HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1951 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 26.04.2004 passed by the 1st respondent-Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Board of Revenue, whereunder the proceedings dated 09.03.1998 of the 2nd respondent, rejecting the claim of the petitioners herein, was confirmed. It appears, different extents of lands in respective Sy.Nos.753, 754, 755, 748, 749, 750, 746, 745/2, 742/2, 744/2 and 743/2 of Kondur village of Atloor Mandal were assigned to the petitioners, by the then Tahsildar of erstwhile Sidhout, in two spells i.e., during 1977 and 1980. While so, on a representation dated 21.06.1982 made by certain Harijans of Kondur Harijanawada, protesting the assignments made in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the lands in question were under their occupation prior to the disputed assignment, the matter was got enquired by the then Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.), Rajampet, and Tahsildar, Sidhout. Basing on the report of the R.D.O and the Tahsildar, the then Joint Collector cancelled all the assignments, by his proceedings dated 03.10.1988. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed W.P.No.18183 of 1998, which was disposed of by this Court on 09.11.1994, quashing the proceedings dated 03.10.1988 and remanding the matter for fresh enquiry after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In pursuance thereof, the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, after issuing notices to the petitioners and hearing the parties, rejected the claims of the petitioners, for assignment, vide his proceedings dated 09.03.1998. Against these proceedings dated 09.03.1998, the petitioners preferred revision before the 1st respondent-Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, who, after considering the matter in detail, dismissed the revision by orders dated 26.04.2004. The grievance of the petitioners is that as they are all landless poor, they were granted DKT pattas in respect of the lands in question and that they are all residents of Sidhout village, but the 2nd respondent, without considering the grounds urged by them and without taking into account the report of the 3rd respondent dated 10.03.1996, in which the ground reality of their financial position and their eligibility for the land was stated, rejected their claims for assignment, by order dated 09.03.1998, which was confirmed even by the 1st respondent, through his orders dated 26.04.2004. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. As can be seen from the records, the 1st and 2nd respondents recorded the findings that the petitioners were not residents of the village where the lands are located, that they were not cultivating the lands from the date of assignment, that petitioners 1 to 6 were employees earning income more than the ceiling limit prescribed under the assignment Rules, which make them ineligible for assignment of Government land, and as the petitioners obtained pattas under misrepresentation of facts and have not adduced any material to strengthen their claim over the lands assigned to them, the claim of the petitioners, for assignment, was rejected. So far as petitioners 1 to 6 is concerned, the fact that some of them were employees of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and some of them were employees of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at the time of assignment itself is not in dispute. Since the petitioners 1 to 6 obtained pattas in their favour by suppressing the fact as to their employment, which is not disputed, the findings recorded by the 1st and 2nd respondents with regard to petitioners 1 to 6 cannot be found fault with. With regard to the petitioners 7 to 11 is concerned, though it is the case of the respondents that these petitioners are not residents of the village where the lands in dispute are located and not cultivating the subject lands, no rebuttable evidence was placed before them against these petitioners, therefore, in the absence of any rebuttable evidence against the petitioners 7 to 11, the rejection of the claims of petitioners 7 to 11 cannot be sustained, and I am of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration insofar as petitioners 7 to 11 alone are concerned. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the order dated 09.03.1998 passed by the 2nd respondent, as confirmed by the order dated 26.04.2004 of the 1st respondent, insofar as petitioners 7 to 11 alone are concerned, and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration, after affording an opportunity to the petitioners 7 to 11 to adduce evidence etc. No order as to costs. _______________ C.V.RAMULU,J 20.01.2011 v v /ksp