THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.28295 of 2011 ORDER: The order of the second respondent dated 04.06.2011, cancelling the assignment granted in favour of the petitioner on 14.11.2002 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.45 cents in Sy.No.286/3 of Lingamgunta Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as also pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in her favour and in seeking to dispossess her from the aforementioned land, is questioned in this Writ Petition as being illegal and arbitrary. By way of an amendment, the subsequent order dated 28.10.2011 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore (second respondent) is also under challenge. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, who claims to be a landless poor and to be eligible for grant of assignment under the Board Standing Orders, was assigned Ac.3.45 cents in Sy.No.286/3 of Lingamgunta Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District by proceedings of the third respondent dated 14.11.2002; and, subsequently, pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in her favour. While matters stood thus the fourth respondent, being the grand daughter of the original assignee (whose assignment the petitioner claims to have been cancelled as early as in the year 1980), submitted a representation to the first respondent (who has been arrayed as the fifth respondent eo nominee) seeking assignment in her favour. Alleging that the petitioner had obtained pattadar pass books fraudulently the first respondent directed the second respondent to conduct an enquiry, and pass appropriate orders, which resulted in the impugned order dated 04.06.2011 being passed by the second respondent. While, in the first page of the impugned order dated 04.06.2011, the second respondent records that the patta granted in favour of Smt Mangala Polamma was cancelled in the year 1980; D-form patta was issued to the petitioner on 14.11.2002 after taking approval of the Assignment Review Committee; and copies of D-form patta and pattadar pass books and title deeds were produced; in the second page it was recorded that the Tahsildar, Ananthasagaram (third respondent) had granted DKT patta in favour of Smt Mangala Polamma on 28.12.1980; thereafter the assignee had not cultivated the land, and had left Lingamgunta Village; after the demise of the original assignee, the fourth respondent’s sister had mortgaged the property to one Sri G.Prasad Reddy; and thereafter the petitioner herein, and the daughter-in-law of Sri G.Prasad Reddy, had encroached upon the subject land. The second respondent also records that the third respondent had reported that no record was available with regards assignment of the subject land in favour of the petitioner after cancelling the patta granted earlier in favour of Smt Mangala Polamma. As the impugned order dated 04.06.2011 was inconsistent; and as the second respondent had, on the one hand, accepted that assignment was granted in favour of the petitioner on 14.11.2001 but had later opined that there was no record available with regards assignment of the subject land; this Court, by order dated 28.10.2011, had directed the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) to obtain instructions. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 08.11.2011 on which date a counter affidavit was filed. It is evident therefrom that as the impugned order dated 04.06.2011 was inconsistent the second respondent, having obtained permission from the first respondent, had withdrawn the order dated 04.06.2011 and, had, subsequently, issued the order dated 28.10.2011 (which was challenged by way of an amendment) invoking his power under Board Standing Orders 15(15) cancelling the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that neither the first respondent nor the second respondent had any power to suo motu withdraw an order, and pass an order afresh; a representation submitted by fourth respondent could not have been treated as an appeal under BSO 15(15) since the time limit prescribed for preferring an appeal is only 30 days; while a revision had been preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent, the said matter was not pursued as the first respondent had, during the course of the enquiry, informed the petitioner that assignment of land could not have been granted in her favour as she belonged to a particular caste; and, in any event, the subsequent order dated 28.10.2011 was passed without even putting the petitioner on notice and without giving her an opportunity of being heard. Except in cases where fraud is alleged and established, and in the absence of a specific provision for review, an order passed by the prescribed authority can only be set aside in accordance with the provisions of the Act or BSO or by a competent Court. Even otherwise, as the impugned order dated 04.06.2011 suffers from inconsistencies as the second respondent was not clear whether or not the petitioner had been granted assignment, the said order is liable to be and is, accordingly, set aside. The subsequent order dated 28.10.2011 is also liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), on instructions, would fairly state that the petitioner was neither put on notice nor given an opportunity of being heard after the earlier order dated 04.06.2011 was passed, and before the order dated 28.10.2011 was passed. The second respondent shall, after putting the petitioner on notice and giving her an opportunity of being heard, take action in accordance with law in case it is established that the assignment granted on 14.11.2002 was obtained by fraud, or it is established that the petitioner had violated the conditions of assignment, or for any other illegality. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:10.11.2011 usd