IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEL No.1385 of 2009 Between: Arjun Rao & another … Appellants And: The Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 2 others. …Respondents. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri J. Suresh Babu for Sri K. Mahipathi Rao Counsel for respondents 1-3:Government Pleader for Assignment This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1385 of 2009 JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Shri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) The unsuccessful writ petitioners in Writ Petition No.524 of 2003 filed this writ appeal against order dated 04.06.2009, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition. The father of appellant No.1 and father-in-law of appellant No.2 by name, late Alleneni Kistaiah was in possession of Ac.44.09 cents as “protected tenant”. In the year 1970, the Tahsildar called upon the said Kistaiah to pay expenses for granting pattas in recognition of his status as protected tenant. As the said expenses were not paid, formal pattas were not granted. However, it was not in dispute that the said Kistaiah was continued to be in possession till the year 1975, when pattas for the entire extent of Ac.44.09 cents were granted in his favour. In the year 1971, the appellants were granted assignments for Ac.5.01 and Ac.4.14 guntas respectively treating them as landless poor persons. The said pattas were cancelled by respondent No.3 in exercise of his power conferred under Section 166-B(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. The order of respondent No.3 was challenged by the appellants before respondent No.2 by way of a revision petition. The said revision was dismissed by respondent No.2 vide his order dated 28.06.1997. The said order was questioned by the appellants before respondent No.1, who dismissed the revision by order dated 23.11.2002. The writ petition filed by the appellants assailing the order of respondent No.1 was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge confirming the abovementioned orders passed by the hierarchical authorities. At the hearing, Sri J. Suresh Babu representing Sri K.Mahipathi Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that as admittedly pattas in respect of Ac.44.09 cents were not granted in favour of the father of appellant No.1 by the time of granting assignments in favour of the appellants, the authorities committed an error in holding that the appellants were not landless poor persons. We have carefully gone through the record. Respondent No.2 has given categorical findings as to the entire background in which the assignments were made and the facts leading to their cancellation. The fact that the father of appellant No.1 and the father-in-law of appellant No.2 was in possession of Ac.44.09 cents as “protected tenant” when the assignments in question were made in favour of the appellants is not in dispute. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the appellants were landless poor persons when their family was holding Ac.44.09 cents cultivable land. Hence, we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the well considered orders passed by the respondents as well as the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP.No.2870 of 2009 filed by the appellants for interim relief is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.12.2009 ES