THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.31346 OF 2011 ORDER: Questioning the order of the third respondent dated 16.04.2011 the present Writ Petition is ﬁled by eight petitioners who were admittedly assigned lands in Kondayapalem Village. The grounds for cancellation of the assignment are said to be that the assignment was obtained by misrepresentation; the petitioners were in fact residents of Gandipalem Village situated 15 KM from Kondayapalem Village; and, since it is only the local villagers that too those who belong to the weaker sections who are entitled for assignment, the earlier assignment obtained on misrepresentation was required to be cancelled. There is also a dispute as to whether or not the Tahsildar could have taken recourse to aﬃxing the notice on the pole in the subject lands when on his own showing the petitioners are residents of Gandipalem Village, and not Kondayapalem Village, which fact is admitted by the petitioners. Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, apart from principles of natural justice, Clause 15(18) of the Andhra Pradesh Board Standing Orders (BSO) confers power only on the Joint Collector to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the assignment where mistake of fact, fraud or misrepresentation is alleged. Learned Counsel would state that, since the very foundation of the impugned order is that the petitioners had obtained the assignment by misrepresentation, the competent authority was not the Tahsildar but the District Collector/Joint Collector. Order 15(18) of the BSO reads as follows: “Or.15(18): Revision:- (1) T he order of the authority making the assignment, if no appeal is presented, or of the appellate authority, if an appeal is presented is final and no second appeal shall be admitted. But if at any time within three years of the original or appellate decision, the Collector is satisﬁed that there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or that the decision was grossly inequitable or that it exceeded the powers of the oﬃcer who passed it or that it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation, he may in the case of an order passed by an oﬃcer subordinate to him, set aside, cancel or in any way modify the decision. T he Board of Revenue may set aside, cancel or in any way modify the decision of an oﬃcer subordinate to it within three years if it is satisﬁed that the decision was grossly inequitable; it may also exercise similar powers without any limit of time where there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or where the decision exceeded the powers of the oﬃcer who passed it or where it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation. All revision petitions in darkhast cases should be stamped with a Court fee label to the value of two rupees”. When the matter was listed on 28.11.2011, Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) sought time to obtain instructions. Today the Learned Government Pleader would fairly state that, in terms of BSO 15(18), it is the Collector/Joint Collector who is alone competent to cancel the assignment where misrepresentation is alleged, and the Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to do so. Since it is not in dispute that the third respondent lacks jurisdiction, the impugned order is quashed. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the Joint Collector/District Collector from taking necessary action for cancellation of the assignment, in case he is satisﬁed that the said assignment was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J December 02, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o MD/MRKR