IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO.49 of 2007 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12.07.2006 in W.P.NO.9042 OF 1994 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Assisgnment I (2) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner of Land Revenue, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada. 4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Tallarevu Mandal, Talarevu, E.G. District. ...APPELLANTS AND 1 Sadanala Sathiraj, ( died per LRs. S/o. Ganga Raju, Patavala village, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Sadanala Chittamma, W/o. Late Sathiraju, Patavala village, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Sadanala Santhi Raja Sree D/o. Late Sathiraju, Patavala village, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. (PP-2 & 3 brought on record as LRs of deceased petitioners as per C.O. dt. 6.12.04, WPMP. 24337 of 2004.) ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondents: MR.BATHULA VENKATESWARA RAO The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO.49 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) The appellants herein are the Government and the authorities concerned, inter alia, seeking to assail the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition ﬁled by respondents 1 to 3 herein in W.P.No.9042 of 1994 dated 12.07.2006. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Bathula Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. Brieﬂy stated, the facts of the case are that the present proceedings arise out of cancellation proceedings initiated by the authorities concerned in respect of a land, which has been assigned to the ﬁrst respondent herein, who died subsequently. At the relevant point of time, the ﬁrst respondent was a Member of Legislative Assembly and therefore, the appellants’ contention is that the ﬁrst respondent is not entitled for assignment. Further, having regard to the fact that his wife possesses property in her name, the assignment is not valid and hence, issued the proceedings of cancellation of assignment. The authorities below have cancelled the assignment on the twin grounds. Assailing the same, respondents 1 to 3 ﬁled the Writ Petition contending primarily, that there being no speciﬁc prohibition or bar for assignment in favour of a Member of the Legislative Assembly, nor the deﬁnition of “Landless Poor” excludes any such member and further, the property owned by the wife is her own exclusive property, it cannot be taken into account for cancellation of assignment. Learned Single Judge opined that there being no such exclusion of a Member of Legislative Assembly from the deﬁnition of “Landless Poor” and the property owned by his wife having her own right, the cancellation is not valid and hence, allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the entire proceedings. Hence, this appeal. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants strenuously contended that having regard to the fact that the ﬁrst respondent being a Member of Legislative Assembly, he could not have been assigned land and the authorities have rightly cancelled the assignment by also taking into account the property possessed by his wife. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents sought to repel the aforesaid contentions having regard to the ﬁndings arrived by the learned Single Judge and as such, no illegality can be made out and the order do not warrant any interference. Considering these and other submissions made across the bar, the only point that arises for consideration is whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the cancellation proceedings of the assignment made in favour of the first respondent is valid. The ﬁrst and foremost ground on which the proceedings are initiated for cancellation of assignment is on the premise that a Member of Legislative Assembly could not have been assigned any land. In support, reliance was sought to be placed on a Government Memo stated to have been issued on 31.05.1975. In this respect, except making a reference to the Government Memo before the learned Single Judge, no attempt was made on behalf of the appellants to produce a copy thereof. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the deﬁnition of “Landless Poor” as contained in the Board Standing Orders and elsewhere, no speciﬁc exclusion of a Member of Legislative Assembly was made. Therefore, what is contained in the relevant regulation cannot be ushered by way of any memo issued by the Government and hence, it is not open for the appellants to contend that a Member of Legislative Assembly is debarred from claim of assignment. Coming to the second aspect as to the property owned by the wife, admittedly, the property does not belong to the ﬁrst respondent or his family. It is not the case of the appellants that the said property was purchased or acquired with any assistance of funds or corpus from out of the Joint Family. Unless and until such plea is raised and any material is produced, necessarily, it only follows that the property is that of her own exclusive right and thus, do not include for the purpose of calculating the properties owned by the ﬁrst respondent. Either way, we do not ﬁnd any merits in the contentions raised by the appellants. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH, J) 24th October 2008 RRB