THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6652 of 2002 ORDER: The order of the Special Commissioner, Land Revenue, Hyderabad dated 07.02.1997, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Joint Collector dated 14.02.1990, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was assigned Ac.2.94 cents of land in Sy.No.221/1 of Vanavolu Village, Gorantla Mandal, Anantapur District by proceedings dated 23.05.1988; this piece of land was surrendered as surplus land by one Smt Annapurnamma, which was actually part of a kunta/tank which existed in Sy.No.221/2; and the entire land in Sy.No.221/2 of Ac.3.75 cents is said to have been classified, in the revenue records, as kunta poramboke. On the ground that an assignment was granted in favour of the petitioner without field inspection, a show cause notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer (third respondent) to the petitioner and, by order dated 13.01.1989, the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the assignment. In the said order, the third respondent recorded that he had inspected the land; the bund covered an extent of Ac.2.00 which worked as a protective bund to the kunta/tank located in Sy.No.221/2; the bund with a height of 8 to 10 feet covered the tank of a extent of around Ac.2.00; and an extent of Ac.0.90 cents on either ends of the bund was still under cultivation by the allottee. While cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner, of an extent of Ac.2.94 cents, the third respondent directed the Mandal Revenue Officer (fourth respondent) to sub-divide the portion cultivable at both ends of the bund, and allot the land to the petitioner after further enquiry, if she was otherwise eligible. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Joint Collector. In his order dated 14.02.1990, the Joint Collector noted the findings of the third respondent that Sy.No.221/2 was a kunta poramboke; the land in Sy.No.221/1, which was allotted to the petitioner, was actually a bund to the kunta with a height of 8 to 10 feet; there was an extent of Ac.0.30 cents of land in the south west corner, and Ac.0.60 cents in north west corner fit for cultivation; the remaining portion was the bund, at a height of 8 to 10 feet, for the kunta in Sy.No.221/2; there was no hut or any structure in the land in Sy.No.221/1; there was a house in Sy.No.221/3 in which the petitioner’s father owned an extent of Ac.10.00 of land. The Joint Collector saw no reason to interfere with the order passed by the third respondent, and directed that the land be recorded in the prohibitive book so that it can be used for the community as a whole for common purposes. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the matter in revision to the Special Commissioner, Land Revenue, Hyderabad. The Special Commissioner passed an elaborate order on 07.02.1997 holding that assignment of land to the petitioner was without proper verification of the ground situation; though the petitioner claimed that she was cultivating the land, she had not filed any adangal copy to prove that the land was being cultivated by her after assignment; the claim of the petitioner that her husband had deserted her, and she was a landless poor, was without basis; the land was earlier enjoyed by her father; and he was instrumental in getting the land assigned in her favour. The Special Commissioner, Land Revenue, Hyderabad was of the view that assignment of land to the petitioner was under misrepresentation of facts; the land was not agricultural land before it was assigned to her; and, hence, the Joint Collector had rightly cancelled the patta. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would draw attention of this Court to the observations of the Revenue Divisional Officer to contend that an extent of Ac.0.90 cents of land was under cultivation; this extent of Ac.0.90 cents of land was beyond the tank bund limits; the revenue authorities were not justified in recording a finding that the petitioner was not a landless poor in an appeal/revision preferred by her; in view of the interim order of status quo passed by this Court, the petitioner continued to remain in possession of the land; and the impugned order be set aside, and her assignment be affirmed. Learned Counsel would refer to the findings recorded by the third respondent that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.221/2 formed part of the kunta/tank; the land in Sy.No.221/1 was being used as a bund for the kunta/tank in Sy.No.221/2; and assignment granted in favour of the petitioner earlier was for an extent of Ac.2.94 cents in Sy.No.221/1. Learned Counsel does not dispute the factum of an extent of Ac.2.00 forming part of the bund. The claim is restricted only to the extent of Ac.0.90 cents which, according to the Learned Counsel, is located beyond the limits of the tank and the bund. On the other hand, Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) would, vehemently, contend that the petitioner is not a landless poor; she is not entitled for assignment; her father, who was a pattadar of an extent of Ac.10.00, had surreptitiously encroached upon this extent of Ac.0.90 cents and was illegally cultivating the same; it was he who was instrumental in getting the land assigned in favour of the petitioner; the said assignment was granted without even ascertaining whether the petitioner was indeed a landless poor; and, therefore, the respondents were justified in cancelling the assignment granted in favour of the petitioner. Though the order of cancellation of assignment of an extent of Ac.2.90 is under challenge, the claim in respect of Ac.2.04 cents is given up; and the claim is restricted before this Court only to Ac.0.90 cents. The observations in the order of the third respondent, no doubt, show that this extent of Ac.0.90 cents was being cultivated. It is, however, not clear whether this extent of Ac.0.90 cents falls within the full tank level of the kunta/tank and the bund adjoining it, or whether it is located beyond the said limits. This is a fact which the respondents would, necessarily, have to ascertain as no part of the kunta/tank can be assigned even if the petitioner is a landless poor. As there is also a dispute whether the petitioner is eligible for being granted assignment as her very status as a landless poor person is put in issue, this is also a matter which would necessitate examination. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner was not put on notice in this regard nor was she given an opportunity to establish that she was a landless poor person in as much as cancellation of the assignment was, primarily, on the ground that the land formed part of the tank/kunta and the bund adjoining it. Since the petitioner claims to be in possession of an extent of Ac.0.90 cents, and to be cultivating it in the light of the interim order, I consider it appropriate, while setting aside the order of the third respondent to the limited extent of this Ac.0.90 cents only, to direct him to put the petitioner on notice, give her an opportunity of being heard on her claim to be a landless poor person and, if he is satisfied that the petitioner is, indeed, a landless poor person and, if this extent of Ac.0.90 cents is located outside the limits of the kunta/tank and the bund adjoining it, consider grant of assignment of this extent of Ac.0.90 cents in her favour. The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order of status quo passed by this Court on 15.04.2002 continues to remain in force till date. The said order of status quo shall continue till final orders are passed afresh by the third respondent. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:03.02.2011 usd