THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.22412 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to Order dated 5.10.2005 in Appeal No.BCW.5/267/2005 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and quash the same and consequently set aside the proceedings of the second respondent dated 10.5.2005. It appears, the husband of the petitioner was granted exala lease of Ac.0-95 cents in R.S.No.13 of Gosala village of Penamaluru mandal, which is classified as Puntha Poramboke, for Faslis 1388 and 1389 and the said lease was renewed subsequently. After the death of her husband, petitioner was granted ‘D’ Form patta for an extent of Ac.1-10 cents in R.S.No.13 of Gosala village and she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 10 years. It is the case of the petitioner that as per clause 22 of ‘D’ form patta, the rate for assignment was fixed at Rs.2,200/- which is to be paid in 15 instalments and she has paid the same on 7.3.2005. While that being so, on 19.4.2005, petitioner was called for an explanation as to why the land assigned in her favour should not be cancelled as the land was classified as ‘Puntha Poramboke’. Petitioner submitted explanation on 2.5.2005. Thereafter second respondent passed order dated 10.5.2005 holding that ‘D’ form patta granted in favour of petitioner was a conditional patta and further it was granted irregularly without following the rules aslaid down under Board Standing Order No.15. As per condition No.17 of ‘D’ form patta, the assigned land can be revoked if it is felt by the Government that the same is required for public purpose. Further, as per condition No.20 of ‘D’ form patta, if it is revealed that the assignment was made by mistake of fact and also against the provisions of law, the assignment can be annulled under the provisions of Board Standing Order 15. Thus, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the assignment covering Ac.1- 10 cents in R.S.No.13 of Gosala village was granted irregularly and not followed by the provisions of law. The second respondent further held that the land is classified as ‘PUNTA PORAMBOKE’ which is needed for public purpose and moreover the same land is within the vicinity of Vijayawada city and near by to NH-9 (Vijaywada to Machilipatnam Highway). Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner carried the matter in revision before the first respondent. The first respondent while dismissing the revision and confirming the orders passed by the second respondent held that as the assignment was made irregularly without following the procedure of law, the irregular assignment ought to be cancelled. Certain categories of land like tank bed, poramboke, meant for community purpose like donka, punta, cart track etc., are not to be assigned. The schedule land was also classified as Punta Poramboke and it will be used for public purpose as and when it requires. Accordingly, though the schedule land was reserved for public purpose, it was assigned irregularly by the then MRO, Penamaluru, without following the procedure and rules of assignment. The first respondent further held that the petitioner is not the resident of village where the lands are located, therefore the Collector, Krishna has rightly cancelled the assignment. There are no reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the Collector, Krishna. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel appearing for petitioner strenuously contended that the ‘D’ form patta was granted to the petitioner on 5.6.1995 for an extent of Ac.1-10 cents in Sy.No.13 of Gosala village and even much prior to that, after the demise of her husband, petitioner has been cultivating the said land on exala lease basis for more than 45 years. As per clause 22 of ‘D’ form patta, the assignment was fixed on payment of market value of Rs.2,200/- and it was in fact paid by the petitioner. Therefore, after more than 10 years, suo moto proceedings were taken up by the second respondent without there being any cause and cancelled the patta granted to the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that any exercise made after more than 10 years, even if such power is vested on the second respondent, the same cannot be said to be reasonable. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. When the petitioner and her husband have been cultivating the land for the last 45 years, it cannot be said that it was not assessed waste dry land. The first respondent also did not exercise his powers properly and simply dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents reiterated the same stand as was taken in the counter and supported the orders passed by the authorities and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned orders and other material made available on record. At the outset, I am of the opinion that the second respondent ought not to have taken up the matter suo motu after more than 10 years of assignment on the ground that it was ‘Puntha Poramboke’ and not Assessed Waste Dry land. The fact that the petitioner’s husband and thereafter petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land as exala grantee since 1965 is not in dispute. The only ground on which cancellation sought to be made was that it was classified as Assessed Waste Dry land and it is useful for public purpose. Of course, it is always open for the respondents to resume the lands for public purpose by paying compensation, but after more than 10 years of grant of patta that too, after receiving consideration as mentioned in clause 22 of ‘D’ Form Patta, the question of cancellation of patta granted in favour of petitioner on 5.6.1995 does not arise. It is not a case of fraud or misrepresentation of fact by which petitioner has obtained patta. May be, the conversion of land from ‘Puntha Poramboke’ to that of ‘Assessed Dry Waste’ had not taken place, but the fact remains that the petitioner and her husband have been cultivating the land for the last more than 45 years. Therefore, it cannot be said that the exercise of power by second respondent after more than 10 years purported to be under Board Standing Order No.15 (18) is proper. The power can be exercised within a reasonable time. In this case, Board Standing Order itself indicates that it shall be permissible to the Collector to review or cancel the patta within 3 years. In this case, it was done after more than 10 years, which is not permissible. For all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 10.5.2005 as confirmed by the fist respondent vide impugned order dated 5.10.2005 are illegal and liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. However, it is always open for the respondents that if the land is required for public purpose, they can do so by invoking the provisions of Land Acquisition Act or any provisions of law by paying compensation to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 24.7.2009 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.22412 of 2005 24.7.2009