IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11265 of 2002 Between: 1 T.Munaswamy S/o.Munaswamy R/o.Vengalampalli Village @ Endrapalli Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 T.Muni Krishnaiah S/o.Munaswamy R/o.Vengalampalli Village @ Endrapalli Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 T.Venkata Muni S/o.Munaswamy R/o.Vengalampalli Village @ Endrapalli Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 T.Srinivasulu S/o.Munaswamy R/o.Vengalampalli Village @ Endrapalli Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Govt.of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector,Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR EATHAKOLA VENKAT RAO FOR MR.G.V.SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 28-04-1999 and 10-06-2002 passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively. The petitioners were assigned extents of Acs.4.35 cents, Acs.4.91 cents, Acs.5.00 cents and Acs.4.75 cents respectively in Vengalampalli Village of erstwhile Srikalahasti Taluq on 30-04-1968. The said assignments were cancelled by respondent No.2 by his proceedings dated 22-05-1982 on the purported ground that the assignments were made under misrepresentation of fact. The petitioners filed a revision petition before respondent No.1 who modified the order of respondent No.2 by holding that the petitioners were entitled for assignment to the extent of Acs.5.00 only. The petitioners filed W.P.No.15807 of 1987 questioning the said orders of respondents 2 and 1 respectively. This Court, by order dated 20-02-1996, partly allowed the said writ petition and remanded the case to respondent No.2. In its order, this Court held that if the father of the petitioners sold all the properties in the year 1952 to discharge family debts, there was no reason why the petitioners were not eligible for assignment of Acs.20.00 in the year 1968 with each of the petitioners getting only Acs.5.00 of land. On that premise, this Court directed respondent No.2 to enquire, after giving notices to the petitioners, whether the petitioners’ father had sold the entire family property in the year 1952 under registered sale deed dated 12-04-1952 and if the same is found true, the petitioners are entitled to retain the extent of Acs.20.00. After remand, respondent No.2 passed order dated 28-04-1999, wherein he held that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikalahasti, in his report dated 01-08-1997, stated that all the assignees are members of a single family, residing jointly and were running a metal factory manufacturing bronze vessels; that they own a tiled house in Panagal Village at a distance of Kms.20 from the lands in question and that as they were maintaining one metal factory, they have to be treated as wealthy persons at the time of assignments. It is further observed by respondent No.2, in his order, that the Mandal Revenue Officer in his report stated that the petitioners produced sale deeds pleading that their father sold away all their patta lands in the year 1952; that as per the survey settlement accounts, an extent of Acs.9.70 cents wet land and Ac.0.46 cents dry land stood registered in the name of Sri T.Muniswamy, father of the assignees, and an extent of Acs.3.50 cents wet land stood registered in the name of Smt Rajamma, mother of the petitioners, and after conversion of the wet lands into dry lands, the family had Acs.26.86 cents dry land, apart from the assigned lands, in the year 1961 and the assignments were made in the year 1967-68 by which time, the family of the petitioners was having an extent of Acs.26.86 cents of dry land. Having accepted the said report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, respondent No.2 reconfirmed the order of cancellation of assignments. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.1. In his order dated 10-06-2002, respondent No.1 specifically referred to the following pleadings of the petitioners: “ 1 . In the impugned proceedings, it is referred that the Mandal Revenue Officer has filed a report stating that the petitioners are also having another extent of lands but no survey numbers and no particulars are mentioned and as such the impugned order which has been issued on the basis of the said report of the Mandal Revenue Officer is unsustainable. 2. The petitioners were never furnished or supplied with the copy of the Mandal Revenue Officer’s report dated 1.8.97. 3. The entire instant proceedings for cancellation of the assignment in favour of the petitioners have emanated from a complaint lodged by the 3rd party that too after long lapse of time which is not permissible under rules. 4. The contention that the petitioners are wealthy persons at the time of assignment is unsustainable and illegal.” Respondent No.1 in his order, has merely repeated the contents of the order of respondent No.2 in coming to the conclusion that the family of the petitioners was not eligible for grant of assignment and thereby, he confirmed the order of respondent No.2. As could be seen from the order in W.P.No.15807 of 1987, the learned Judge held that if the father of the petitioners sold all the properties in the year 1952, the petitioners are entitled to hold the entire assigned land of Acs.20.00 and there is no reason why the assignment should be limited to Acs.5.00. The only issue on which the matter was remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration was that whether the petitioners’ father sold the entire family property under registered sale deed dated 12-04-1952. Respondent No.2 relied on the purported report of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The petitioners complained before respondent No.1 that such a report was not furnished to them. Be that as it may, even according to the report, as referred to by respondent No.2 in his order, the petitioners produced the registered sale deed under which their father sold away their patta lands. Though no specific finding is given by respondent No.2 in this regard, having regard to the contents of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer as referred to by him in his order, the plea of the petitioners that their father sold the property under registered sale deed in the year 1952 was not rejected by him and hence the same deserves to be accepted. The question, then remains, is whether any further property was left for the family by the petitioners’ father after selling the properties under the registered sale deed executed in the year 1952. Respondent No.2 relied on the Mandal Revenue Officer’s report to show that after the survey was conducted in the year 1961, the revenue records revealed that the father of the petitioners had an extent of Acs.9.70 cents of wet land and Acs.0.46 cents of dry land and another extent of Acs.3.50 cents of wet land stood in the name of the mother of the petitioners and on conversion, he arrived at the total extent, which was in possession of the family of the petitioners, at Acs.26.86 cents of dry land. Very interestingly, no survey numbers are mentioned with respect to the purported lands said to have been standing in the name of the parents of the petitioners. One of the main grievances of the petitioners raised before respondent No.1, who reproduced them in his order as extracted supra, is that the Mandal Revenue Officer in his alleged report did not mention any survey numbers and particulars regarding the extents of the lands in each of the survey numbers, which were said to have been owned by the father and mother of the petitioners in the year 1961 and at the time of the assignment. Very surprisingly, respondent No.1 being the appellate authority, who had taken note of the said objection raised by the petitioners also, failed to advert to this aspect and specifically referred to the survey numbers. He made a mechanical approach by simply confirming the order of respondent No.2 by repeating the findings given by him. In my considered view, both respondents 2 and 1 failed to rely upon any specific material to show that the parents of the petitioners had any lands left after sale of their properties in the year 1952 under a registered sale deed. There was absolutely no reason why respondents 2 and 1 have not mentioned the survey numbers in which the parents of the petitioners were having the land of Acs.26.86 cents after conversion into dry. Learned Assistant Government Pleader made a request for remand. I am not inclined to accept this request for the reason that the petitioners are put to agony since the year 1982 and I am not prepared to prolong their agony further by remanding the matter to the respondents. Respondent No.1 who undoubtedly exercised quasi judicial function is duty bound to decide the case in a judicious manner and with all care and caution. He blindly relied upon the purported report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, without looking into the material himself. Even while doing so, he failed to take the minimum precaution of ascertaining the survey numbers in which the parents of the petitioners allegedly had the extent of Acs.26.86 cents. In other words, he allowed himself guided by the vague report of the Mandal Revenue Officer which was not even furnished to the petitioners. Respondent No.1 has repeated the similar mistake committed by respondent No.2 and he too failed to call for records and ascertain whether the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer bears any truth. Respondents 1 and 2, being hierarchical authorities vested with the onerous duty of adjudicating the disputes in a proper and dispassionate manner, woefully failed to discharge such duties. Therefore for their fault, I do not want to subject the petitioners to further litigation. As the respondents failed to prove that at the time of assignment, the petitioners were not eligible for assignment and that the assignments were made due to misrepresentation of the fact by the petitioners, the impugned proceedings are quashed. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 7th August, 2008 vrn