THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7968 of 2002 Dated:30.06.2010 Between: Dirisina Rayappa, And others. ...Petitioners And Government of A.P., Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Assign) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7968 of 2002 ORDER: The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 04.02.2002 of the second respondent/Joint Collector, West Godavari District, whereby and whereunder the said authority declined to interfere with the order dated 31.03.1999 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru. The fact of the matter is in a narrow compass. The first petitioner is a resident of Fathimapuram. He made an application to Tahsildar, Chintalpudi, for assignment of land. By proceedings No.157/A4/1394, dated 24.02.1985, the first petitioner was assigned the land admeasuring Acs.4.92 cents in survey No.945/11 situated at Pragadavaram Village. He statedly brought the land into cultivation. He applied for pattadar pass books, in vain. Therefore, he made an application sometime in 1988 to the Revenue Divisional Officer. There were two rival claimants, namely, Smt.Kolavanti Arogyam (who is the sister of the first petitioner) and Sri Kandikonda Yesuratnam, who allegedly purchased the land from Arogyam. By order dated 31.03.1999 Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the patta issued to the first petitioner on the ground that he is a rich man owning movable and immovable properties and lorry bearing No.AP 9-1454 as well as pucca house. Aggrieved by the said order, the first petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, West Godavari District. The same was dismissed. It is unfortunate that though the matter was admitted on 24.04.2002, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not chosen to file counter affidavit. Notices are served on respondent Nos.4 and 5, and none appears for them. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioners and Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), who made submissions based on the instructions. Assistant Government Pleader submits that the land was resumed by the Tahsildar, and even on 28.07.2009 when Tahsildar inspected the land, it was with full of bushes and the petitioners were not in possession. She also submits that the land is not under cultivation. There is no dispute that Board Standing Order (BSO) 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders deals with disposal of Government land for the purpose of agriculture. Paragraph 3 thereof contemplates the assignment of land not exceeding 2½ acres of wet or 5 acres of dry land (now these standards are changed) to landless poor persons. The assignment is made by way of D-Form patta (Darkhast patta). D-Form patta is found in Appendix V. The land so assigned shall be heritable but not alienable and as per condition No.2 of D-form patta “land assigned shall be brought under direct cultivation within three months from the date of assignment and shall not be leased out in any manner”. The Tahsildar who is competent to issue patta can even cancel the patta if there is any violation of conditions of patta under BSO 15(12)(3)(iii). Against any order of cancellation or resumption of assigned land for breach of conditions of grant by the Tahsildar, an appeal would lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer. BSO 15(18) provides for revision to the Joint Collector (District Collector). In this case curiously when the first petitioner statedly made an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking pattadar pass books, the Revenue Divisional Officer himself adjudicated the matter and cancelled the patta. The orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer is wholly without jurisdiction and is unsustainable. Further, if the assignment by way of D-Form patta is obtained by any fraud or misrepresentation, it is always open to the Joint Collector to suo motu cancel the patta after issuing notice to the assignee. Insofar as the order of Joint Collector is concerned, when the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the patta on the ground that the petitioner is rich with considerable movable and immovable properties as well as pucca house, curiously, the Joint Collector cancelled the patta on the ground that there is violation of Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. There is a total non application of mind and the impugned order suffers from grave error apparent on the face of the record, and also the first petitioner was not put to any notice before cancellation of patta. Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) submits that the petitioners or respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not in possession of the land and the Government is in possession of the land. The same is recorded. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. It shall be open to the competent authority to take necessary appropriate action keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 30.06.2010 vs