THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 26611 of 2001 Dated: 9-12-2010 Between: Smt N.Chowdamma …Petitioner And The Govt. of A.P., Revenue (Assn.IV) Department, rep. by its Secretary and others …Respondents. Oral order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The order dated 12-9-2001 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner against an order of the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Anantapur, dated 7- 8-1992 cancelling assignment of land of an extent of Ac.5-02 cents in Sy.No. 70/2 of Gugudu village of Anantapur District (in favour of the petitioner), is assailed in this writ petition. The land was assigned to the petitioner in March, 1990. Later it came to light that the petitioner’s only son Chennu Reddy was also assigned land and the petitioner and her son are living together as a joint family. As there was multiple assignment of land to members of one family and on the ground that the assignment was without the intervention of the Assignment Committee, after a due process of law including issuance of a show-cause to the petitioner, the assignment in her favour dated 26-3-1990 was cancelled by the 3rd respondent by the order dated 7-8-1992. The 3rd respondent also relied upon a report by the M.R.O. of Narpalli Mandal wherein it is stated that the petitioner and her son Chennu Reddy are residing together. On an independent consideration of the record, the 1st respondent, after entertaining the revision of the petitioner concurred with the 3rd respondent and dismissed the revision. The 1st respondent also recorded that there was a multiple assignment in favour of members of one family, namely, the petitioner and her son; they are residing together and that the said multiple assignment to the members of the same family violates the State policy. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court discerns no perversity in the exercise of discretion of the revisional authority, the 1st respondent, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. There are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 9th December, 2010. GRR