THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY W. P. No. 6963/1994 Dt.16-2-2006 1. Muddala Subbamma (died), her LRs Petitioners 2 to 8. ..Petitioners V. 1. The Commissioner, Land Revenue, Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY W. P. No. 6963/1994 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner obtained a rule from this Court to show cause why a writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued after calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent in CLR’s Proceeding No.B(CW)5/2102/92 dt. 25- 2-1994 and to quash the same so far as it pertains to cancellation of assignment made in favour of the petitioner while disposing of the appeal filed by the third respondent. The facts, which are not in dispute, are stated thus: The petitioner’s father was assigned an extent of Ac.2-32 cents in S.No.998 of Ukkayapalli village in the year 1952. From the date of assignment, he has been in possession of the property and after his death she has been in possession of the same. Subsequently, she came to know the third respondent was assigned patta land in S.No.998 ad-measuring Ac.2- 32 cents in the year 1983. When a dispute raised, the third respondent was served with a show cause notice calling upon him to show cause why assignment, should not be cancelled informing that he being the son of Sri Rayavaram Kondaiah, an arrack contactor mis-representing the authorities before assignment was made in favour of the third respondent. After following due procedure, the said assignment was cancelled by the second respondent through his proceedings in Ref No. B 10/2528/88 dt. 10-1-1990. On cancelling the assignment, the original petitioner, M.Subbamma, was re-assigned the same land, pending appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue against the order of cancellation by the third respondent. Initially the Commissioner of Land Revenue allowed the appeal on 21- 3-1992 without any notice to the petitioner. She earlier successfully challenged the order of the Commissioner in WP No.7286/1992. This court by order dt. 23-9-1992 set-aside the order passed by the Commissioner by allowing the appeal filed by the third respondent and remitted the matter to his file for de nova enquiry after affording opportunity to the parties. She, the writ petitioner herein, filed a counter stating that he is a landless poor person , the land in question was in possession of her parents and after their death herself for last 50 years and the third respondent is the son of arrack contract and is not entitled to assignment. The Commissioner by the impugned order after taking into consideration the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, whereunder, it was stated that an extent of Ac.18-45 cents in Peppa Palli village of Sidhout Mandal was assigned in the name of third respondent’s father and his mother and his three brothers availed loan of Rs.20546/- from SBI Siddavatam by mortgaging the property assigned and committed default and for due recovery of the amount, assigned land were sold in public auction, upheld the order of the cancellation of assignment made in favour of the third respondent while disposing of the appeal preferred by him observing that since the petitioner who was re-assigned patta while appeal is pending she has no right over the said land and the revenue officials must take possession and should assign the same to the landless poor persons. Questioning that portion of the order that writ petitioner has no right over the land as the re-assignment was made when the matter was sub-judice before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, the present writ petition has been filed. It is not in dispute against the order passed by the Commissioner, the third respondent preferred revision before the Government and the result of which is not known to the writ petitioner. Be that as it may, once the Commissioner upheld the order of cancellation of the assignment made in favour of the third respondent, mere assigning the land pending appeal will not dis-entitle the petitioner for re-assignment of the land, if he is otherwise eligible. Learned Government placed reliance on para 18 of BSO 15. Whereunder, the Collector was authorized to cancel or modify the decision of an officer subordinate to him within three years if he 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. None of the grounds mentioned under para 18 have been mentioned in the order except that assignment was made in favour of the writ petitioner was pending appeal preferred by the third respondent. Even assuming the cancellation of the assignment made in favour of the third respondent, which is subject matter of appeal, the re-assignment if any made in favour of the petitioner is subject to the result of the appeal. In the absence of any irregularity or misrepresentation or prohibition contained under the A.P. Board Standing Orders prohibiting the authorities from assigning the land when the statutory appeal is pending and particularly when there is no stay in operation, the same will not preclude the authorities from assigning the land to the eligible persons subject to the result of the appeal, if any. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Commissioner that the petitioner has no right over the land merely because appeal is pending cannot be sustainable and it is accordingly set-aside. However, it is made clear that the assignment if any made in favour of the petitioner will be subject to the revision pending before the Government. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above. No costs. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt. 16-2-2006 kmr