IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13696 of 2005 Between: Smt.Palle Chinnamma and another. … Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy. Counsel for respondents: GP for Revenue (Assignments) for R.1 to R.3. Sri P.Veera Reddy for R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. An extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Survey No.423 of Ernapadu Village, Kurnool District, was assigned to one Sri Palle Nagi Reddy on 30.04.1970. Another extent of Ac.2.43 cents in the same Survey Number was assigned to respondent No.4 on 12.12.1990. Respondent No.3 by proceedings dated 22-4-2002 cancelled the assignments made in favour of the husband of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.4 on the ground that the assigned lands were not cultivated for three consecutive years. An additional ground for cancellingthe assignment in favour of respondent No.4 was that the assignment was not made by the full- fledged incumbent of the post of the Mandal Revenue Officer and that the Village Officer misled the officers to grant the assignment. However, on the same day, the Mandal Revenue Officer assigned an extent of Ac.3.74 cents in favour of petitioner No.2 and Ac.2.10 cents in favour of petitioner No.1. Respondent No.4 filed an appeal before respondent No.2, questioning the said order. On the ground that he did not pass orders with expedition, respondent No.4 moved a revision petition before respondent No.1, who after giving notices to petitioner No.2 and respondent No.4 passed order dated 31-5-2005. In his order, he set aside order dated 22-4-2002 passed against the husband of petitioner No.2 and directed restoration of an extent of Ac.3.99 cents in Survey No.423/2, out of Ac.5.00 cents assigned to the husband of petitioner No.2, in favour of petitioner No.2, after excluding an extent of Ac.1.01 cents out of the said extent for excavation of Telugu Ganga Project Canal. Respondent No.1 also restored an extent of Ac.1.95 cents in Survey No.423/1in favour of respondent No.4. He also cancelled the assignment made in favour of petitioners 1 and 2 by respondent No.3 in his order dated 22-4-2002. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction because when the appeal filed by respondent No.4 was pending before respondent No.2, it was not permissible for him to exercise suo moto revisional powers. He also submitted that even assuming that respondent No.1 has jurisdiction to entertain revision and pass an order, the order passed by him cancelling the assignment of Ac.2.10 cents made in favour of petitioner No.1 is in violation of principles of natural justice as no notice has been given to her. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) and Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel respondent No.4, submitted that under Order 15(18) of the A.P. Bard Standing Orders (for short “the BSO”) respondent No.1 is entitled to exercise suo motu revisional powers to consider the legality, regularity or propriety of any order and, hence, respondent No.1 had jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition. Sri P.Veera Reddy further submitted that the writ petitioners are not concerned with the order passed by respondent No.1 to the extent of Ac.1.95 cents of land in Survey No.423/1 in respect of which respondent No.4 was granted a patta, which was cancelled by the Mandal Revenue Officer and, hence, the Writ Petition relating to the said extent of land deserves to be dismissed. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel. The question whether respondent No.1 should have entertained the revision, when an appeal filed by respondent No.4 was already pending, or not need not be considered by this Court on the facts of the case, because respondent No.1 entertained the revision petition to the extent of the claim of respondent No.4 pertaining to the assignment granted in his favour by the Mandal Revenue Officer, which was subsequently cancelled, because, the petitioners are not the parties aggrieved by that part of the order which pertains to the land of respondent No.4. However, while purporting to exercise the suo motu revisional powers, respondent No.1 has not only passed orders in relation to the said land in which respondent No.4 had interest, but also he delved into and disturbed the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners expressed the grievance that in the revision filed by respondent No.4, respondent No.1 ought not to have set aside the assignments made in favour of the petitioners. Undisputedly under Order 15 (18) of the BSO, respondent No.1 has jurisdiction to exercise suo motu revisional power to examine the legality or otherwise of the order passed by respondent No.3. As the appeal filed by respondent No.4 before the Revenue Divisional Officer was confined to the assignment in favour of respondent No.4, the order of respondent No.3, by which he cancelled the assignments and made fresh assignments in favour of the petitioners, not being the subject matter of any appeal, was certainly amenable for suo motu revisional jurisdiction of respondent No.1. I would, however, like to examine whether the order of respondent No.1 to the extent he interfered with the assignments made in favour of the petitioners was just, proper and equitable. While cancelling the earlier assignments held by the husband of petitioner No.2, the Mandal Revenue Officer on 22-4-2002 granted assignment of Ac.3.74 cents and Ac.2.10 cents in favour of petitioners 2 and 1 respectively. While dealing with the assignment held by petitioner No.2, respondent No.1 allowed petitioner No.2 to enjoy an extent of Ac.3.99 cents i.e., more than the extent for which the assignment was granted in her favour, on the ground that cancellation of assignment held by the husband of petitioner No.2 was illegal. Thus, far from suffering any disadvantage, petitioner No.2 stood to gain by the impugned order passed by respondent No.1. Hence, this order need not be interfered to the extent of the land concerning petitioner No.2. As regards petitioner No.1, the assignment made in her favour in respect of Ac.2.10 cents was cancelled. In their affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioners specifically pleaded that no notice was given to her. This allegation is not controverted by the respondents. Hence, the order to the extent it cancelled the assignment granted in favour of petitioner No.1 is in violation of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. The impugned order is set- aside only to the extent of cancellation of assignment in favour of petitioner No.1. In all other respects, the said order is confirmed. Liberty is, however, given to respondent No.1 to initiate appropriate proceedings in respect of Ac.2.10 cents pertaining to petitioner No.1 after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to her, if he so chooses. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20-06-2008 MNR