THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24645 of 2004 March 24, 2011 Between: G.Thippeswamy, S/o.Golla Chikkanna ... Petitioner And The Commissioner (Appeals), The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24645 of 2004 ORDER: The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the first respondent dated 27.4.2004 whereby and whereunder the order of the second respondent dated 20.2.2001 cancelling the assignment which had been made in favour of the petitioner was confirmed. The petitioner was assigned the land admeasuring Acs.2.06 in S.No.1096/3 and Acs.3.73 in S.No.1096/4 situated at Mulakaledu Revenue village of Settur Mandal in Anantapur District. At the time of assignment, the petitioner claimed that he is a landless poor person. The assignment was made by proceedings dated 15.8.1996. The third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram (RDO) sent a report to the second respondent on 29.7.2000. In sum and substance, the RDO reported that the petitioner is a pattadar of land admeasing Acs.19.56 (out of Acs.39.12) in S.No.643 and, therefore, he is ineligible for assignment of land. The RDO recommended for cancellation. In response thereto, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 16.8.2000 for cancellation of the assignment. The petitioner submitted explanation through a Counsel denying the allegation that he is a rich landlord. He alleged that the land in S.No.643 belongs to his grandfather, Golla Somappa, and that he does not own any land. He also alleged that he spent considerable amounts for making the land cultivable. The Joint Collector heard the Counsel for the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the assignment made in favour of the petitioner is not irregular as he is not a landless poor person. Against the order of the Joint Collector dated 20.2.2001 the petitioner unsuccessfully filed an appeal before the first respondent. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Paragraph 18 of the BSO 15, the suo motu power to cancel the assignment on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation vests in the District Collector and, therefore, the Joint Collector is not competent to pass the order of cancellation. Nextly he contends that the holding of the petitioner’s grandfather cannot be taken into consideration while examining the question whether the petitioner is a landless poor person or not. The Para 18 of BSO 15 confers power to revise an order of assessment if an appeal or a second appeal is not filed. As per Para 18, if the Collector is satisfied that there has been material irregularity in the procedure or that the decision was grossly inequitable or that the assigning authority or an appellate authority exceeded the powers or passed an order under mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation, he may set aside, cancel or in any way modify the assignment order. The Board of Revenue is also empowered to 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. No doubt the power is conferred under BSO 15 Para 18 on the District Collector to set aside, cancel or modify an order of assignment, if it is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or grossly inequitable and for such other grounds as are mentioned in the said Paragraph. In this case, on the report submitted by the third respondent, the second respondent, namely, the Joint Collector cancelled the assignment made in favour of the petitioner. It cannot be faulted nor invalidated on the ground that Joint Collector is incompetent. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner in this regard is belied by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh District Collector’s Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961 and the Notification issued by the Government under Section 3(1) thereof being G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 22.1.1968. So as to provide for delegation of powers by the District Collectors to Joint Collectors and certain other officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the State Legislature enacted Delegation Act. Sections 3 to 5 read as under. 3. Delegation of powers of District Collector:- The State Government may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette authorise any Joint Collector or any other officer of the State Government not below the rank of Deputy Collector to exercise all or any of the powers vested by or under any law in the District Collector and may in like manner, without such authorisation; Provided that no authorisation under this section shall prevent the District Collector from exercising in such cases as he deems fit, all or any of the powers exercisable by the Joint Collector or other officer by virtue of the authorisation aforesaid: Provided further that where in respect of any case, the District Collector exercises his powers, the Joint Collector or other officer authorised under this section shall not exercise his powers in respect of the same case. 4. Appeal and revision against orders of the Joint Collector:- Any order of the Joint Collector or other officers acting in exercise of the powers authorised under Section 3 shall be subject to such appeal or revision under the relevant provision of the law as if it were an order of the District Collector. 5. Notification to be placed before the Legislature:- Every notification issued under Section 3 shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is issued, before each house of the State Legislature while it is in session for a total period of fourteen days which may be comprised in one session or in two successive sessions and if before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the session immediately following, both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification or both Houses agree that the notification should not be issued, the notification shall thereafter have effect, only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, so however that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that notification. Initially, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders vide G.O.Ms. No.77, dated 22.1.1968 and notified the same in Part I of A.P.Gazette, dated 10.2.1968 delegating various powers of the District Collector under different Enactments, Rules, Regulations and Standing Orders. Appendix-I thereto enumerates the subjects reserved for District Collectors, Joint Collectors and Personal Assistant to Collector. Appendix-II contains Notification-II (G.O.Ms. No.77, dated 22.1.1968), whereunder the Government delegated powers of the District Collector to the Joint Collector and these powers relate to the matters enumerated in List II and List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Joint Collector is empowered and has jurisdiction to deal with all the revenue matters as are referred to in Appendix-II of the Notification-II vide G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 22.1.1968. The petitioner’s grandfather, it is not denied; owns Acs.19.56 in S.No.643. The petitioner contended before the Joint Collector that his father, Golla Chikkanna, would get only Acs.2.00 towards his share. This leads to an inference that the property is joint Hindu family property and all the members have a share in the property. A person coming from such a joint family owning about Acs.20.00 of land cannot be treated as a landless poor person. As per BSO 15 Para 3, a person should be “landless poor person” to be eligible for assignment of Government land. Merely because a person holds a small extent of land, it does not make him “landless poor person”, when his family itself own considerable extent of agricultural lands. It would be grossly inequitable to assign land to a person belonging to a wealthy joint family ignoring the claims of large number of “landless poor persons”. The submission of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be countenanced. The Joint Collector and the Commissioner have appreciated the background facts, determined correct principles and applied the same. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed, without any order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) March 24, 2011 YS