IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2201 of 1997 Between: Kutumbaka Rajamma ..... PETITIONER AND Special Commissioner Land Revenue A.P., Abids, Hyderabad and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2201 of 1997 O R D E R: Petitioner questions the order of the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Khammam dated 27.04.1993 in Proceedings No.B4/6192/91, as affirmed by the 1st respondent-Special Commissioner and Land Revenue, A.P.Hyderabad in Proceedings No.BCW6/1047/93 dated 02.01.1997. 2. By the aforesaid orders, the land of an extent of Ac.1.20 gts in Sy.No.189 Goparam village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District is directed to take possession by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the grounds that the said land was assigned in favour of the petitioner when she was minor and therefore, she is not entitled for assignment and that the petitioner is not resident of the village as her husband belongs to neighbouring village Venkataipalem. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is resident of Goparam village of Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District and her marriage was performed in 1977 with one Baburao who is native of Venkatayapalem village which is 8 kilometers away from her village, and her husband also did not possess any properties and he is a poor person. After marriage her husband came to her village Goparam and residing in the said village. As she has no properties and landless poor, the then Tahsildar, Khammam vide his orders in Rc.No.03/3888/79 dated 27.09.1979 granted patta for the land of an extent of Ac.1.20 gts in Sy.No.189 on payment of market value of Rs.500/- per acre by the assignee. It is stated that not only the petitioner but also 25 others were also granted pattas for different extents of land in Sy.No.189 i.e. total extent of Ac.17.21 gts. As per the said order of the Tahsildar, Rs.500/- towards market value per acre is required to be paid in 15 annual instalments together with interest and in fact, the petitioner paid the amount of Rs.550/- and 200/- on 26.11.1985 and 02.12.1987 respectively and obtained the receipts thereof. On payment of land value the land was transferred in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner became the owner and possessor of the said land. Setwar was also issued in the name of the petitioner and the name of the petitioner was entered into revenue records. In fact, when the third parties attempted to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, the petitioner filed O.S.656/1988 on the file of the Principal District Munisif, Khammam for grant of perpetual injunction in which temporary injunction was granted initially by order dated 11.08.1988 and subsequently final orders were passed decreeing the suit by judgment and decree dated 30.12.1989. 4. While so, a show cause notice was issued by the Joint Collector, Khammam in Rc.No.B4/6192/91 dated 14.01.1993 stating that the petitioner was minor as on the date of assignment, and therefore, she is not eligible for assignment of the Government land and accordingly, called upon her to submit her explanation as to why the assignment shall not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 16.02.1993 stating that she was not the minor as on the date of assignment and in fact her age was 19 years as on the date of the assignment, and she was 28 years when she filed the suit in O.S.656/1988 and therefore it is incorrect to state that she was minor. Thus, the reply was given to the first notice which was given only on the ground that she was minor. 5. Thereafter, the Joint Collector, Khammam issued the second notice in Rc.No.B4/6192/91 dated 29.03.1993 on another ground that the petitioner was given in marriage to one K.Baburao, resident of Venkataipalem village and therefore, she is not eligible for assignment of the land in Goparam village. Again the petitioner was called upon to submit her explanation. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 12.04.1993 stating that she was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land since 1979, her name was entered in Setwari and her name was also entered in the revenue records and patta was given in her favour after enquiry by the then Tahsildar and that she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. 6. It is stated that in fact, the order of the Tahsildar dated 27.09.1979 indicates that the Special Revenue Inspector (Assignment), Khammam submitted a detailed report stating that all the beneficiaries mentioned therein are eligible for grant of pattas as they were in possession and recommended for grant of pattas. Therefore, the said notices are uncalled for and the said assignment cannot be cancelled. 7. The said explanation was not found favour by the Joint Collector and the 2nd respondent by the aforesaid order dated 24.07.1993 cancelled the assignment on the ground that as on the date of assignment the petitioner was a minor and therefore, she is not entitled and her husband is native of Venkatayapalem as on the date of assignment and hence the assignee would be considered as resident of Venkatayapalem at the time of assignment and hence the petitioner is not entitled. On appeal the 1st respondent-Commissioner, Land Revenue, Hyderabad denied the contention of the petitioner that the assignment of the project affected lands obtained by payment of market value cannot be cancelled, even if the assignment was obtained under misrepresentation of facts or under fraud. It is stated that the minor is not entitled for assignment. It is stated that the enquiry report need not be furnished to the petitioner along with show cause notice and the enquiry is only administrative enquiry which showed that the assignment was obtained by misrepresentation of facts and the show cause notice itself is sufficient and accordingly, upheld the orders of the Joint Collector. 8. The fact that the said land was assigned in favour of the petitioner on payment of market value is not in dispute. Nowhere it is stated that the said land was assigned under free of cost and under Laoni Rules 1950. The Laoni Rules 1950 were framed in exercise of powers under Sec.172 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F by the Government. The Government also issued rules in G.O.Ms.No.1070 Revenue dated 20.06.1961 in exercise of same powers under Sec.172 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, the special rules are called as the Andhra Pradesh Project Affected Land Assignment Rules, 1961. In support of her case, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Kishan Singh v. Special Commissioner, Land Revenue, Hyd.[1]. 9. I have considered the aforesaid both the rules and observed that the assignment of lands to the landless poor persons or others are governed by Laoni Rules 1950 dated 16.11.1950. Laoni means cultivation of land lying fallow. These rules are of two kinds i.e. Laoni Rules and Special Laoni Rules. Laoni Rules are made for persons who are capable of purchasing land in public auctions for the purpose of cultivation and the Special Laoni Rules are applicable to landless persons, who belong to agricultural and backward classes who do not have sufficient means to purchase land either at the ordinary Laoni auctions or otherwise. Later the revised assignment policy in G.O.Ms.No.1724 (Revenue) dated 26.08.1959 was issued as per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1406 (Revenue) dated 25.07.1958. The said Laoni Rules have no application for assignment of the project affected lands. Thus, the Andhra Pradesh Project Affected Land Assignment Rules, 1961 specially framed in G.O.Ms.No.1070 dated 20.06.1961 for the assignment of the project affected lands on payment of market value. 10. As admittedly in the instant case the assignment was made on payment of the market value by the Mandal Revenue Officer in respect of the project affected land and therefore, her allotment is covered by the terms of G.O.Ms.No.1070 i.e. Andhra Pradesh Project Affected Land Assignment Rules, because she was assigned the land on the ground that she is a project affected person and she was directed to pay the fixed market value along with several other persons who were found in possession of the same. 11. In the above referred judgment, it was held that admittedly the provisions of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act have no application to the assignment of the project affected land on payment of market value, and the rules under the A.P.Project Affected Land Assignment Rules, 1961 do not contemplate cancellation of assignment on the said grounds. Though according to the petitioner the said judgment squarely applies to the case of the petitioner, but I am of the opinion that in so far as the grounds on which the assignment of the petitioner was cancelled are not established. In so far as the age of the petitioner at the time of assignment is concerned, no material or proof of age of the petitioner was placed on record by the revenue authorities. No effort was made by the revenue authorities to find out the petitioner actual date of birth and her age. 12. In the absence of any record and in the absence of furnishing the material said to have been relied on by the authorities and in view of the specific contention of the petitioner that she was not minor and she was major as on the date of assignment, it cannot be said that she was minor as on the date of assignment. In fact, when she filed the aforesaid suit her age was 28 years, and if that is taken into consideration, she was aged about 19 years as on the date of assignment, and therefore, she was not minor. In so far as other ground on which the assignment was cancelled that her husband belongs to neighbouring village Venkatayapalem, there is no evidence to show that as on the date of assignment, the petitioner was resident of Venkatayapalem, but not Gopavaram village. Her specific case is that after marriage, her husband who is also landless poor and who does not have any land settled in Gopavaram village. I am of the opinion that the grounds on which the assignment was cancelled were not established by any cogent or admitted evidence. 13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I set aside the impugned orders of Respondents Nos.1 and 2 dated 02.01.1997 and 24.07.1993. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 06.08.2010 Dsr [1] 2007(4) ALD 686