THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 4947 of 2003 Oral order: Petitioner No. 1 is the wife and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of one late Sri. D. Sriramulu. Petitioner No.1 claims that her husband late Sri. D. Sriramulu, was assigned land in an extent of Acs. 5.04 cents in Sy. No. 517-I of C.K. Pally Village, by then Tahsildar, Dharmavaram, vide proceedings dated 06.10.1962. While so, petitioner No.1 states that one Sri. Doragari Peddanna, filed a petition stating that he was also assigned the very same land by the then Tahsildar, Dharmavaram, vide proceedings dated 04.11.1976, and as the same was in possession and enjoyment of late Sri. D. Sriramulu, he requested the Tahsildar, Dharamavar, to assign the land in an extent of Acs. 4-84 cents in Sy. No. 606-I of C.K. Pally Village, which is under his enjoyment and possession. On the request made and agreement reached by late Sri. D. Sriramulu and Sri. Doaragari Peddanna, the Joint Collector, Ananthapur, vide orders dated 25.09.1999 cancelled the assignments made in their favour. And as the assignment of land in an extent of Acs. 5.04 cents in Sy. No. 517-I made in favour of late Sri. D. Sriramulu, was much in earlier point of time, the Joint Collector, Ananthapur, confirmed the said assignment, and as Sri. Doragari Pedanna, was no more, ordered the Mandal Revenue Officer, C.K. Pally, to assign the land in an extent of Acs.4.84 cents to his legal heirs as per their eligibility according to Rules. Aggrieved by the said orders, the unofficial respondents, namely the legal heirs of late Sri. Peddanna, preferred appeal. The Commissioner of Appeals, Land Administration, Hydeabad, vide orders dated 30.05.2002 dismissed the said appeal. Questioning the said orders, the unofficial respondents, filed revision before respondent No.3, namely the Government, which by reason of the impugned orders dated 21.12.2002, remanded the matter to respondent No. 2, for conducting enquiry afresh, on the ground that the unofficial respondents raised fresh grounds. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed counter. Though the counter seeks to justify the impugned order stating that respondent No.3 being the final authority is empowered to direct its subordinates to conduct fresh enquiry, if it feels that there are omissions and commissions in their orders, the fact remains, the counter supports the case of the petitioners stating that respondent No.3 did not negative the case of the petitioners. The unofficial respondents, however, did not file any counter. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Assignments for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents. Though the fresh ground raised by the unofficial respondents was that late Sri. D. Sriramulu, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 was never in possession of the land in an extent of Acs. 5.04 cents in Sy. No. 517-I of C.K. Village, the fact remains, the Joint Collector, before canceling the assignments made in favour of late Sri. D. Sriramulu and late Sri. D. Peddanna, and confirming the assignment made in favour of late Sri. D. Sriramulu, which was earlier in point of time, obtained factual report from the Tahsildar, Dharmavaram, who upon physical verification, reported that late Sri. D. Sriramulu, was in possession and enjoyment of the said land. This finding of the Joint Collector, Ananthapur, was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Appeal, Land Administration, Hydeabad. However, in spite of such a finding recorded by the primary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority, the Government in revision, remanded the matter to the primary authority for ascertaining as to who was in actual possession of the land, on the ground that the said ground was not urged by the unofficial respondent earlier. Admittedly, the ground raised by the unofficial respondents was already considered by the Joint Collector, as confirmed by the Commissioner of Appeals, Land Administration, Hyderabad. Though the Government in their counter have taken a stated that they are empowered to remand the matter if they find omissions and commissions in the orders of their subordinates, the fact remains, the Government did not find any omissions or commissions in the orders of the primary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority in appeal. The Government except stating that the unofficial raised new grounds which were not considered by the primary authority and the appellate authority, did not point out as to what are the omissions or commissions in the orders of their subordinates. On the other hand, the counter filed by the Government specifically supports the case of the petitioners when it states that the Government has not negatived the case of the petitioners. The Government, in the impugned orders, did not find any fault with the orders of the primary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority, much less disturbed the finding recorded by the said authorities that late Sri. D. Sriramulu, was in possession of the land in question. That being so, the Government committed a grave error in remanding the matter to the primary authority, to ascertain as to who was in possession of the land. Hence, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3, namely the Government, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 21.12.2002, passed by respondent No.3, namely the Government, is set aside. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J Dated: 11th March, 2010. VV/KSR