HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITON NO. 4235 OF 2005 Thursday, the Tenth day of March, Two Thousand and Eleven Between V.Rama Mohan Reddy Petitioner AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Kadapa District and another Respondents ORDER: After the death of the sole writ petitioner, his legal heirs were brought on record. The case of the petitioner is that he being the landless person, applied for assignment of Government land in the year 1957 and the erstwhile Tahsildar, Badvel, after conducting an enquiry and finding that he is a small farmer, on 12.2.1958, assigned an extent of Ac.3.64 cents in DKT/81/66 in Sy.No. 10 of Nagisettipalli village, as he belongs to Kothapalli village, Hamlet of Chennampalli village, Badvel Madnal, which is adjacent to his village. After assignment, the petitioner reclaimed the land and developed the same and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer, issued notice Ref.No. B/1244/2004 dated 11.11.2004 to the petitioner along with ten others alleging that the assignments were obtained by misrepresenting the facts, as such, the Revenue Divisional Officer, has decided to take up an enquiry and accordingly, the petitioner was directed to appear on 29.11.2004 along with revenue records. It is stated that the petitioner made a representation enclosing copy of the ‘D’ form patta, 10(1) adangal and cist receipts on 29.11.2004. It is stated that thereafter the first respondent issued another notice dated 27.12.2004 for conducting enquiry requiring him to appear in the office of the first respondent on 5.1.2005 with records. It is stated that the petitioner appeared and submitted copy of the explanation dated 29.11.2004. While so, the first respondent passed the impugned order Ref. No.B/1244/2004 dated 17.1.2005 to the effect that open enquiry was conducted on the filed inspection of every field and the claim of the petitioner that he was given DKT patta in 81/66 dated 12.2.1958 in respect of Ac.3.64 cents in Sy. No.10 of Nagisettipalli village, was rejected on the ground that the said patta was already cancelled by the Mandal Revenue Officer vide reference No. 440/95 dated 18.11.1995 and no appeal is pending. Accordingly, the order was made for assignment of Ac.1.82 cents in Sy.No. 10/1 in favour of V.Rama Mohan Reddy Payalanandlapalli. The petitioner questions the said order in so far as it relates to the cancellation of assignment in favour of the petitioner in respect of the above land. It is stated that the respondents have not initiated any action for the alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the DKT patta and, therefore, the assignment itself was irregular. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cancellation of patta on the ground of irregularity, fraud or misrepresentation is bad inasmuch as it is for the District Collector to take action but the Revenue Divisional Officer being the appellate authority against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, cannot cancel the patta on the ground that the said patta was granted irregularly. Placing reliance on a judgment of this court in G.Munilakshmamma Vs. The District Collector, Chittoor District and others ([1]), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Board Standing Order 15 (18), if the Collector is satisfied that there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or that the decision was grossly inequitable or that it exceeded the powers of the Officer who passed it or that it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation he may set aside, cancel or in any way modify the decision passed by an Officer subordinate to him. For setting aside, canceling or in any way modifying the decision, power is also conferred on the Board of Revenue and no time limit is prescribed for the said purpose. In the instant case, as no counter is forthcoming and the patta granted in favour of the petitioner is sought to be cancelled on suppression of material facts and misrepresentation thereof, I am of the opinion that the District Collector is empowered to cancel the patta under paragraph (18) of Board Standing Order 15 and the Revenue Divisional Officer is not entitle to cancel the patta, he being the appellate authority. For the aforesaid reasons impugned proceedings insofar as it relates to the petitioner’s land alone is concerned, is quashed, as being without jurisdiction. However, this order will not preclude the District Collector from taking appropriate action under Paragraph 18 of the Board Standing Order 15 and pass appropriate orders after giving notice to the petitioner in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah March 10, 2011 MAS [1] 1991 (I) ALT 617