IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 839 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 3490 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: C.Surendranatha Reddy S/o Adinarayana Reddy, R/o Krishnareddygaripalli, Mudupulavemula, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Commissioner, Land Administration, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapally, Chittoor District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Piler, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.V.MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.839 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) The appellant is the unsuccessful petitioner who filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent inter alia seeking to assail the order dated 01.03.2002 passed in Writ Petition No.3490 of 2001 filed by him whereunder he sought to assail the proceedings for cancellation of the assignment which had been made in his favour. Few facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that an extent of Ac.4.92 of cents land situated at Mudupulavemula Village was assigned to the appellant on 31.03.1988. Subsequently proceedings were initiated for cancellation thereof on the ground that he possesses land more than the permissible limits as contemplated under the definition of ‘landless poor person’. Therefore, after giving him an opportunity of hearing, orders were passed on 06.10.1994 cancelling the assignment. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred but the same was also dismissed on 06.12.2000 by the first respondent. Hence, the writ petition. The learned single Judge, while taking into consideration the submissions made on both sides and considering the fact that the appellant was subsequently employed as a Teacher, did not find in his favour and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the writ appeal. Having considered the submissions made by both sides and having perused the material on record, what transpires is that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the father of the appellant owns and possesses an extent of Ac.5.89 cents of land. However, the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition shows the extent of land being held and enjoyed by the family of the appellant, which is extracted hereunder: “--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Pattadar Enjoyer S.No. Extent Ac. Cts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.Surendranatha Reddy C.Surendra- 1222/1 4.92 (A.M.No.71-4-1397) natha Reddy 2. C.Rami Reddy C.Ramireddy 1223/5 4.17 (A.M.No.725-4-97) 3. K.S.Abdul Kareem C.Adinarayana 1223/1 1.61 (A.M.No.219-4-80) Reddy 4. B.Subba Reddy C.Adinarayana 1223/2 1.65 (A.M.No.1285-4-80) Reddy 5. C.Adinarayana Reddy C.Adinarayana 428 5.89 Reddy ---------- 18.24 ---------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------” The aforestated details are indicative that the appellant is not a landless poor person. On behalf of the appellant, it is sought to be explained on the ground that some are assigned lands and others are only shown as being in their possession and therefore, they cannot be taken into consideration and if it is worked out on that basis, he falls within the permissible limits. However, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that having regard to the fact that the appellant owns and possesses some other land and that extent of land has to be included while working out the extent of assignment to which he is entitled to, whereas an extent of Ac.4.92 cents of land was assigned to which he is not entitled as his total landholding would then excess Ac.5.00 cents. Having considered these submissions, it is quite evident that most of the pleas which have now been taken by the appellant as well as the respondents have not formed part of the proceedings before either of the authorities. We are of the considered view that these aspects should be considered in the proper perspective. Therefore, reconsideration should be done by the authorities of these aspects on merits in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order dated 01.03.2002 passed in Writ Petition No.3490 of 2001 and the order dated 06.12.2000 passed by the first respondent are hereby set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the primary authority, namely, the fourth respondent Mandal Revenue Officer, for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving notice to the parties and after affording them an opportunity of hearing. It is made clear that the parties are at liberty to raise all objections, including filing of any material, in which event the same shall be considered at the time of final disposal. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that the appellant shall continue to remain in possession of the subject land till the disposal of the proceedings before the fourth respondent, as directed hereinabove. No costs. _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 18th August, 2009. VGSR / PGS