THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.6098 of 2002 ORDER: Petitioners, who are eight in number, are aggrieved by action of the second respondent, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District, in canceling the allotment made in their favour of land under Cooperative Joint Farming Scheme (CJFS). They seek invalidation of proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Petitioners are members of Scheduled Caste. Statedly, they are landless poor persons. They were issued / assigned Pattas under CJFS in respect of land known as Malladveedu. They allege that land was initially assigned to predecessors as lead-holders and after demise of original assignees, petitioners are cultivating the land and are in peaceful possession. It is further alleged that their names are also mentioned in Adangals and other revenue records. In October, 2001, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali issued show cause notice dated 15.10.2001 alleging that petitioners alienated land in favour of others and as to why assignment should not be cancelled. Petitioners appeared before second respondent and submitted their explanations. They denied allegation that they alienated land. At that time, they had raised Paddy crop but second respondent allegedly issued a certificate dated 01.02.2002 in favour of respondents showing that as if they are in possession of land. They were not issued any order and there was no notice of hearing to them, therefore, they filed instant writ petition. Tahsildar, Kavali filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that petitioners were allotted land admeasuring Acs.6.64 cents in various survey numbers by way of lease in Rudrakota village under CJFS. It is alleged that in violation of allotment conditions, petitioners sold the land to respondents 4 to 12 under agreement of sale and delivered possession. Therefore, show cause notice dated 15.10.2001 was issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali. Petitioners submitted explanation on 29.10.2001. After receiving explanation, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali called for report of Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavali. He submitted report on 10.12.2001 and 01.02.2002 stating that respondents 4 to 12 are in possession of land. Thereafter, taking into consideration the explanation submitted by petitioners and record, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali passed orders on 07.02.2002 cancelling the lease granted in their favour. As respondents 4 to 12 are in possession, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali allotted lands to them directing Mandal Revenue Officer to allot alternative lands to petitioners. On 07.02.2002, separate proceedings were issued to petitioners as well as respondents 4 to 12 allotting land in an extent of Acs.1.00 each in Survey No.478/1A of Rudrakota Village. It is also stated that copy of cancellation order as well as allotment order was served on petitioners. As petitioners refused them, these were affixed by Panchayat Secretary on houses of petitioners on 14.02.2002. Learned counsel for petitioner raised only submission that impugned order of cancellation was passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, based on report submitted by Mandal Revenue Officer on 10.12.2001 and 01.02.2002 and therefore, orders of cancellation are vitiated. According to learned counsel for petitioner, respondents are relied on material obtained behind back of petitioners. Learned Assistant Government Pleader refutes the submission. She contends that only to get an enquiry done into allegations made by petitioners in their explanation, Mandal Revenue Officer was asked to submit report. As directed by this Court, learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced original file from the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavali and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali. After perusing records, it becomes clear that after petitioners submitted explanation on 29.10.2001, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali directed Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavali to submit report. Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavali conducted enquiry and found respondents 4 to 12 are in possession. Accordingly, to that effect, report was submitted. From this, it becomes clear that no further material was collected and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali only wanted as to who are the persons in possession of land. When Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavali inspected land and submitted report that respondents 4 to 12 are in possession of land. Even if Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali relies on such information, it does not amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Though original allotment of land was cancelled, petitioners were allotted land to an extent of one acre each in Survey No.478/1A and therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in their favour. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) August 21, 2009 Bvv