THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.563 OF 2002 O R D E R Aggrieved by the proceedings in Memo.No.32037/Assn.1(3)/95-2 dated 22.12.1999 passed by the 4th respondent – the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, in dismissing the revision preferred by the mother of the petitioner and thereby confirming the orders of cancellation of assignment dated 27.8.1994 in CLR’S R 7F.BCW5/2514/92 , the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that his father late Gopal Das was granted lease in the year 1969 over an extent of Acs.2-50 cents in Sy.No.1 of Salihundam village by the then Tahsildar, Srikakulam by proceedings in DAR No.73/69/A dated 3.9.1969 and as he was a landless poor person, the same was assigned to him by the then Tahsildar, Srikakulam in proceedings R.Dis.No.16268/79 dated 20.12.1980 by converting the lease into D-Form patta. The father of the petitioner by hypothecating the said land to banks, raised loans for developing the land and for digging bore wells. While so, his father was issued notice dated 25.10.1989 seeking to cancel the patta and the same was replied. However, the 2nd respondent – The Joint Collector by proceedings No.11814/87/M6 dated 16.5.1992, cancelled the assignment. Challenging the same, the mother of the petitioner preferred revision before the 3rd respondent – The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration. By proceedings dated 27.8.1994, the 3rd respondent, dismissed the revision on the ground that Board Standing Orders prohibits assignment of a river poramboke and only eksal lease can be granted. Again, challenging the same, the mother of the petitioner preferred further revision to the 4th respondent – the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department. Pending the revision, his mother died and the said revision also ended in dismissal by order dated 22.12.1999. In the first week of December, 2001, the subordinates of the 1st respondent – the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District, visited his village and stating that the revision preferred by his mother ended in dismissal, sought to evict him from the assigned land. 3. The case of the petitioner is that after the death of his mother and father, he was issued pattadar pass book and title deed for the lands assigned and further he was not aware of any of the orders passed by the 4th respondent and that the impugned order dated 22.12.1999 was passed behind his back, without any notice. His further case is that he is also a landless poor, having no other land except the land assigned to his father and another extent of Ac.1-00 of land, which devolved upon him pursuant to the death of his mother, who got the same as Streedhana. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order. 4. Though the writ petition is of the year 2002, no counter affidavit is filed disputing or denying the averments made in the writ affidavit. 5. This court while admitting the writ petition on 22.4.2002 passed interim orders in WPMP.No.643/2001 directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as lessee pending further orders, provided the petitioner is still in possession over of the land in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in possession over the land in question. 6. There is no dispute that father of the petitioner by name Gopal Das was granted D Form patta over an extent of Acs.2-50 cents in Sy.No.1 of Salihundam village by the then Tahsildar, Srikakulam by proceedings in Rc.16268/79/A2 dated 20.2.1980. However, the 2nd respondent – Joint Collector by proceedings in Rc.No.11814/87 dated 16.5.1992 found that the assigned land is a Nagavarli river accretion poromboke and as the Board Standing Order prohibits assignment of river poromboke and further as the said land had not been converted as an ayam and the income of the father of the petitioner renders him ineligible to be considered as a landless poor person, cancelled the assignment. Challenging the orders of the Joint Collector, the mother of the petitioner preferred revision before the Commissioner of Land Revenue and the petitioner also contested on behalf of his mother and by proceedings dated 27.8.1994 the orders of the Joint Collector dated 16.5.1992 were confirmed. The mother of the petitioner preferred further revision to the Government and during the pendency of the revision, she died and by the impugned proceedings dated 22.12.1999 the orders of the Commissioner, were confirmed. 7. The case of the petitioner, is that before passing the impugned order, he has not been issued any notice and further after the death of his father and mother, he was granted pattadar pass book and title deed. His further case is that he is also a landless poor. Further, from a perusal of the impugned order, it could be seen that except holding that there are no merits in the revision, no reasons have been recorded. In these circumstances, I feel it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the Government. 8. Accordingly, I pass the order as under: “The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 4th respondent - Government to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till then the interim orders of this court dated 22.4.2002 shall continue.” 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS -------------------------- 01—05—2009