THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.8785 of 2002 15.10.2009 Between: Smt.Reddikesari, W/o.Karunakar, … Petitioner and The Chief Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.8785 of 2002 ORDER: Petitioner is resident of Kuravapalli, H/o Pothapolu village of Madanapalle Mandal in Chittoor District. She filed instant writ petition assailing the orders of first respondent – Commissioner of Appeals – in proceedings No.BCW2/232/99, dated 11.2.2002. By the said order, first respondent confirmed orders of second respondent dated 28.11.1998, who in turn had confirmed the orders of third respondent dated 07.5.1998 cancelling the assignment made in favour of petitioner on the ground that the assignment is invalid as per Section 4(1)(b) read with Section 3(1) of Andhra Pradesh Assigned of Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act, for brevity). The brief fact of the matter to the extent necessary is as follows. Some time in 1957, land admeasuring Acs.4.88 in survey No.1366/1 of Pothapolu village was assigned to one Mollakunta Mallaiah. It appears that he alienated the extent of Acs.2.44 to petitioner under an agreement of sale. Petitioner was in possession and had been cultivating the same. Some time in 1995 the fourth respondent, Mandal Revenue Officer (now, Tahsildar), initiated action against Mallaiah and cancelled the patta presumably for violation of provisions of the Act. The Tahsildar also granted assignment in favour of petitioner vide DKT No.1/4/1405, dated 25.7.1995 for Acs.2.44. Thereafter on 07.11.1996 Mallaiah died. After his death, respondents 5 to 8 who are legal heirs of late Mallaiah, filed appeal before third respondent. The said appeal was allowed on 07.5.1998 on the ground that the transaction by which petitioner obtained property is invalid under Section 4(1)(b) and 3(1) of the Act. Petitioner then preferred a revision before the second respondent, who by order dated 28.11.1998, confirmed the order of third respondent. Further revision by petitioner to first respondent as noticed supra, was also dismissed on 11.2.2002 placing reliance on the provisions of the Act. The Tahsildar filed counter affidavit admitting that after cancelling the assignment in favour of Mallaiah vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.1006/95 dated 04.7.1995, petitioner was assigned the said extent vide D-Form patta dated 25.7.1995. The other allegations made by petitioner are denied. Learned Counsel for petitioner made two fold submission: that invocation of provisions of Sections 9 of the Act is misconceived and is misdirected in law and secondly transaction between petitioner and late Mallaiah cannot be considered as misrepresentation of fact and power to cancel vested in Joint Collector but not in the Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel such patta under BSO 15(18). Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) submits that when the assignment is cancelled for violation of provisions of the Act, Tahsildar is bound to restore the land to original assignee or legal heirs of assignee, and therefore, the assignment made in favour of petitioner is not valid. Having regard to the pleadings and rival submissions, two points that arise for consideration are considered infra in seriatum. Whether the proceedings of the Act are attracted? The answer to this question must be in the negative. The admitted facts are that though original assignment was made in favour of Mollakunta Mallaiah, he subsequently alienated a part of the land to petitioner. For this reason, Tahsildar by proceedings dated 04.7.1995 cancelled the assignment and presumably for the reason that petitioner is also a landless poor person, an extent of Acs.2.44 was assigned in her favour. Such assignment is permissible under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act as it stood prior to amendment by Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act No.8 of 2007. Therefore, though the land continued to be assigned land within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act, such assignment cannot attract the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act and no action could have been initiated under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. In that view of the matter, third respondent who considered the appeal, second respondent who considered first revision and first respodnent, who considered second revision, misdirected themselves and addressed wrong question which does not arise and answered related question wrongly. Insofar as second question is concerned, there cannot be any dispute that it is Joint Collector, who is competent to cancel assignment, at any time after it is proved that such assignment was obtained by assignee playing fraud or misrepresentation. If the allegation that the petitioner is also owner of Acs.30.00 of land is proved, power is vested in the Joint Collector under BSO 15(18) and of certainly not Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the patta. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It shall however be open to the Joint Collector to initiate necessary action if so advised. It shall be open to petitioner to raise all grounds before the Joint Collector. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) October 15, 2009 YS