least, is bald and bereft of even the basic particulars required to deprive a person of his vested right of assignment. No reasons are given in the order as to how the assignment necessitates cancellation nor does it referred to any speciﬁc condition of assignment which the petitioner has violated. It is well settled that any order which eﬀects the vested rights of an individual must be a speaking order reﬂecting application of mind to the facts in issue and to the violation alleged. Passing of a reasoned order is among the basic requirements of the rules of natural justice. Since the impugned order is bereft of reasons, it is quashed. Needless to state that quashing of this order does not preclude the respondent from passing an order afresh after assigning reasons in this regard. The Writ Petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 21-08-2008 GS