IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21331 of 2000 Between: Bhikku and another. … Petitioners And The Commissioner, Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri C.R.Pratap Reddy. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue. This Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners, who are Tribals and in whose favour the lands to an extent of Ac.10.00 and Ac.5.11 guntas, respectively, were assigned in August, 2003, filed this Writ Petition questioning order dated 11-5-1988 passed by respondent No.2, which was confirmed by order dated 14-9-2000 passed by respondent No.1. On the allegations that the petitioners were minors and Members of joint family at the time of assignment; that the father of assignees has got patta lands to an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas and, therefore, the assignees were not landless poor persons; and that the assigned land is still under the possession and cultivation of the father of the petitioners, notice under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli was issued on 4-2-1988 by the Sub- Collector, Utnoor. After considering the written explanation dated 23-2-1988 respondent No.2 cancelled the assignments granted in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.1, who by order dated 14-9- 2000 dismissed the same in respect of petitioner No.2 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in respect of petitioner No.1 to decide afresh whether petitioner No.1 was living separately at the time of granting the assignment. Having carefully considered the reasons given by respondent No.1 in his order, I am of the view that there can be no justification to segregate the cases of the petitioners. In the light of the claim of the petitioners that both of them were living separately from their father, respondent No.1 ought to have followed the same course even in the case of petitioner No.2 as well by directing respondent No.3 to hold an enquiry as to whether he was also living separately, independent of his father, at the time of granting assignment. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. Order dated 14-9-2000 passed by respondent No.1 is set aside and the matter is remanded to respondent No.2 to reconsider the case of petitioner No.2 also, afresh, along with the case of petitioner No.1. While considering, respondent No.2 shall take into consideration the observations of this Court in order dated 29-11-1967 in Writ Petition No.592 of 1964 and also in Soni Reddi Vs. Joint Collector, Medak and others (Writ Petition No.716 of 1980 dated 27-1-1986) reported in 1986 (1) ALT 33 (NRC). --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:24-07-2008 MNR