IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15573 of 2001 Between: 1 B.Jamku W/o Bhemia Kothathanda, Maddiavancha Village, Garla Mandal, Khammam Dist. 2 T.Kanti W/o Pantulu Kothathanda, Maddiavancha Village, Garla Mandal, Khammam Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Govt of A.P., Rep by its Prl. Secretary to Govt., Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, Khammam. 3 Revenue Divisionla Officer, Kothagudem, Kahmmam Dist. 4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Garla, Kahmmam Dist. .....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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of mandamus declaring the G.O.M.s No.590(Revenue Land Reforms) Dept., dt 10-11-95 as illegal, & without jurisdiction & contrary to the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act 1317F & to direct the respondents to assign the land in Sy.No.31extent of Ac.2-20 gts situated in Rampuram Village, Garla Mandal, Khammam Dist Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.R.KAMESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15573 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioners are tribals hailing from a Scheduled area. Since they were not in possession of any land, they started cultivating an extent of Acs.2.20 gts. in Sy.No.31 of Rampuram village. Thereafter, on 18.07.2000, they submitted applications to the District Collector, requesting that the suit land be assigned to them. On being informed that the applications were required to be submitted to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, they submitted a joint application on 29.07.2000. The 4th respondent addressed a letter dated 12.03.2001 to the 3rd respondent, which reﬂects an earlier letter dated 31.01.2001. The Mandal Revenue Inspector submitted a letter on 08.03.2001 wherein it is admitted that the petitioners are poor tribals and are eligible for assignment of land, that approval of the Assignment Committee is necessary and that proposals would be placed in the Ensuing Committee Meeting. 2. This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the validity of G.O.Ms.No.590 dated 10.11.1995 whereby the Assignment Review Committee was constituted. Since the said G.O. was modiﬁed by G.O.Ms.No.146 dated 05.02.1996, an amendment petition was ﬁled in W.P.M.P.No.20141 of 2001 challenging its validity and the said W.P.M.P. was ordered on 07.08.2001. G.O.Ms.No.146, dated 05.02.1996, details the constitution of the Assignment Review Committee, whose duties and functions are those speciﬁed in G.O.Ms.No.590, dated 10.11.1995. Under G.O.Ms.No.590, dated 10.11.1995, the functions of the Committee include recommending assignment of surplus lands under Act 1 of 1973 and Government waste lands and house sites, to review the progress made in the assignment of surplus lands, to review individual cases of assignment with a view to see whether the assignment is made to landless poor, agricultural labour, etc. 3. The contention before this Court, in the present case, is that the said G.O. runs contrary to the rules framed under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act (for short ‘the Act’) whereunder the authority competent to assign lands is the Tahsildar, against whose order an appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer. 4. Sri R.Kameswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that the Government Orders referred to herein above, in effect, supplant the rules made under the Act, since, in the place of the Tahsildar, a Committee is now constituted to assign lands. 5. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that under the Act, the competent authority to assign lands is the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, that the appellate authority is the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer and the Revisional Authority is the District Collector. It is further stated that the Assignment Review Committee has been constituted only to review the assignments made by the competent authorities and verify whether assignments are made in favour of eligible persons, that the Assignment Review Committee has no power to assign the lands and that, on the recommendations of the Committee, it is the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer who will assign the lands to eligible persons. It is also stated that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer has identiﬁed eligible beneﬁciaries belonging to the Schedule Tribe Community, that assignment of Government land would be made to all eligible persons and the case of the petitioners would also be considered along with them. 6. It is evident that the Committee constituted under G.O.Ms.No.146 dated 05.02.1996 does not assign lands and that the competent authority to assign lands still remains the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer. The Committee has, obviously, been constituted only to ensure that ineligible persons are not assigned lands. It is well settled that while executive instructions cannot supplant statutory rules, they can undoubtedly supplement them. The G.O. referred to herein above does not supplant the rules made under the Act wherein the competent authority for assignment of lands is prescribed to be the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer. The G.O. only supplements the rules in the sense that the Committee veriﬁes assignment of lands and ensures that only eligible persons are assigned lands in their favour. 7. The challenge to the validity of G.O.Ms.No.146, dated 05.02.1996, must therefore fail. 8. It is admitted that the petitioners are also eligible for assignment of lands and that their cases have also been taken up for consideration. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that, in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, their cases could not be considered earlier. The interim orders passed by this Court is not to disturb the petitioners from the lands in question. Nothing prevented the respondents from considering the case of the petitioners. Ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for assignment of lands within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since there has been an interim order not to disturb the possession of the petitioners, which is in force ever since 07.08.2001 for the past seven years, it is but appropriate that the interim order is continued till a ﬁnal decision is taken by the respondents with regards assignment of lands to the petitioners. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 06.11.2008 v v